Who built the kaaba that is in Mecca?

agentxxx

peace all,

will someone please explain the meaning of al-Baytu l-Mamur (Arabic &#1585?

peace

Samia

Hello All

It seems that many misunderstand 2240, there is no doubt that the word "Fiha" only talks about the Masajid in 2240, not the others (Sawami, Baia, Salawat), let's have a look at the Arabic words

(40)

-> See what it says " ", the word "Fiha" is two words "Fi Ha", i.e. the singular Ha referes to a fiminine word which is the "Masajid"

If the word "Fi" is for all other things (Sawami, Baia and Masajid) then IT MUST BE "FI HUM" and looks like this ""

I.e. 2240 is telling us that ONLY the Masajid are the ones that the Name of Allah is mentioned a lot in it, not the other 3

Salam

Salaam Ahmed

is correct, not , just as it is correct for "masaajid", which is also plural. Remember that the plural for non human is treated as a singular feminine.

unknownuser

By saying "countries where there is no justice doesn't mean that there are no buildings "courts" but we would say the system of justice is not there" you are admitting yourself that it is the system of justice that is primarily important and not the physical buildings Wink

You are right that a building is a must.

According to the qur'aanic terminology

The physical building in which this masjid is housed = bayt

According to Quranic terminology or according to YOUR terminology? Please dont confuse it.

"sawaami3u", "biyaa3un", "salawaatun", and "masaajidu" mentioned in 2240 are all institutions of some sort.

You are simply unable to translate 2240 and constantly avoiding to translate it which is a clear proof that no falsehood can enter the Quran. Can you please provide us the literal translation of that verse?

Salam, Hamsa

warner

Salaam Tanveer

As for archeological evidence, it actually confirms that "masjid" was not a place for physical prostration but was the government institution.

This is the first time I heard of such archeological evidence in this matter can you please give more details or the source.

Samia

I think that "masjid" can only be an institution of obedience (i.e. an institution of authority) since the primary defining aspect of "sujud" is obedience.

That's linguistically correct, and historically supported. Remember that what we call now "masjid" was known as "jame3 gatherer", where people usually "gathered" for the congregational salaat (salaatul jumu3a), the only salaat prformed in group. Hence we hear of aljame3 alnabawi the prophet's mosque, aljame3ul umaway the umaiyyad's mosque, jame3 Qurduba, ...which are among the oldest mosques.

unknownuser

Salaam Ahmed

is correct, not , just as it is correct for "masaajid", which is also plural. Remember that the plural for non human is treated as a singular feminine.

Greeting Samia

I'm sorry I can't accept your argument that the plural for non human is treated as a singular feminine, it can only be as such if there is only one non human plural in the sentence , but NOT when have more than one non human plural with a WAW in between, if you search the Quran you will find that the singular masculine "Fi Hi" and the dual "Fi Huma" are used for non humans as well, what is noted that when there is dual non human plurals with a waw in between like "Alsamaa Wa Al Ard" the word must be "Fi Huma", i.e. when we have more than two plurals then it has to be "Fi Huma" or ?Fi Hunna?, I have never heard of the rule you mentioned unless it is ONE NON HUMAN PLUAR in the sentence

Actually sound wise it is very odd within the sentence with many waws between the non human plural, UNLESS IT IS ONLY REFERRING TO AL MASAAJID

Let me show you a couple of examples where the word ?Fi Hunna? which is Plural feminine is used for non humans feminine plural and humans feminine plural

And they ask you a decision about women. Say Allah makes known to you His decision concerning them, and that which is recited to you in the Book concerning female orphans whom you do not give what is appointed for them while you desire to marry them, and concerning the weak among children, and that you should deal towards orphans with equity; and whatever good you do, Allah surely knows it.

(127)

-> See, Hihunna is used with human feminine plural

And made the moon therein a light, and made the sun a lamp?

(16)

-> In here Fihunna is used with feminine non human plural (the seven skies)

Here is an example for the word ?Fi Huma? used with non human dual and non human singular

And one of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and what He has spread forth in both of them of living beings; and when He pleases He is all-powerful to gather them together.

