Free Minds

General Issues / Questions => General Issues / Questions => Topic started by: Layth on December 15, 2014, 03:10:36 AM

Title: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Layth on December 15, 2014, 03:10:36 AM
Salam/Peace,

Just to share my understanding for the benefit of others.

I used to believe that Bakka and the Restricted Sanctuary were one in the same.

My understanding after much study is that they are two distinct locations.

Bakkah = Jerusalem (the site of the first sanctuary established for the people and the location of Abraham's test)

Restricted Temple/Restricted Sanctuary = Mecca (the site of the second temple and the location of Lot as well as many events mentioned in the Quran)

Mecca was destroyed by a meteor shower, from which the black stone of the Kaaba is taken.

The sanctuary/temple of Mecca was a stopping point for Pilgrims and is an acceptable site for making the animal sacrifice for those who cannot continue the journey.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Arman on December 15, 2014, 03:26:39 AM
Salam Layth.

I agree with your assertion that Bakkah and Mekkah are not same. However, Bakkah = Jerusalem also seems equally far- fetched.

I believe "Bakkah" in Qur'an is the same as or rather a direct reference of Valley of Baka in Psalm 84:6. It is a metaphorical location on the way towards one's journey to his desired destination. The explanations in the below site seem quite appropriate:

http://biblehub.com/psalms/84-6.htm

The "house" at "Bakkah" refers to the safe-house created by Abraham and his descendents to take shelter under worship of one true Master of the universe. This is the safehouse for the faithful in their journey towards their ultimate destination - their Master.

Per my humble understanding the original physical location of bakkah can never be ascertained with certainty, and it does not matter.

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Regards,
Arman
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Farabi on December 15, 2014, 04:16:57 AM
Salam,
I've checked the original hebrew symbol and its true, it was written Bakka.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Wakas on December 15, 2014, 06:00:57 AM
peace all,

From: http://mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-hajj-Quran.html

Quote
Where this specific area is may or may not be important for us now. For example, 27:91 and 5:97 say God made such an area inviolable thus one could argue who are we to change it, thus its location should be kept as is (this assumes this location is known and correct, e.g. current city of Makkah). However one could argue that the position of the shelter in 22:26 is one wherein no partner is associated with God, and since the messenger of Quran followed the example of the first shelter setup by Abraham (who is unlikely to have been in the region of Makkah) one could re-institute this model at one's locality, wherever that may be.
Title: Re: BKH ≠ MKH
Post by: hicham9 on December 15, 2014, 06:10:50 AM
In my humble understanding, mkh (ܡܟܬ (http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/oneentry.php?lemma=mkh%20N&cits=all)/مكه) is a U-shaped valley where the disbelievers obstructed the Prophet and his followers from reaching their destination (ie. المسجد الحرام) [...] 'nuff said (see: 48:24-27 (http://quran.com/48/24-27)).

SLM
Title: Re: BKH ≠ MKH
Post by: reel on December 15, 2014, 07:27:38 PM
In my humble understanding, mkh (ܡܟܬ (http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/oneentry.php?lemma=mkh%20N&cits=all)/مكه) is a U-shaped valley where the disbelievers obstructed the Prophet and his followers from reaching their destination (ie. المسجد الحرام) [...] 'nuff said (see: 48:24-27 (http://quran.com/48/24-27)).

SLM

I checked the verse and yes, I see makkata in it. Also found Kabah mentioned in other verses.
5:95 الْكَعْبَةِ
O you who have believed, do not kill game while you are in the state of ihram. And whoever of you kills it intentionally - the penalty is an equivalent from sacrificial animals to what he killed, as judged by two just men among you as an offering [to Allah ] delivered to the Ka'bah, or an expiation: the feeding of needy people or the equivalent of that in fasting, that he may taste the consequence of his deed. Allah has pardoned what is past; but whoever returns [to violation], then Allah will take retribution from him. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Owner of Retribution.

5:97 الْبَيْتَ الْكَعْبَةَ

Allah has made the Ka'bah, the Sacred House, standing for the people and [has sanctified] the sacred months and the sacrificial animals and the garlands [by which they are identified]. That is so you may know that Allah knows what is in the heavens and what is in the earth and that Allah is Knowing of all things.

