Let's the number speaks Safa and Marwa = Chapter 2, verse 158, l-ṣafā = 202, l-marwah = 282 Becca or Mecca = Chapter 3, verse, 96, Becca = 27, and 215820228239627 = 19 x 11358959381033 So Safa and Marwa are at Mecca Saudi Arabia. Peace,

rlz, what happened? It seems you have lost the plot, i.e. aql/reason. From all of this we can conclude the God in Quran is totally unaware the brain is responsible for thought, emotion, understanding, cognition but instead attributes these functions to the human heart. This is fully contradicting a divine origin. It is evidence the author of Quran had no understanding of the human brain and confused it with the human heart. You are only presenting one part of the story, then claiming you have a sound argument. Have you heard of selective presentation of information? What about the other words in Quran that relate to thinking, have you bothered to research any of those? There is also the famous verses 9615-16 which refute your theory. http//corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=96&verse=15#(96151) An interesting finding on usage of heart/qalb in Quran here http//www.quran434.com/wife-beating-islam.html section 1, part 16

Remains of a Byzantine-period church were discovered in 1992 near the Monastery of Mar Elias, when the highway between Jerusalem and Bethlehem was widened and a bulldozer accidentally uncovered and damaged a mosaic floor. In the first, limited excavations (October 1992 ? February 1993) only a section of the western part of the church was uncovered, revealing mosaic floors which were re-covered to ensure their preservation. Located in an ancient olive grove within the southern municipal borders of Jerusalem, on land owned by the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate, the site is bordered in the south by a terrace with an open water reservoir, known by its Arabic name, Bir Kadismu. Bir means water cistern or reservoir, Kadismu preserves the Greek name of the place, Kathisma, meaning "seat." Renewed excavations in 1997 revealed a large church built in the 5th century and restored in the 6th century. In the 8th century, it was converted into a mosque, and was destroyed shortly thereafter. The size of the building and its sophisticated, octagonal plan indicate that this was a church of great importance. Surrounding the flat, protruding rock (the "seat&quot, which is its focal point, were two octagonal hallways the inner one served as a walkway (ambulatoria) from which the worshippers could view the stone seat; the outer hallway was divided into rooms and four chapels. The whole church was surrounded by a square envelope, divided into rooms with mosaic floors. Nearly all the rooms of the church were paved in colored mosaics; some had been added in the 8th century. The mosaics are in many shades of red, yellow and green in a variety of floral and geometric designs, the small tessarae laid on a firm plaster bedding. Among the motifs are guilloches (braided bands) interspersed with medallions of floral designs. Depicted in the corners of the southern room of the church are four cornucopiae (horns of plenty), supporting acanthus leaves from which grape tendrils emanate. According to the 6th century "Life of Theodosius", the church and the monastery of the "Old Kathisma" were built by the wealthy widow Ikelia at the time of Juvenalis, Bishop of Jerusalem (450 ? 45. The account indicates that the church was built on the resting-place of Mary, halfway on the road from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, and dedicated to Mary Theotokos (God bearer). Also, that St. Theodosius himself, who lived in the 5th century, was sent for training as a monk to the monastery of the "Old Kathisma". From the 12th century onwards, a water cistern in this areas was noted as a holy site; it served as a refreshment and rest station for pilgrims traveling on the Jerusalem-Bethlehem road until the end of the last century. http//israeltours.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/kathisma-aerial.jpg http//israeltours.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/kathisma-plan.jpg It's clear to see how this octagonal church (destination of pilgrimage) was the prototype for the later Dome of the Rock also situated on top of a rock.

