Focal Point
-
i am not sure where you are finding this "law", but i do not see it. i cannot find anywhere in the Quran that says God will inflict any penalty on someone for not following the Quran.
That tells me that you've not read the Quran in its entirety or forgotten certain verses or simply put, not understood well enough.I myself beg to let this topic sink on this thread and as you said, agree to disagree.
Peace!
-
That tells me that you've not read the Quran in its entirety or forgotten certain verses or simply put, not understood well enough.
I myself beg to let this topic sink on this thread and as you said, agree to disagree.
Peace!
Why let the topic sink? Please substantiate your claims. See the other thread by Samia titled with verse numbers in this forum.
-
Peace Ignoramus,
I will let you digest all the information and ponder on the passages. Meanwhile, I have a couple of comments.
1 billion people believing al masjid al haram is the famous mosque in mecca, together with whatever is in the books of hadith etc is evidence. i agree it is far far from proof, but it exists nevertheless
This is the opposite of proof. This is the logical fallacy of "appeal to popularity".
not everything can be proved empirically and, in my opinion, empiricism by itself will not lead us to the Truth.
This is what people who don't appreciate the book want you to believe. They want you to think that this is a theoretical book that cannot be empirically applied or verified. The book itself tells us otherwise. One of the ways that we reach certainty is through the empirical verification of the ATTITUDE of unappreciative rejecters that is very accurately described in the book. As I said, try the experiments that I described in my previous response to you and verify the truth for yourself.
Peace,
Ayman
-
salam brother Ayman
i really am not saying anything i say is the Truth, or that i know the Quran well. i try to be objective and it is far from clear to me what al masjid al haram is.
Peace Ignoramus,
I will let you digest all the information and ponder on the passages. Meanwhile, I have a couple of comments.
This is the opposite of proof. This is the logical fallacy of "appeal to popularity".
i am not saying it is proof, in fact if you read my posts, i say it is miniscule evidence. i have never claimed there is any proof.
This is what people who don't appreciate the book want you to believe. They want you to think that this is a theoretical book that cannot be empirically applied or verified. The book itself tells us otherwise. One of the ways that we reach certainty is through the empirical verification of the ATTITUDE of unappreciative rejecters that is very accurately described in the book. As I said, try the experiments that I described in my previous response to you and verify the truth for yourself.
i totally disagree. very little of the Quran can be verified empirically. a great deal more can be proved rationally. even rationalism cannot prove everything in the Quran.
lack of empirical proof of something is not the proof of its fallacy. empirical proofs are not the elixir of all ills. for example, you can never empirically prove God exists.
salam
-
salam
we are told the scriptures have not remained unscathed and that some of the people of the book deliberately conceal parts of the Truth. The jews and christians still dispute the loctions of some of the most important temples. the Quran says ask those of knowledge and it is not obvious who are people of knowledge.
the fact that most jews and christians of today do not recognise the famous mosque in mecca is a good argument that it is not al masjid al haram, but it is not proof of any kind.
one might ask how it can be that billions of people do not identify with one the holiest of places, but by that token, how is it that over a billion people, claiming to follow the teachings of the Quran, so obviously do the opposite.
although the exact location of al masjid al haram, if it is physical, is obviously important, it has yet to be shown with any robust argument whether al masjid al haram is physical, mental or even something else.
salam
Salaam
I am not talking just about scripture. There should be so much historical and archeological information which should have been normally available about a place of this nature apart from the religious books.
-
Salaam
I am not talking just about scripture. There should be so much historical and archeological information which should have been normally available about a place of this nature apart from the religious books.
salam
i agree the lack of evidence is quite remarkable, but this is still not proof that the mosque in mecca did not exist, or was not significant during times of revelation.
based on all the evidence of which i am aware, at the present time the existance of a mosque in mecca at the time of revelation can neither be proved nor disproved. i do not understand why so many will just not accept this and continue to challendge eachother to prove what cannot be proved based on currently available (or at least accessible) evidence.
salam
-
salam
i agree the lack of evidence is quite remarkable, but this is still not proof that the mosque in mecca did not exist, or was not significant during times of revelation.
based on all the evidence of which i am aware, at the present time the existance of a mosque in mecca at the time of revelation can neither be proved nor disproved. i do not understand why so many will just not accept this and continue to challendge eachother to prove what cannot be proved based on currently available (or at least accessible) evidence.
salam
We are commanded to think and not base our deen/focal point on something with shaky foundations (9100-9120). So this debate will always rage on. Even in 9109, firm spiritual foundations are compared to shaky physical foundations.