(29)

-> See, Fihuma is used with dual (non human plural and a singular)

Salam

ayman

Peace Hamsa,

It means building should be there when referring to court. BUILDING IS A MUST.
Institution of justice = court = (BUILDING + System of justice)
Countries where there is no justice doesn't mean that there are no buildings "courts" but we would say the system of justice is not there.

A building is not a must. One can have a court setup in open air. Does this make it not "the court"?

Walls, floors and ceiling don't contribute anything to justice.

Instutuion of obedience = Masjid = (BUILDING + System of God's laws)
Similarly, Masjids are there in the world but system of God's laws is not there.

The building is not important. If people who insitute obedience decide to meet outside in a field somewhere it is OK.

Then why to say that Masjid is not a mosque?

A "masjid" is an institution while the Mosque is a gathering place. Even the Mosque doesn't have to be a building. In Egypt, I remember going to open air Mosques which weren't housed in a building.

And also is the following translation correct according to you?
FM
2240. The ones who were driven out of their homes without justice, except that they said ?Our Lord is God!? And if it were not for God defending the people against themselves, then many places of gathering, and markets, and connections, and temples where the name of God is frequently mentioned, would have been destroyed. God will give victory to those who support Him. God is Powerful, Noble.

I think that the FM translation is better than many others which are out there. The odd one out of course is "temples" because it is the wrong translation. Also, I am not sure exactly about the word "swami3". Here is a little more correct translation (corrected part underlined)

The ones who were driven out of their homes without justice, except that they said ?Our Lord is God!? And if it were not for God defending the people against themselves, then many places of gathering, and markets, and institutions of learning, and institutions of obedience where the name of God is frequently mentioned, would have been destroyed. God will give victory to those who support Him. God is Powerful, Noble.

Peace,

Ayman

Samia

Salaam AB

Greeting Samia

I'm sorry I can't accept your argument that the plural for non human is treated as a singular feminine, it can only be as such if there is only one non human plural in the sentence , but NOT when have more than one non human plural with a WAW in between, if you search the Quran you will find that the singular masculine "Fi Hi" and the dual "Fi Huma" are used for non humans as well, what is noted that when there is dual non human plurals with a waw in between like "Alsamaa Wa Al Ard" the word must be "Fi Huma", i.e. when we have more than two plurals then it has to be "Fi Huma" or ?Fi Hunna?, I have never heard of the rule you mentioned unless it is ONE NON HUMAN PLUAR in the sentence

There is no plural in these examples

(16)

-> In here Fihunna is used with feminine non human plural (the seven skies)

I agree that this is not singular; yet it is feminine. Thanks for reminding me of this rule. It is a further proof quraan was not rvealed in classical arabic.

(29)

-> See, Fihuma is used with dual (non human plural and a singular)

I am not discussing duals. Dual is not plural. The verse we were discussing has all plurals, no duals. It would be more to the point if you can produce a verse with non-human plural treated as human plural with respect to masculine gender
For example masjid masculine singular = =
masaajid masculine plural =

Remember is singular (masculine) and is plural masculine. Why do you think which is singular feminine would be more appropriate for maaajid which is plural masculine, and not as appropriate to the other nouns mentioned in the same verse which are all plural masculine?

unknownuser

Salaam AB

Greeting Samia

There is no plural in these examples

They are plurals in verse 2240

I agree that this is not singular; yet it is feminine. Thanks for reminding me of this rule. It is a further proof quraan was not rvealed in classical arabic.

I donlt know what you mean by classic Arabic, that's irrelevent, the Quran was revealed in Arabic, that is what it sasid, it never told us what type of Arabic it was revealed in

I am not discussing duals. Dual is not plural.

Actually DUAL can be considered Plural, I think there might be examples in the Quran, but I need to find it lateron

The verse we were discussing has all plurals, no duals.

Exactly, so why you said there is no plural in the sentence?