Bible archaeologist claims to have discovered Sodom Tall el-Hammam (Jordan) - After ten years excavation in Tall el-Hammam Jordan to American Bible archaeologists show convinced to have an unusually massive and large Bronze Age city found the biblical Sodom. The city-state had found the southern Jordan Valley dominates, but then was - was suddenly abandoned for about 700 years old - from a hitherto mysterious reason. As an explanation archaeologist claims to have found evidence of even a huge explosion of an object in the sky above the city. http//www.grenzwissenschaft-aktuell.de/bibel-archaeologe-will-sodom-entdeckt-haben20150115/

Thank you for sharing this thought-provoking perspective. The quest to understand Islam's origins and its historical evolution is indeed a complex and multifaceted endeavor. Your exploration into the hidden history of Islam raises important questions about the perception of the religion and its challenges in contemporary society. As you highlight, there is an increasing discomfort towards Islam among non-Muslims, reflected in public opinion surveys and media narratives. The issues of doctrinal intolerance, internal conflicts, and challenges with integration are critical aspects that demand thoughtful examination. Your mention of the reluctance or even prohibition within Muslim communities to engage in critical interpretations and discussions about these issues is particularly noteworthy. It underscores the need for open dialogue and scholarly inquiry to address the complexities and nuances surrounding Islam's history and its contemporary manifestations. The pursuit of historical truth, free from ideological biases, is essential in gaining a deeper understanding of Islam's origins and its impact on the world today. By delving into historical research and reexamining traditional narratives, we can uncover valuable insights that contribute to a more informed discourse on this important subject. Thank you for providing the link to explore further into this exploration of the Great Secret of Islam. It offers an opportunity for readers to delve deeper into this fascinating topic and engage in critical reflection on the complexities of religion, history, and society. Thank you so much for such a wonderful reply !!! Now can you please read my question again and try to answer it yourself? -) cheers

Did any of you wrote this entry in wikipedia? https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-nazarenism Having said that; some of the arguments make sense, due to the content of the Quran which mostly (if not all) are in line with the doctrine of Judeo Nazarenism..

edited wrong post

Peace fye. The objective is to try to understand what Qoran is really saying. I do not know about symbols? If you understand the message, that is the important thing.. GOD bless you Peace.

To start with, the Qur'an has its own system for naming people which is nto subordinate to any other system. Secondly, indeed, the 3isa in the Qur'an is not the gospels Jesus. Also, there is not such a thing as Abrahamic faiths. Ibrahim did not invent a religion, and his was not a particular religion but the universal religion revealed to all the peoples in the world. The Qur'an is the revelation made to serve as a khatam, seal of any other revelation, to distinguish the autehtntic from the spurious. So whatever there is in any "book", in any other purported revelation the seal of its authenticity and integrity is its agreement with the Qur'an. The Qur'an is not there to be granted authentiity by any other revelation but the other way around. So thanks for the help giving category to the Qur'an by making it an offshoot to the bible, but there is no need of it and least of all to make it a monopoly of certain peoples or certain places. Salaam