-
We are commanded to think and not base our deen/focal point on something with shaky foundations (9100-9120). So this debate will always rage on. Even in 9109, firm spiritual foundations are compared to shaky physical foundations.
Mental cases have debated the existance of God.
If someone debates presence of Mecca or MasjidulHaram ,there is No deficiency of "Tabarrukaat" and "Kazzaabs"(Liars) in this world -
We are commanded to think and not base our deen/focal point on something with shaky foundations (9100-9120). So this debate will always rage on. Even in 9109, firm spiritual foundations are compared to shaky physical foundations.
salam
i have never suggested otherwise.
my post was regarding the proof of a particular mosque existing during the time of revelation. it does not detract from the debate.
salam
-
Salaam all,
A few comments
- The God NEVER leaves something relevant to guidance to the straight path unclear in al-qur'aan. If "al-masjid al-haraam" was a particular physical location or building, The God would have CLEARLY said so because He DETAILS ALL THINGS in al-qur'aan relevant to our guidance, and "qibla" is something extremely important ..... so important that we are supposed to face it WHEREVER we are.
In addition to clearly stating its physical nature and location in al-qur'aan, The God would have made sure that authentic archeological evidence of that physical location also survived. The God does not limit His signs to al-qur'aan, and also encourages us to roam the land in search of the truth
4153 We will show them Our signs in the horizons, and within themselves, until it becomes clear to them that this is the truth. Is it not enough that your Lord is witness over all things?
2246 Have they not roamed the land and had hearts with which to comprehend and ears with which to hear? No, it is not the sight which is blind, but it is the hearts that are in the chests that are blind.
Also see 309, 4021, 4082, 4710.
The mere FACT that there is ZERO authentic archeological/manuscript evidence about the existence of a town by the name of Mecca or a physical location/building by the name of Masjid Alharaam, speaks volumes about the impossibility of "al-masjid al-haraam" being a physical location/building.
1 billion people believing al masjid al haram is the famous mosque in mecca, together with whatever is in the books of hadith etc is evidence. i agree it is far far from proof, but it exists nevertheless
(emphasis mine)Brother, I think you are misunderstanding what "evidence" is. As brother Ayman has rightly pointed out, this is not evidence, but a logical fallacy of "appeal to popularity". It is also known as "appeal to belief", "appeal to the people", "appeal to majority", "argumentum ad populum" etc. Please see the following
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Just because a billion people believe something, or tons of books contain an unverifiable hearsay story does not mean it is "evidence". 2 billion people believe that Jesus was crucified for their sins, and that he was the literal son of God, and tons of books state the same; does that make it "evidence" of Jesus being the literal son of God or him being crucified for their sins ?
i am not saying it is proof, in fact if you read my posts, i say it is miniscule evidence. i have never claimed there is any proof.
Brother, you are contradicting yoursef here.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
ev?i?dence /vdns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -denced, -denc?ing.
?noun- that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
- something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
- Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
"Evidence" and "proof" are the same, and "miniscule" evidence is still evidence; but belief of a billion people or tons of books containing an unverifiable hearsay story does not constitute even "miniscule" evidence/proof, but ZERO evidence/proof.
The FACT remains that the earliest authentic source mentioning the existence of a town by the name of Mecca dates to 8th century CE. There is ZERO authentic source mentioning a town by the name of Mecca before the 8th century CE. Similarly, there is ZERO authentic source mentioning a physical mosque/building by the name of Masjid Alharaam at the time of revelation of al-qur'aan. In fact, the Classical Arabic word for "mosque" is "jaami3".
Please study the following extensive discussions on this forum about these issues in the past
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=14268.0
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=13210.0
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=14305.0
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9630.0
For some manuscript evidence of when the pagan cube goddess was named "Kaaba", please see the following discussion, especially the 1st post, and reply #4 which gives the chronology of corruption
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=10259.0
May The God guide us all to the truth and the straight path.