It would be more to the point if you can produce a verse with non-human plural treated as human plural with respect to masculine gender

That is silly to ask because if there is no example in the Quran, that at does not mean it does not exist, however I have showed you an example of the plural fiminie, now can you explain to me why the plural fiminine is not dealt the way the plural masculkine is dealt with as you allege?

For example masjid masculine singular = =
masaajid masculine plural =

You are missing the point, it has to be Fihum, not because of the word Masaajid, RAHER because the MATOOF QABLIHI that preceded Masaajid

Remember is singular (masculine) and is plural masculine. Why do you think which is singular feminine would be more appropriate for maaajid which is plural masculine, and not as appropriate to the other nouns mentioned in the same verse which are all plural masculine?

Because the word Fiha is referring to the feminine word "Massajid", however the word Fihum is gramtically correct as well, this is the Balghah of the Quran

Also the Sawami is nothing but a high building, i.e. your understading is flawed because not in every high building the name of Allah is remebered, even in the Biai which is Chruches (the name of Allah is hardly mentioned in there"

ONLY IN THE MASAAJID THAT THE NAME OF ALLAH IS MENTIONED A LOT, if you agree on that then yu must agree that the word Fiha is only talking about the Masaajid

Samia

Salaam AB

The following is what I was referring to, not the understanding, which you arrived to, based on the Arabic analysis of "fiha" and "fihum". You even said that "" is feminine, and thus requires the "", anyone would understand that the others are not feminine.

Hello All

It seems that many misunderstand 2240, there is no doubt that the word "Fiha" only talks about the Masajid in 2240, not the others (Sawami, Baia, Salawat), let's have a look at the Arabic words

(40)

-> See what it says " ", the word "Fiha" is two words "Fi Ha", i.e. the singular Ha referes to a fiminine word which is the "Masajid"If the word "Fi" is for all other things (Sawami, Baia and Masajid) then IT MUST BE "FI HUM" and looks like this ""

This, I say, is pure linguistic discussion, revolving around "".

unknownuser

Peace brother Ayman,

A building is not a must. One can have a court setup in open air. Does this make it not "the court"?

Walls, floors and ceiling don't contribute anything to justice.

The building is not important. If people who insitute obedience decide to meet outside in a field somewhere it is OK.

Thank you for the above corrections and also for the translation of 2240

unknownuser

Peace sister Samia,

That's linguistically correct, and historically supported. Remember that what we call now "masjid" was known as "jame3 gatherer", where people usually "gathered" for the congregational salaat (salaatul jumu3a), the only salaat prformed in group. Hence we hear of aljame3 alnabawi the prophet's mosque, aljame3ul umaway the umaiyyad's mosque, jame3 Qurduba, ...which are among the oldest mosques.

Thank you for the explanation.

unknownuser

I am not discussing duals. Dual is not plural. The verse we were discussing has all plurals, no duals.

Actually DUAL can be considered Plural, I think there might be examples in the Quran, but I need to find it lateron

Greeting Samia

Can you please check the above two comments by you and myself before you continue reading this comment, thanks,

Now as you have seen above that you said that we are not discussing duals, however I stated that dual can be considered plural and I even mentioned that there might be an example from the Quran, Al Hamdullelah I found it and Subhan Allah it is about the two words (Fi + Damir)

Let me start with this verse

And one of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and what He has spread forth in both of them of living beings; and when He pleases He is all-powerful to gather them together.

(29)

-> As you can see Allah is informing us that the creation of the heaven and earth is a sign, as well all living things IN BOTH OF THEM (Fi Huma) ? ?, ? And one of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and what He has spread forth in both of them of living beings;?, FiHuma is used for a non human dual (Al Samaawat wa Al Ard ), please be aware that Al Samaawat is plural as you know, i.e. a non human plural MATOOF ala non human singular (there is a waw in between), therefore the words (Fi + Damir). MUST REFLECT THAT If it meant to be for both of them (according to the grammar AND MOST IMPORTANTLY TO THE COMMON SENSE, this can only be refelected by adding a dual or plural damir to the word Fi., in the above verse a dual damir ?Huma? was used.