The defeat of Muhammad in the Holy Land and surah 30 "the Byzantines" (ar-R?m) "The battle of Mou'ta in 629 is one of the very few events in the life of Muhammad that are attested for by non-muslim sources. This historical fact is often silenced, most likely because it speaks of a defeat and it is considered bad to say Muhammad could have been defeated by the Byzantines. This being said, the later written muslim historiographies paint the picture of a new battle having taken place one year later, or rather not having taken place, with the Byzantines withdrawing before the thirthy thousand men gloriously assembled by Muhammad. The honour of the Prophet of Islam is thus saved, even though this non-battle of Tabuk (N-W of Saudi Arabia) isn't attested for by any non-muslim historian, and one can wonder what a Byzantine army was doing in the desert. So what can we say about the objectives of Muhammad during the Battle of Mu'ta? Fred Donner thinks he wanted to submit the arab tribes (The Early Islamic Conquests, p. 102), with the objective to enlist them in the war claimed by the Quranic revelation - this author, ignoring all the exegesis of the text, assumes the Quran already existed. But, what really motivated Muhammad and his men? Can one say the project envisioned the conquest of the Holy Land and of Jerusalem to which, rightfully, everyone prayed? Did the location of the battle, situated in south-east of Jordan, express a fundamental symbol for the people of that time, the conquest of the "Holy Land" starting with the crossing of Jordan?" (PFJ). Having verified things, two small towns present themselves in history using the name of Mou'ta (Mu'tah) one was situated in the N-E of Joran (nearby Bosra or Bostra) (1), the other, more southern, is today a university city of Jordan. The latter, being the military post of the IVth military byzantine region, gave its name to the battle. The Holy Land was organised by the Byzantines (or Romans as they still used to be called at that time) using four regions Judea, Galilea, the south from the Dead Sea to Aqaba, and, in the east-south-east, "Arabia". The military post of this IVth region was composed of cavaleers (equites), troops on foot (scutarii) and auxiliaries (Illiriciani). By the end of 629 this byzantine force, supported by a contingent of Lakhmid Arabs, confronted the troops led by Muhammad. The event is being told about in the "Chronicle of Theophanes"; but the idea of why Muhammad chose to attack these Arabs of the N-W does not make sense. Verily, the byzantine authors never really understood the ideological nature of the project much later, they still believed that the Arab invaders were nomads who simply followed a policy of razzias! A much embarrassing fact Multiple elements, resulting from convergent analyses, have to be taken into account here, to leave the myth and to enter the historical reality. It is this convergence that constitutes the certitude of the historian; in contrast to a single document or indictator (for example, the direction of prayer which effectively was Jerusalem) on itself, every document will always be contestable in one way or another. In this specific case, the Quranic text itself - as will be demonstrated - has some data that reveal a history completely different from that written down in muslim historiographies two centuries after the events took place, under the authority of the Caliphs. At least one verse refers to the defeat in Mu'ta; or, it was modified! Could the goal of this modification have been solely to wipe out this memory? It's sufficient to invent a new battle in which Muhammad was victorious, and that's exactly what the historiographies have done with Tabuk. "And We have already written in the book after the mention that the land is inherited by My righteous servants." (sur. 21,105 - the allusion is referring to Psalm 37 verses 9.11.22.29). "Indeed, the earth belongs to Allah. He causes to inherit it whom He wills of His servants. And the outcome is for the righteous." (sur. 19, 40) "And it is He who has made you successors upon the earth and has raised some of you above others in degrees that He may try you through what He has given you." (sur. 6, 165) These verses are relating to the nazarene-arab coalition established in Yathrib-Medina and known elsewhere. The route taken by the troops of Muhammad coming from Medina is all together very revealing. A map orientated north to south reveals immediately they were arriving from the south, but they did not enter in Palestine from that direction they travelled through Transjordania. The idea was to arrive facing the Jordan. Crossing the Jordan would have been the sign of the victorious conquest of the Holy Land similar to what the Hebrews of the Exodus did according to the Biblical description (cf. Numbers 33). They wanted to enter the Holy Land, crossing the Jordan barefooted, corresponding to the extraordinary account given in the book of Joshua (3, 14-17). This similarity hasn't escaped the best islamic scholars, who saw the analogy between the concept of traditional Exodus, ending in the miraculous crossing of the Jordan, and the idea of Hijra. This concept of Hijra used to determine how the first "muslims" were referred to. Before calling them "muslims" (starting from the end of the 7th century, beginning of the 8th century), they were given the name of mu-hajir?n (root hjr of Hijra), more specifically those who made the Hijra, or the emigrants. There was similarly a muslim tradition "who implicitly regarded Palestine as the objective of the hijra there was hijra after hijra, but the best of men follow the hijra of Abraham - towards the Holy Land" (2) This was the only expedition made by Muhammad in his life in that direction the nazarene-arab coalition had difficulties overcoming this defeat, as the text illustrates. It's only later, under Umar, that this project of conquest was again taking shape and eventually realized. The Quran speaks about the consequences of Mu'ta A passage in the Quran refers to these events the beginning of surah Ar-R?m (the Romans). They are dated to 630, at the end of the Medina period. In the immediate aftermath of this defeat, his goal was to raise spirits and moral again and to promise a future revenge. This dating of the battle (by Greek historians) is at the same time the only trustworthy dated indicator we dispose of about that person who will be later known as the Prophet of Islam! As Blach?re explains (3), the start of this surah The Romans (30,2-5) is stating something absurd - at least if we look at it today "The Romans (being the Byzantines) have been defeated (g?ulibat) in the nearest of the Land. They, after their defeat (g?alabi-him), will be victorious (sayag?lib?na) in a few years." Were the muslims invited to celebrate over the victory of the Byzantines? Who on earth would celebrate over the victory of their enemies, and this "within a few years"? The absurdity of this text does not escape to muslim commentators, who prefer to talk about other things. Where is the error? Another reading of the text is possible, based on the different vowelization of the three most important words of the same root being defeated, victory (the root g?lb, winning, can thus not give a noun meaning defeat), and winners. The question is legitimate because the vowels weren't added to the Quranic text until quite some time later. It's exactly these vowels who determine whether the form of the word will be passive or active. And if we read the text with active instead of passive and vice versa we come to the following result "The Romans were victorious (g?alabat) in the nearest of Land. They, after their victory (g?alibi-him), will be defeated (sayag?lab?na) in a few years." The text becomes perfectly clear and logic again - what it was originally. It is not a prophecy but a reference to a recent and desastrous event that took place at the "gates to the Land" - the defeat at Mou'ta in 629. This verse wants to raise the moral of the defeated, by promising them to be victorious "within a few years" and that they will have the help of God (this effectively took place 5 years later, when Muhammad wasn't alive anymore). Cf . ABEL F.-M., G?ographie de la Palestine, Paris, Gabalda, tome II, 1938. Crone Patricia, Cook Michael, Hagarism. The Making of the Islamic World, Cambridge University Press, 1977, p.9. Blach?re R?gis, Le Coran, Paris, Maison-Neuve, 1957, p.429-430. http//www.lemessieetsonprophete.com/annexes/mou_ta.htm