-
salam
Salaam all,
A few comments
- The God NEVER leaves something relevant to guidance to the straight path unclear in al-qur'aan. If "al-masjid al-haraam" was a particular physical location or building, The God would have CLEARLY said so because He DETAILS ALL THINGS in al-qur'aan relevant to our guidance, and "qibla" is something extremely important ..... so important that we are supposed to face it WHEREVER we are.
i) the same arguement could be advanced by, for example, the sunnis regarding mecca; this does not prove your idea about al Masjid al Haram, and neither does it disprove that it is a physical location or object.
ii) God also allows disblievers to increase in desbelief, and the deeds of the wrongdoers seen goodly to them; perhaps it is you and i who are disbelievers and wrongdoers.
iii) God says do not hasten to the Quran. one does not automatically become enlightened after reading it once or a hundred times.
iv) if all matters of the Quran are so obvious as you claim, why are we here debating so many things?
In addition to clearly stating its physical nature and location in al-qur'aan, The God would have made sure that authentic archeological evidence of that physical location also survived. The God does not limit His signs to al-qur'aan, and also encourages us to roam the land in search of the truth
4153 We will show them Our signs in the horizons, and within themselves, until it becomes clear to them that this is the truth. Is it not enough that your Lord is witness over all things?
2246 Have they not roamed the land and had hearts with which to comprehend and ears with which to hear? No, it is not the sight which is blind, but it is the hearts that are in the chests that are blind.
Also see 309, 4021, 4082, 4710.
i) God does not say this anywhere in the Quran, this is your interpolation of the Quran. God's proofs are not limited to archeology specifically, or even physical evidence generally.
ii) i agree God's proofs are not limited to the Quran and we should roam the land in search of Truth. this does provide evidence for your contention about the reality of al Masjid al Haram, nor does it disprove a physical one.
The mere FACT that there is ZERO authentic archeological/manuscript evidence about the existence of a town by the name of Mecca or a physical location/building by the name of Masjid Alharaam, speaks volumes about the impossibility of "al-masjid al-haraam" being a physical location/building.
i) despite so many on this forum repeatedly stating that there is 'zero evidence' that a town by the name of mecca or a physical location/building by the name of Masjid Alharaam", this is not true.
ii) even if there was zero evidence, this still does not prove that al Masjid al Haram is not the famous place in mecca.iii) even if the famous place in mecca is not al Masjid al Haram referred to in the Quran, does not mean it is not a physical place or object.
- (emphasis mine)
Brother, I think you are misunderstanding what "evidence" is. As brother Ayman has rightly pointed out, this is not evidence, but a logical fallacy of "appeal to popularity". It is also known as "appeal to belief", "appeal to the people", "appeal to majority", "argumentum ad populum" etc. Please see the following
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
i) i think you are utterly wrong about what evidence is; you cannot distinguish between proof and evidence and the evidence i gave is not "appeal to popularity", "appeal to belief", "appeal to majority", "argumentum ad populum" or anything of the sort.
ii) i have been through my previous posts, and really do not think there is any logical fallacy in any of my arguments.
Just because a billion people believe something, or tons of books contain an unverifiable hearsay story does not mean it is "evidence". 2 billion people believe that Jesus was crucified for their sins, and that he was the literal son of God, and tons of books state the same; does that make it "evidence" of Jesus being the literal son of God or him being crucified for their sins ?
please see my comments later on this post
Brother, you are contradicting yoursef here.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
ev?i?dence /vdns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -denced, -denc?ing.
?noun- that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
- something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
- Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
"Evidence" and "proof" are the same, and "miniscule" evidence is still evidence; but belief of a billion people or tons of books containing an unverifiable hearsay story does not constitute even "miniscule" evidence/proof, but ZERO evidence/proof.
i) sorry, i cannot see where i have contradicted myself
ii) evidence and proof are NOT the same thing; i find it absolutely astonishing that so many think that they are. for example, in a court of law, there can a great deal of evidence showing guilt of the accused, but he still be aquitted because this evidence did not prove his guilt.
iii) first, dictionaries do not set or fix a meaning, they merely explain it. you give here a set of definitions by a dictionary for evidence and you claim that it shows that evidence means proof, however, you seem to have completely missed one of the definitions you yourself give here, namely "an indication or sign"!
iv) i have been saying that he famous place in mecca is today widely believed to be al Masjd al Haram, and that it seems to have been known as such for some time in history. i do not know whether this belief goes back to the time of revelation of the Quran, or if this is a recent innovation. you are contending that the famous place in mecca only came to be perceived as la Masjid al Haram some time later than revelation, but you cannot give any reason when or why or how this came to be. hence, there IS some evidence (albeit miniscule) that the famous mosque in mecca is al Masjid al Haram.