In the next example, we read the same dual (Al Samaawat wa Al Ard) but the words used are not Fihuma rather Fihunna, i.e. the dual is dealt as plural exactly as I stated earlier

Allah's is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is in them; and He has power over all things.

(120)

-> See, ? ?, ? Allah's is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is in them?, can you see the word Fihunna?, why is that Samia?, well it is because as I stated earlier that the dual can be treated as plural, something else I?m sure you know of, that Fihunna is feminine, again why is that Samia?, because Al Ard and Al Samaawat are both feminine words, if one of them is feminine and the other is masculine, then it has to be Fihum, i.e. a mix of feminine and masculine must be treated as masculine.

Now let?s assume that one of the above two verses we have the word Fiha after Al Samaawat wa Al Ard, like this ? ?, ?Khalaqa Al Samaawat wa Al Ard wa Ma Batha Fiha? this can only mean that Fiha referees to Al Ard ONLY, do you get it sister?, it can only refer to both if it is Fihuma or Fihunna.

Now, let?s apply the above on 2240

Those who have been expelled from their homes without a just cause except that they say Our Lord is Allah. And had there not been Allah's repelling some people by others, certainly there would have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques in which Allah's name is much remembered; and surely Allah will help him who helps His cause; most surely Allah is Strong, Mighty.

(40)

-> See what it says ? ? we have 4 plurals MATOOF ala each other using 3 Waws in between ? ?, now the word ?Fiha? that followed after is singular, therefore it can?t be applied to all 4 entities, you can apply it to all 4 entities if the word Fiha is either Fihum or Fihunna, and I believe it should be Fihunna because all 4 plural words mentioned are feminine, if the 4 plural words are a mix of feminine and masculine words then it has to be Fihum

Unfortunately I could not find an example of such use with the word Fihum as you requested, however that request by you is unrealistic and has no merit because the Quran is not a grammar book that we should find an example for every possible use of any word nor it is a scientific book as you know, but I say it had enough to refute the claim that mentioning Allah name a lot applies to the cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques, THIS IS 100% wrong grammatically speaking.

Now logically speaking we should recognise with ease that mentioning Allah name a lot can only happen in the Masaajid, this is because of the following

The word Sawaam3, means High building and it has nothing to do with any religion
The word Bai3 , means Churches and we know well that they don?t mention Allah name in there, and even if they do, they mention Jesus and Mary more
Salawaat, while it may look as such, logically speaking many pray to others but Allah

Only the Masaajid that the name of Allah is mentioned the most in them, that is why the word Fiha is singular feminine

What do you think sister Samia?, would that deserve a slam dunk? (no offence and please dont be touchy as some mods in here)

I guess it deserves one

http//free-islam.com/extraimages/slamdunk.gif

Take care Samia

stillearning

AOA

To the new breed of who claim that Kabba is not in Saudi and there is no such thing as Hajj to Mecca. Few simple questions.

(1) When did the concept that the kabba is in Mecca first arise? As it is such a huge part of the faith it must have some origins at a specific point in history. There must have been some documentation regards this!

(2) If Hajj is not in Mecca then when did this event to start to take place without even a tiny footnote in the history.

Any historical references? I have not been able to find the slightest evidence anywhere, except suddenly in the 21st century some bizzare half baked thories appearing on this site.

The Muslim history from Mohammed's time is reasonably documented, yet there is not the slightest trace of these monumental alleged corruptions recorded anywhere. Any historical evidence will be greatly appreciated.
regards

unknownuser

Peace all,

To the new breed of who claim that Kabba is not in Saudi and there is no such thing as Hajj to Mecca. Few simple questions.

(1) When did the concept that the kabba is in Mecca first arise? As it is such a huge part of the faith it must have some origins at a specific point in history. There must have been some documentation regards this!

(2) If Hajj is not in Mecca then when did this event to start to take place without even a tiny footnote in the history.

Any historical references? I have not been able to find the slightest evidence anywhere, except suddenly in the 21st century some bizzare half baked thories appearing on this site.