But it is easy to be confused about Bekka and Makka. Here is the problem:

Indeed, the first House [of worship] established for mankind was that at Bakkah - blessed and a guidance for the worlds.In it are clear signs [such as] the standing place of Abraham. And whoever enters it shall be safe. And [due] to Allah from the people is a pilgrimage to the House - for whoever is able to find thereto a way. But whoever disbelieves - then indeed, Allah is free from need of the worlds.3:96-97

And [mention] when Abraham was raising the foundations of the House and [with him] Ishmael, [saying], "Our Lord, accept [this] from us. Indeed You are the Hearing, the Knowing.2:127

And [mention, O Muhammad], when We designated for Abraham the site of the House, [saying], "Do not associate anything with Me and purify My House for those who perform Tawaf and those who stand [in prayer] and those who bow and prostrate. And proclaim to the people the Hajj [pilgrimage]; they will come to you on foot and on every lean camel; they will come from every distant pass -That they may witness benefits for themselves and mention the name of Allah on known days over what He has provided for them of [sacrificial] animals.
22:26-28

What I understand now is that during Prophet Ibrahim's time, the place was called Bakka. But during Prophet Muhammad's time, the name was changed to Makka. It is the title change similar to New Netherlands becoming New York, Decca becoming Dhaka, Armenia turning into Turkey, etc.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Farabi on December 15, 2014, 08:45:34 PM
Well, reel,
what kind of transportation can be used at that age to travel from Iraq to mekkah in a short time only to establishing a house as a vacation? At least it need about 4 months on foot to come there on a single trip.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: reel on December 15, 2014, 09:00:29 PM
Well, reel,
what kind of transportation can be used at that age to travel from Iraq to mekkah in a short time only to establishing a house as a vacation? At least it need about 4 months on foot to come there on a single trip.

Do you mean to say people never travelled back in the days? How did the Arab merchants travel to India without planes, cars and trains? They sure had the ships, but what about those that didn't have ocean/sea?

It doesnt take 4 months. If someone wishes to rest and then continue, it should take him a month to go to Mecca from Iraq,
Here is the direction on foot if the person doesnt take rest. It is based on today's roads.

Iraq
Head northwest
4.0 km
Sharp left
5.9 km
Turn left
19.6 km
Turn left
49.3 km
Turn right at ‫شارع الحر الرياحي‬‎
15.8 km
Continue onto Route 22
32.0 km
Turn right
2.6 km
Turn right onto Route 22
68.6 km
Slight right
18.9 km
Slight right onto Route 22
4.5 km
Slight right
10.8 km
Slight right onto Route 22
37.2 km
Continue onto Route 21
4.3 km
Turn right
Entering Saudi Arabia
117 km
Slight left
1.3 km
Continue onto Route 80
28.6 km
Slight left to stay on Route 80
33.0 km
Continue straight onto Al Quds St
120 m
Continue onto Route 80
800 m
Turn left onto Makkah St
120 m
Turn right
68 m
Turn left
350 m
Turn right
130 m
Turn left
300 m
Turn right toward King Abdullah Road
150 m
Turn left toward King Abdullah Road
14 m
Turn right toward King Abdullah Road
260 m
Turn left onto King Abdullah Road
300 m
Turn right
300 m
Turn right
3.4 km
Turn left toward Route 85
13 m
Turn right toward Route 85
450 m
Turn left onto Route 85
1.6 km
Slight left
1.2 km
Continue onto Route 85
120 km
Slight right to stay on Route 85
21.9 km
Turn right onto Route 9519
284 km
Turn right onto Route 70
77.1 km
Turn left
16.1 km
Turn left
20.3 km
Turn left
1.9 km
Turn right
5.2 km
Turn right
400 m
Turn left
35.1 km
Turn left onto Route 400
900 m
Turn right onto Route 427
112 km
At the roundabout, take the 1st exit
1.2 km
Turn right
1.1 km
Turn right
32.0 km
Turn left
32.7 km
Slight right
37.0 km
Turn right onto Route 340
1.8 km
Turn left onto Route 7077
35.8 km
Turn right onto Route 7300
67.8 km
Turn left
44.0 km
Turn right
2.0 km
Turn left onto Route 8432
1.2 km
Turn right
78.3 km
Turn left onto Route 8258
96.1 km
Turn right onto Route 8010
48.2 km
Turn left onto Route 8458
48.7 km
Turn left
750 m
Slight left
58.3 km
Turn right onto Route 4711
44.7 km
Continue onto Route 4710
63.3 km
Turn left to stay on Route 4710
30.2 km
Turn left onto Route 4700
15.6 km
Slight left
4.5 km
Slight left
1.8 km
Turn right
600 m
Continue onto Route 15
2.8 km
Slight right
900 m
Continue onto Al Hijrah Hwy
300 m
Turn left toward Al Madinah Al Munawarah Rd
28 m
Turn right onto Al Madinah Al Munawarah Rd
3.5 km
Turn left
5 m
Turn right
7.3 km
Slight left
1.5 km
Slight right
56 m
Turn left
1.6 km
Slight right
900 m
Continue onto Al Madinah Al Munawarah Rd/Route 15
Continue to follow Al Madinah Al Munawarah Rd
3.6 km
At the roundabout, take the 3rd exit
100 m
Turn right toward At Taysir
280 m
Slight left onto At Taysir
19 m
Turn left onto Bir Tuwa
150 m
Turn right toward Umm Al Qura
350 m
Turn left onto Umm Al Qura
57 m
Turn right toward Jurhum
75 m
Turn right toward Jurhum
79 m
Turn left onto Jurhum
900 m
Turn left
400 m
Turn left
400 m
Turn left
86 m
Mecca Saudi Arabia