From The Bloomsbury Companion to Islamic Studies Quote The earliest known biography of the Prophet Muhammad, which predates all of the canonized collections of Hadtth, is Sirat Rasul Allah attributed to Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Yasar (d. ca. 151 AHl767 CE), known as Ibn Ishaq, who is said to have been commissioned by the Abbasid Caliph al-Mansur (reigned 136-158 AHl754-775 CE) to write a history of creation from the time of Adam (Schoeler 2009,2. The biography of the Prophet was originally part of that much larger work. The work of Ibn Ishaq himself has not come down to us. What has survived is the redaction of Ibn Hisham (d. 218 AH/833 CE). Schoeler argues that, in fact the larger work was never intended for publication in writing outside the caliphal library but that Ibn Ishaq intended his work to be recited by his students (Schoeler 2009,32).Ibn Hisham was a student of one of Ibn Ishaq students, from whom he learned of Ibn Ishaq's work Ibn Ishaq is a controversial figure whose trustworthiness was disputed by both his contemporaries and later scholars. Among his strongest critics were noted scholars such as Malik ibn Anas and Ahmad ibn Hanbal, after whom two of the surviving Sunni schools of law are named, and al-Tirmidhr, and al-Nisa't, whose collections of Hadtth are part of the Sunni canon(Guillaume 2003, xxxivxl). End quote.