The Muslim history from Mohammed's time is reasonably documented, yet there is not the slightest trace of these monumental alleged corruptions recorded anywhere. Any historical evidence will be greatly appreciated.
regards

The burden of proof is on those who claim that the so called Kaaba in Mecca is the "kaaba" mentioned in the Qur'aan, where hajj is supposed to be performed. The proof should be authentic, based on either the Qur'aan or authentic archeological evidence (309, 4021, 4082, 4710), and not on unverifiable hearsays and unverifiable history.

There is ZERO evidence of the existence of a city by the name of Mecca, or the so called Kaaba in Mecca, during the revelation of the Qur'aan.

I have not been able to find the slightest evidence anywhere, except suddenly in the 21st century some bizzare half baked thories appearing on this site.

The Muslim history from Mohammed's time is reasonably documented, yet there is not the slightest trace of these monumental alleged corruptions recorded anywhere.

The MOST AUTHENTIC evidence that the present Kaaba in Mecca is not the one where hajj is supposed to be performed is in the Qur'aan. The present Kaaba in Mecca fails ALL the criteria of the restricted house/"albayt alharaam", which PROVES that it cannot be what is meant by The God in the Qur'aan. For the Qur'aanic evidence, please see below in the quoted excerpts.

For those who are believers/"mumineen" and forethoughtful/"muttaqeen", the Qur'aanic evidence should be enough. For those who are not, please go through the following links for some archeological and historical evidences

Following posts are from an internet debate on this subject

http//groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam/msg/41a51328bdca3c80?

http//groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam/msg/730fe6e654dd9242?

http//groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam/msg/51a91e7c64b57fb6?

http//groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam/msg/221ffb07a5dcb04b?

http//groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam/msg/ebe1e5f7b9e67f0e?

http//groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam/msg/170416c761b02771?

http//groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam/msg/45468e83c8d780b4?

http//groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam/msg/4a3c6d6a13f7df1c?

Excerpts from the above

"The best and most sound evidence would be evidence from the great
reading/"quran" itself. For example, we know from the great reading that
"ka'ba" is itself the restriction house/"al-bayt al-7aram" (597).
Clearly, the restriction house/"al-bayt al-7aram" where people can
assemble in safety (2125) inside it (397) cannot be some room-sized
stone cube with no windows and an inaccessible elevated door. Also,
everyone is well aware that there are absolutely no signs from Ibrahim
or anyone else inside the so-called Kaaba, so this is another reason why
it cannot be what is talked about in 397. The above clear and
indisputable facts make it a logical and physical impossibility for the
present stone cube to be what is meant by The God in the great reading.
Thus, the only possible conclusion is that the present so-called Kaaba is a
man-made fraud that is not authorized by The God."

"As clear from the great reading, the house's location is defined as
follows

First and foremost it is anywhere the people who administer it do not
setup any partners with The God (2226).
In this location, the people who administer it invite ALL PEOPLE to
the "hajj" (2227), not just people from a certain religion.
They purify it from all forms of idolatry (2226).
The house is not just a place of assembly but it is a SAFE place of
assembly (2125).

The house in the location presently called Mecca doesn't satisfy any of
the above requirements.

The people who administer it take their clergy as partners with The
God that decree in their "din" (obligation) what The God has not
authorized. They take as a partner with The God idols in the form of a
stone cube and a so-called Black Stone that they revere and adore. They
take as partner with The God the dead prophet who they believe will put
them in heaven by interceding on their behalf.
The people who administer it do not invite ALL PEOPLE to it but only
so-called Muslims.
The house is not purified and it has many forms of idolatry and
associated pagan rituals. The idols include the stone cube and the Black
Stone (and even a footprint idol). The pagan rituals include spinning
seven times around the cube and kissing and fondling the Black Stone.
Other pagan rituals that are also related as we saw to pagan newborn
idol birthing celebrations include running between two hills to look for
water for a newborn. All this while being dressed in newborn-style
wraps.
The house is certainly not a safe place. Any monotheist (even Ibrahim
himself) who tries to purify the house by destroying those revered
stones or even simply telling people not to revere stones would
certainly be torn to pieces by the angry mob of pagans who love to
revere such stones. You would probably suffer the same exact fate if you
stand in the middle of a Hindu temple and tell the "pious" mob not to
revere stone idols. Is this the attitude of monotheists or pagans? If
you and I go there and proclaim the obvious fact that the Saudi monarchy
is corrupt we would probably be arrested, tortured or worse. Does this
sound like a safe place to you?