388 hours=16.2 days
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Arman on December 15, 2014, 09:08:21 PM
Salamun alaikum.

Quote

3:96 Indeed, the first house laid down for mankind is surely the one at Becca ? blessed  and guidance for the universe.

3:97 There are clear signs in it ? Abraham?s standpoint ? and whoever enters it happens to be secured. And to Allah upon mankind is the hajj* (literally debate / deep consideration) of the house - whoever is able - a path to it; and whoever represses (faith) ? then Allah is affluent of the universe.

(My personal translation; cross checking recommended.)

There are obvious signs in these verses that the "house" at becca is not a physical house - rather a "spiritual safehouse":

1. A physical house has limited scope in time and space - it cannot be guidance for the universe.
2. No physical house can guarantee safety for anyone who enters it. Note verse 4:78.
3. Note in verse 3:97 that two groups of people have been put in contrast - a) People who perform the hajj (which literally means debate or thorough consideration of a topic) of the house verses those who repress (faith).

I am personally not against the "hajj" ritual. And I do support that those who have faith in Qur'an should endeavor to perform hajj and umrah of Masjid al Haram at Mekkah. However, I am convinced that verses 3:96-97 are neither talking about Mekkah, nor the "Hajj" as a ritual.

And I seriously doubt Abraham had ever physically been to the place we know as Mekkah.

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Regards,
Arman



Title: Re: BKH ≠ MKH
Post by: hicham9 on December 16, 2014, 04:28:11 AM
In my humble understanding, mkh (ܡܟܬ (http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/oneentry.php?lemma=mkh%20N&cits=all)/مكه) is a U-shaped valley ...

Another viable theory would be that mkh refers to מעכה (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maacah) (mʕkh), a small Aramean kingdom east of the Sea of Galilee.
Abel Beth MAACAH (http://www.abel-beth-maacah.org/index.php/about) seems to have derived its name from its relation to this kingdom [...]

SLM
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Man of Faith on December 16, 2014, 05:22:43 AM
I would say it does not refer to any location at all. Quran refrains from giving location names, probably for solid reasons.

If mentioned Bakka in Bible it is probably a mistake in interpretation and a coincidence that it occurs.

Have faith
Title: Re: BKH ≠ MKH
Post by: hicham9 on December 16, 2014, 05:47:24 AM
... Quran refrains from giving location names ...

This is not the first time that I have seen you make this claim!

How did you arrive at such conclusion?
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Samira1234 on December 16, 2014, 06:17:15 AM
The sanctuary/temple of Mecca was a stopping point for Pilgrims and is an acceptable site for making the animal sacrifice for those who cannot continue the journey.

I visited Mecca myself for Umrah when I was a child (I remember it quite vividly though). It was a nice experience that time.