The traditional account of the Arabs of the 7th century (of the Hejaz or elsewhere) pictures them most of the time as "polytheists" until the revelation of Quran, unfamiliar with any bilblical or judeo-christian tradition. But can we really believe or support the idea that travelling caravan-traders during a period of six centuries of infrequent contacts with jews and christians, were totally ignoring the judeo-christian revelation? In the Quran, the word used to denote the polytheistic arabs is that of mu?rik?n, which according to the etymology and all the authors of the 8th and 9th century, signifies "associators", and such is the continued reproach addressed to the christians. The supposed "arab polytheism" from which the islamic doctrine would give rise to the new Revelation and proto-islam, is in reality little convincing in respect of the quranic text itself multiple verses give explicit proof of the monotheistic faith of these mu?rik?n who were supposed to be polytheists. A polytheism contradicted by what the text says about mu?rik?n The detailed study of the quranic text does not only shed light on what the mu?rik?n-associators are not (i.e. horrible polytheists who burry their little daughters and who attribute to God daughters-goddesses); but also tells us what they effictively are real monotheists. The "associators" who confirm believing in One God First of all, they believe in the existence of a Creator and believe that this Creator is called Allah "If you ask them Who created the heavens and the earth, and subjected the sun and the moon?" Surely they would say "Allah" (s.29,61.63 || 31,25 || 39,3. Allah was the name used by the Arab christians even before the rise of Islam (1), corresponding to the hebrew El or Elohim. Furthermore, the faith of the mu?rik?n was not only montheistic, but trinitarian, which one can deduce from the anti-trinitarian polemic (2) of another verse "By Allah, our Lord, we were not of those who associate." (s.6,23) Who are those the author accuses of being "associators" and who defend themselves verbally against it? Do polytheists say they aren't polytheists? In this verse, the author wants to expose in advance, in the spirit of his disciple, the objection the christians will raise in defense of their faith, saying they only worship God. The reply is connected to the following verse it will be sufficient to treat these christians as liars "Look how they lied against themselves" (s.6,24) Jean de Damas, who visited the court of the Caliph, gives already explicit testimony of the primitive denominator of the christians and only the christians using the term mu?rik?n "They call us associators, because they claim, we introduce an associate besides God, by saying that Christ is the Son of God and is God."; According to this witness report, the word never meant idolators (3). A writing known as "Against Muhammad (Kat? Mwamed), dating from most likely the same time, gives the same meaning to the word associators, reserved to denominate the christians with (4). Even the Quraysh (the tribe of Muhammad), according to the Quran and Tabari, are veritable polytheists. In the unique and short surah 106 where it mentions them, one can read "They worship the Lord of this House (rabb h?d? l-bayti)" (s.106,3) Tabari explains that the "Lord of this house" (5) they worship, is Allah. Would it then be necessary to explain this if this Lord is Allah? (1) The name of 'Abd-Allah (meaning servant of God) is an arab christian name predating the Quran. Even if this looks insignifcant, it suffices to remember that "Allah" is "the christian name of the Deity, by which millions of christian arabs call to their God in the morning and evening before Mohammad" (Les arabaes chr?tiens ..., Paris 1933, p. 126) (2) This kind of anti-trinitarian polemic is very present in the Quran see also 6,41.136; 10,12.22; 16,38.54; 23,86-89 || 31,32 || 43,87 and the remarks of Sfar Mondher, Le Coran, La Bile et L'Orient ancien, Paris, diffusion Cerf, 1998, p. 108-109 (3) Jean de Damas used the particular denominator of idolators to refer to the groups of Arabs who he believed to have remained polytheists before Mohammed "The Saracenes were idolators, and worshipped the morning star as well as Aphrodite ... wrongfully accuse us of being idolators, cause we worship the cross, which they resent. (Trait? des h?r?sies written in around 746 - la 100e h?r?sie, 4,1.13, S.C. n? 383, Paris, Cerf, 1992, p.217). (4) This treaty "Against Muhammad"(Kat? Mwamed ? P.G. 104, 1456 B) is sometimes wrongly considered as a sort of continuation of Refutation against the Hagarenes by Bartholomew of Edessa, which was written later. (5) And that the "House" undeniably is the Meccan Ka'ba. Which is very debatable - see Pr?mare Alfred-Louis de, Les fondations de l?Islam..., Paris, Seuil, 2002, p.70.