So where to go? It really doesn't matter where the house is as long as
the requirements above are met. Remember 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". If Mecca or any other place in the
future satisfies the above requirements then I would go there."

The complete discussion can be found at

http//groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam/browse_thread/thread/783540f26de114a0/2a42085a49ad9a9a?lnk=raot#2a42085a49ad9a9a

Please see the following threads on this forum, which also contain mention of some archeological and historical evidences relevant to the issues being discussed in this thread

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=10259.0

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=11105.0

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9527.0

(1) When did the concept that the kabba is in Mecca first arise? As it is such a huge part of the faith it must have some origins at a specific point in history. There must have been some documentation regards this!

(2) If Hajj is not in Mecca then when did this event to start to take place without even a tiny footnote in the history.

Based on the above presented evidences, the so called Kaaba in Mecca and the hajj incorporating the extra-qur'aanic pagan rituals, practices, and customs at this so called Kaaba could have originated only after the death of the Prophet. Exactly when is irrelevant.

unknownuser

Peace Respected Ayman,

A building is not a must. One can have a court setup in open air. Does this make it not "the court"?

Walls, floors and ceiling don't contribute anything to justice.

Only the building doesn't contribute, but it wouldn't be wise if someone say because building doesn't contribute thus is prohibited? May be in future we could have mobile courts in the vans.......but today we only see courts' buildings. BTW building does contribute, this earth is very physical and it house the system of life.

If people who insitute obedience decide to meet outside in a field somewhere it is OK.

YES, if they will, but to say they should only will for that and shouldn't will to have the buildings is very strange demand.

A "masjid" is an institution while the Mosque is a gathering place. Even the Mosque doesn't have to be a building. In Egypt, I remember going to open air Mosques which weren't housed in a building.

I have also seen such temporary mosques. Where people cannot build a permamnent building due to some reasons they just spread a floor or make marking wall and that place is also a permanent if they call it a Masjid. In the offices people do have certian rooms for the prayer but no one call that room a Masjid.

I think that the FM translation is better than many others which are out there. The odd one out of course is "temples" because it is the wrong translation. Also, I am not sure exactly about the word "swami3". Here is a little more correct translation (corrected part underlined)

The ones who were driven out of their homes without justice, except that they said ?Our Lord is God!? And if it were not for God defending the people against themselves, then many places of gathering, and markets, and institutions of learning, and institutions of obedience where the name of God is frequently mentioned, would have been destroyed. God will give victory to those who support Him. God is Powerful, Noble.

Places of gathering = Places
markets = Places
Institutions of learning = Places
Institutions of obediences = Places

salam

unknownuser

Hello all

don't you reckon that those who call the Quran the reading then later on tell us "the Qur'aanic evidence " are conradicting themselves rotfl rotfl

ayman

Peace Hamsa,

Only the building doesn't contribute, but it wouldn't be wise if someone say because building doesn't contribute thus is prohibited?

I didn't say it was prohibited. I said it is not important. So we agree that it cannot be the primary meaning of "masjid".

May be in future we could have mobile courts in the vans.......but today we only see courts' buildings. BTW building does contribute, this earth is very physical and it house the system of life.
YES, if they will, but to say they should only will for that and shouldn't will to have the buildings is very strange demand. I have also seen such temporary mosques. Where people cannot build a permamnent building due to some reasons they just spread a floor or make marking wall and that place is also a permanent if they call it a Masjid. In the offices people do have certian rooms for the prayer but no one call that room a Masjid.

You seem to acknowledge that the physical apsect of "walls, floors and ceiling" cannot the primary meaning of "masjid" and are not what constitutes a "masjid". The important aspects of something are what defines it. So tell me what do you think is the most important aspect of a "masjid" according to the great reading?