Although now when I think of it, I used to wonder regarding a number of ritual performing being done by the pilgrims, and why would God need us to do them, particularly us Muslims, who try to refrain from superstitious behavior. The tawaf, running between the two hills, etc. I never actually questioned though. For now I wonder on particularly the animal sacrifice part, which looks like an ancient Pagan sacrifice ritual, i.e. life for a life. I guess I am not that knowledgeable at this time being. If anyone has any comments it would be welcome for me.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Wakas on December 16, 2014, 07:25:21 AM
peace all,

Arman,
Re: 1) Aalameena (plural) = beings/creations. Unlikely to mean "universes".
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9596520.msg51053#msg51053
Re: 2) Whilst I understand the point you are making, it may not be as solid as you think. There are verses which discuss balad/haram being secure. This is discussed in the article (http://mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-hajj-Quran.html) I linked to.

hicham9,
In my view "makkah" means "crowding" (a classical Arabic meaning) which fits perfectly in Quran context, and also happens to be a shared meaning with "bakkah".

samira1234.
Quote
For now I wonder on particularly the animal sacrifice part, which looks like an ancient Pagan sacrifice ritual, i.e. life for a life.
Slaughtering an animal and feeding the poor with such does not resemble paganism to me. I discuss this in the link (http://mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-hajj-Quran.html) I gave, e.g.
Quote
22:34 suggests that this is an important practice all communities/nations had in common, and thus perhaps is the only obligatory one. 22:67 suggests similar. It may be helpful to reflect upon the act being asked of us and why: utilising the tokens/sha3air of God in this way, i.e. for providing sustenance to those in need, is an act that reiterates/mirrors what God has done for us. Thus, what better way to show one's humility/thanks/rememberance/praise/recognition before God than to provide for others just as God has provided for you (e.g. see 28:77 "...do good as God has done good to you...").
Title: Re: BKH ≠ MKH
Post by: hicham9 on December 16, 2014, 08:56:58 AM
hicham9,
In my view "makkah" means "crowding" (a classical Arabic meaning) which fits perfectly in Quran context, and also happens to be a shared meaning with "bakkah".

Peace Wakas,

Thank you for sharing your interesting view with us, but I'm still of the opinion that mkh is a topographic point located somewhere on the road leading to al-masjid al-haram [...] Further, according to my research/study, 'mkh' (مكه) n.f. is derived from the (semitic) consonantal root 'mkk (http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/oneentry.php?lemma=mkk%20V&cits=all)' (م ك ك) which denotes: lowness; or lowliness [not crowdedness]!

SLM
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Man of Faith on December 16, 2014, 11:55:02 AM
This is not the first time that I have seen you make this claim!

How did you arrive at such conclusion?

Because Qur'an simply does overall not make any mention of any physical place by name. Why would it make mention of a so-called holy place that people may go there and perform idolatry anyway through paganistic rituals?

Keeping places holy seems almost like an obsession for humans, so Allah simply did not refer to any specific locations by name at all, and not even focus on the anonymous ones but rather on the moral lesson of the stories/allegories. And a location is only as holy as its inhabitants.

Have faith
Title: Re: BKH ≠ MKH
Post by: hicham9 on December 16, 2014, 06:26:02 PM
Peace MOF,

Because Qur'an simply does overall not make any mention of any physical place by name.

Actually, the Qurān does mention several geographical locations by name. To name a few: Mount Sinai (طور سينا); Babylon (بابل); Karyatayn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaryatayn) (القريتينِ (http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%AA%D9%8A%D9%86)); Iram (إرم); Madyan (مدين); Badr (بدر); Hunayn (حنين); Yathrib (يثرب); Makkah (مكة); Bakkah (بكة); Misr (مصر); ... Etc!

Why would it make mention of a so-called holy place that people may go there and perform idolatry anyway through paganistic rituals?
Keeping places holy seems almost like an obsession for humans, so Allah simply did not refer to any specific locations by name at all, and not even focus on the anonymous ones but rather on the moral lesson of the stories/allegories. And a location is only as holy as its inhabitants.

hokum!
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Man of Faith on December 16, 2014, 10:01:39 PM
Ok. Thanks for enlightenment. I have to correct that it seldom mentions locations instead of never. It still prefer to be as scarce as possible. Although I would still argue that Bakkateh and Mekkateh are not locations.

Mount Sinai has importance for the Children of Israel who got the worst boot.

Is it still not strange however that Jerusalem is not mentioned by name?

Quran is scarce with giving geographical information and many times it is not a name but which refers to some shape or landmark feature in nature.