I think you must have not been reading my posts. I have posted a map showing the origins of Islam in detail, even twice. Proto-islam started when judeo-nazarenes started indoctrating their Arab neighbours. More specifically those in the Syrian desert eventually fleeing to Medina. http//rootsofislamtruehistory.com/subpages/Genealogy-Islam.PNG It is. The original message is from God. The Uthmanic Quran you dispose of today however contains many human adaptations. We don't know. All we know is Muhammad seems to have been influenced by a "waraqa" of Nazarene origin (making it probable Khadidja was Nazarene as well as she was related to "waraqa&quot. Soon after these events Muhammad became the commander of the Arabo-Nazarenes making attacks on the Holy Land. I agree the names are irrelevant. Quran hardly mentions those. All I was proving here is that one of the few occurrences of it in Quran has been tampered with to make Muhammad the paraclete Jesus was talking about. Peace yo this is backward

Peace, great debate, I was thinking of exceptions and remembered Where do women fit into this inclusion/exclusion scenario? This day good foods have been made lawful, and the food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them. And chaste women from among the believers and chaste women from among those who were given the Scripture before you, when you have given them their due compensation, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse or taking lovers. And whoever denies the faith - his work has become worthless, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers. God bless peace

Highlights ? A submerged, 12 m long monolith has been discovered at a water depth of 40 m, in a shallow bank of the Sicilian Channel. ? Morphological evidence, underwater observations, and results of petrographic analysis testify that the monolith is man-made. ? This monolith suggests a significant human activity in the Pantelleria Vecchia Bank, a former island of the Sicilian Channel. ? Seawater inundated the Pantelleria Vecchia Bank at 9350 ? 200 yr B.P., presumably forcing inhabitants to migrate. http//www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X15300535 http//i.imgur.com/x0uGXRC.png http//i.imgur.com/toJbl6v.png http//i.imgur.com/5TGUWCl.png This find might be almost as old as that in Gobleki Tepe. Finds like these really put question marks with the thesis that claims man evolved from hunter scavenger traditions to a more sedentary, farming tradition. It also puts question marks with the out of africa thesis. Peace

This image illustrates rather well how everything was made from the pairs we know as deuterium - a process called nucleosynthesis http//i.imgur.com/XwHCG01.png The Quranic description can thus be taken quite literally.

There is something very attractive about the "I am Ahmed" sentiment. His death received pretty much an "honorable mention" in the mainstream press. I guess I should be impressed that one Muslim got attention for doing something that wasn't seen as subversive or extremist. I understand that I will not ever be able to appreciate fully a point of view that is not American, but I do try and think about what it must be like to not have had my advantages. (Maybe that in itself is too American). I think that I understand how people from other countries and cultures could feel oppressed and how that can change the way one thinks. But I lack the ability to make it okay in my mind that people could celebrate mass murderers, as, apparently, some Pakistanis felt obliged to do -- and American media felt obliged to present. I will also admit that on the night it was broadcast that Osama bin Laden had been killed, and they showed Americans celebrating in the streets, I felt ashamed. I was not a bin Laden fan, but it seemed that the death of a human being deserved a bit more decorum. I think we are desensitized to the humanity and dignity of others. It makes me sad. We do everything from a distance and do not understand human impacts. We dehumanize each other to make it okay to hurt each other. Shameful.

Wakas, I'm not claiming the physical travel is substantiated by Quran. But there is at least a reference to a nightly travel from Al-Haraam to Al-Aqsa in Quran isn't there? How do you interprete this verse (in surah 17)? Good question. See here http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-masjid-al-haram-Quran.html To my knowledge, the above is the only Quran based work to provide a self-contained explanation of that verse.

Peace, Thanks!

!How repulsive! Lovely bible, men sin and women get beaten. Fantastic, only the Qur'an does not say a word on that. You are spitting on the Qur'an, bringin all the time any foul measure from the bible to trump it. Forget the bible and stick to the Qur'an. If you want to bring the bible, open a thread for that and boast about it as much as you want. And also very convenient forgettiing the whole of that part of An-Nur which is very eloquent about exactly what it is speaking about, common plain women disgracing an bashing. Salaam Made me happy to see myself in action!