The ones who were driven out of their homes without justice, except that they said ?Our Lord is God!? And if it were not for God defending the people against themselves, then many places of gathering, and markets, and institutions of learning, and institutions of obedience where the name of God is frequently mentioned, would have been destroyed. God will give victory to those who support Him. God is Powerful, Noble.
Places of gathering = Places
markets = Places
Institutions of learning = Places
Institutions of obediences = Places

I do not know for sure the meaning of so I can't say if it is a place and it is not in the underlined part that I translated.

Institutions are not places. For example an institution of learning such as a university or a school is not defined by its walls and ceilings. Nobody thinks of Harvard University as some buildings. Similarly, no one thinks of the institution of government as a building. People think of the institution of government, for example, as the executive, legislative and judicial branches not as some walls and ceilings. This is perfectly normal and logical.

Superficial people make the building the most important aspect. In all such cases, they inevitably end up idolizing the building. For example, Jews make the Temple the most important focal point and rebuilding it the key to redemption. Similarly, sectarians make a stone cube the most important focal point and spinning around it the key to having all sins forgiven and returning as a newborn. This is what pagans throughout the ages have done. On the other hand, monotheists are not superficial.

Peace,

Ayman

unknownuser

Peace Respected Ayman,

Peace Hamsa,

I didn't say it was prohibited. I said it is not important. So we agree that it cannot be the primary meaning of "masjid".
You seem to acknowledge that the physical aspect of "walls, floors and ceiling" cannot the primary meaning of "masjid" and are not what constitutes a "masjid". The important aspects of something are what defines it.

I agree that not everywhere in the quran masjid means a mosque.

So tell me what do you think is the most important aspect of a "masjid" according to the great reading?

I totally disagree with the traditionalists that masjid is a place of 5x prayers. What I could understand from the quran is that msjid is a Parliament/court/secretariat/and all the institutions of a government that is based on God's laws. This is my overall undertanding of the masjid, I am not able to provide specific verses but of course am learning the quran.

I do not know for sure the meaning of so I can't say if it is a place and it is not in the underlined part that I translated.

I have compared 16 translations and seen the lexicon as well, so what I could understand is that verse is talking about the places.

Institutions are not places. For example an institution of learning such as a university or a school is not defined by its walls and ceilings. Nobody thinks of Harvard University as some buildings. Similarly, no one thinks of the institution of government as a building. People think of the institution of government, for example, as the executive, legislative and judicial branches not as some walls and ceilings. This is perfectly normal and logical.

Only one thing I respectfully disagree with you is that your translation for masjid is same for all the verses in the quran. I would have agreed with you had I not seen 2240 that clearly speak about physical places.

All the institution you mentioned related with places, may be for you the most appropriate example is "institution of marriage"

Superficial people make the building the most important aspect. In all such cases, they inevitably end up idolizing the building. For example, Jews make the Temple the most important focal point and rebuilding it the key to redemption. Similarly, sectarians make a stone cube the most important focal point and spinning around it the key to having all sins forgiven and returning as a newborn. This is what pagans throughout the ages have done. On the other hand, monotheists are not superficial.

I completely agree with you here and I also find it pure shirk whatever Muslims do in the mosque of Mecca.

salaam, Hamsa

unknownuser

AOA

To the new breed of who claim that Kabba is not in Saudi and there is no such thing as Hajj to Mecca. Few simple questions.

(1) When did the concept that the kabba is in Mecca first arise? As it is such a huge part of the faith it must have some origins at a specific point in history. There must have been some documentation regards this!

(2) If Hajj is not in Mecca then when did this event to start to take place without even a tiny footnote in the history.

Any historical references? I have not been able to find the slightest evidence anywhere, except suddenly in the 21st century some bizzare half baked thories appearing on this site.

The Muslim history from Mohammed's time is reasonably documented, yet there is not the slightest trace of these monumental alleged corruptions recorded anywhere. Any historical evidence will be greatly appreciated.
regards

Hello

They provided none and they have none

Salam