The FACT remains that the earliest authentic source mentioning the existence of a town by the name of Mecca dates to 8th century CE. There is ZERO authentic source mentioning a town by the name of Mecca before the 8th century CE. Similarly, there is ZERO authentic source mentioning a physical mosque/building by the name of Masjid Alharaam at the time of revelation of al-qur'aan. In fact, the Classical Arabic word for "mosque" is "jaami3".
i) in addition to my above comments on this, even if there is zero evidence of the existence of "the existence of a town by the name of mecca", this is NOT proof that it did not exist. absence of proof is NOT proof of absence.
ii) even if mecca did not exist until recently, this does not prove al Masjid al Haram is not a physical location or object elswhere.
iii) you have a very interesting point about the arabic word for mosque being jammia and this merits investigation, which God willing i will follow up. i cannot comment on it further as this is the first time i have considered it.
Please study the following extensive discussions on this forum about these issues in the past
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=14268.0
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=13210.0
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=14305.0
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9630.0
i hope to look at these soon, God willing.
For some manuscript evidence of when the pagan cube goddess was named "Kaaba", please see the following discussion, especially the 1st post, and reply #4 which gives the chronology of corruption
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=10259.0
i) i totally agree that cubes have been pagan symobols and the kaaba may very well be one of those idols.
ii) i agree that the famous place in mecca and some or all of the things therein may well have been worshipped by pagans and may have been pagan Gods or symbols. however
iia) today they are not worshipped by the sunnis and the pagan meanings are not attributed to them. when the pilgrims kiss the black stone, which i believe is a pagan fertility goddess, they are not worshipping some pagan god. i think most of them kiss it only because their imam's have told them God would like them to, or because they simply follow tradition blindly think that it will please God.
iib) religions have always become corrupted. just because the famous place in mecca was the site of a pagan temple and the kaaba was some some pagan idol, does not mean it may have previously been the site of a temple built by Abraham. today hindus worship hundreds of gods, even though their scriptures indicate that there is only One God. the christians worship Jesus even though he never claimed to be God.
May The God guide us all to the truth and the straight path.
may God guide us all to the Truth and straight path and make it clear for us.
i would like to restate that i personally do not believe al Masjid al Haram is the famous mosque in mecca. this post seems to defend the point of view that al Masjid al Haram is what the sunnis believe it is, but i am only trying to be objective. it is not clear to me at all whether al Masjid al Haram is physical or mental or metaphorical and it has not been shown by any convincing argument what exactly this thing is. just like all of us here i would like to know.
salam
-
Peace sis Majidah,
I humbly request you to look closely at the original arabic of 4827 again. There is no word there for "hair" or "shaved". If it is translated the way you suggested, it would mean "heads shortened and cut", which would be ludicrous !
Please go through the notes on this verse again at the following link, towards the end of the article for detailed explanation of this issue
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=13210.msg110854#msg110854
Peace Br Tanveer,
Sorry for my very late respond.
I have read through that link and I must confess that I have been fooled alot of those idolaters who have mistranslated Quran.
Thanks for your good job in finding solutions to these mass mistranslations.
I have come to an conclusion that I find it hard to believe that masjid al haram can possible be a physical building.
I have during a long period have doubts about Makka and kaaba and Masjid al Haram but haven't dared to speak out about it.
Well the truth will be knowned and Allah knows best.
Peace Maria
-
Peace be upon you,
The focal point is always towards the "masjid al haraam", what is "masjid al haraam"?
-
Peace Kyle,
What is masjid al haram? Well for me as I have understood it and especially when it is addressed like that"turn always towards masjid al haram"
it is likely an inner masjid because if you have it inside you it doesn't matter what direction you turn.Peace Maria
-
Enough talk about "masjid al-haram", we need to talk about "siratul mustaqim". ;D
http//img509.imageshack.us/img509/9325/cccak3.jpg
Where is it? ???
-
Salam,
Hehe good reply ignoramus
Maria
-
salam
iv) i have been saying that he famous place in mecca is today widely believed to be al Masjd al Haram, and that it seems to have been known as such for some time in history. i do not know whether this belief goes back to the time of revelation of the Quran, or if this is a recent innovation. you are contending that the famous place in mecca only came to be perceived as la Masjid al Haram some time later than revelation, but you cannot give any reason when or why or how this came to be. hence, there IS some evidence (albeit miniscule) that the famous mosque in mecca is al Masjid al Haram.
bravo rotfl rotfl