Have faith
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: drfazl on December 16, 2014, 10:10:12 PM


3. 96
In ?Bacca? is the prime most living place for mankind; it is a noble and a guiding force for the people of all worlds.

If any one is free from idol / location / construction worshiping, then one shall appreciate his own soul or the Ruh in each one's heart is Bacca / the prime most living place for every man. The Ruh is certainly the most noble and a true guiding force for each one of the worlds.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Man of Faith on December 16, 2014, 10:25:36 PM
Even if Bakkateh theoretically would be a location bayat does still not refer to a physical building.

Allah does not encourage idolatry by keeping that kind of focus on a place.

And the practices at today's Mecca are nothing but Pagan rituals, keeping a building worshiped against commandment number two concerning no image of anything in Heaven nor Earth for Allah. Allah hardly speaks in a direct narrative about such a ritual with that dimension. In that case we read a Pagan book and not a revelation by the Sustainer.

Have faith
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Man of Faith on December 16, 2014, 10:38:00 PM
I can understand it gives emphasis on locations in some occasions as to refresh the minds of the Children of Israel such as their exodus out of Mesr or that Sinai is mentioned. But that is almost it. When not necessary Quran rather keeps geographical details at minimum.

And cities/towns are not mentioned by name as far as I can recall except Mekkateh which is doubtfully a named city in there.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: drfazl on December 16, 2014, 11:11:33 PM


And cities/towns are not mentioned by name as far as I can recall except Mekkateh which is doubtfully a named city in there.

Peace

There is no doubt in it. Every word in Quran has meanings of justifications, significances and implications of innumerable dimensions in accordance with the life of man at any given time from the inception of man to the end of the world.

Our lives are shaped up better and better by the moment due to our belief in and appreciation of the Intangible Truth; and the abstract mind is the real ' Bayt / sacred place ' wherein is our comfort and residence; and whereupon descends the command and the guidance from Allah, the God of the worlds. Quran absolutely does not speak of any tangible thing as HOLY for all materials will perish but what is with Allah.

Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: mmkhan on December 16, 2014, 11:49:50 PM
I would say it does not refer to any location at all. Quran refrains from giving location names, probably for solid reasons.

Peace bro,

I agree with you on this 100% and agree with @Armanaziz on some of his points.


May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path :pr
mmKhan
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Man of Faith on December 16, 2014, 11:52:57 PM
Harmony be with you drfazl,

If you ask me, bayat means assembly, the group of people at any given time who are of a certain affinity. Which affinity is explained by the narration. They have affinity with Allah and the realm. It is like an assimilation. Abraham was the first one who established such an assembly of like-minded people.

And if you are going to be like Elah you have to be like Allah and choose the spiritual realm over the flesh. It would be against the message of Qur'an if it was fixated on physical items and features. Those who have understood would happily leave their bodies at any given time.

And a place is only as "holy" as its inhabitants at any given time, and since only Allah is unconditionally holy, only the one who assimilates and is like Allah is holy. It has its prerequisites.

But holding a physical entity like a building to be an image of Allah is in direct violation of everything the prophets ever stood for in their proclamation to mankind. Even worse to slowly "dance" around it as in ancient Pagan rituals instead of entering it and using it as a temple at least to grow spiritually through reflection and meditation and informative meetings by an enlightened person who teaches spirituality. I could feel a better surge of spirituality in my bedchamber.

Throughout the millennia, people have always diminished the 'Guidelines' and put physical rituals in the spotlight rather than absorbing the spiritual lessons of this simple list of 10 "commandments" originally written on stone tablets:

1. Serve only Allah (be to thereby be) in benevolence, forgiveness
2. Have no image of anything in Heaven nor Earth to represent Allah
3. No vain talk (do not conjecture)
4. Keep a sabbath every cycle (week) where you do not work for personal gain and instead reflect, meditate and be charitable; anything that only keeps your mind on Allah
5. Treat thy neighbor as thyself (but also thy enemy if you can as according to Jesus)
6. Do not murder
7. Do not steal
8. Do not carry false testimony, i.e. do not lie (counts every lie)
9. Do not commit adultery
10. Do not be jealous

Here you have the ancient spiritual guidelines, often inaccurately referred to as commandments, but is more a spiritual advice for the best well-being of your soul. Hint: Try to uphold 'no jealousy' as a law. People constantly struggle to add things to this ancient list, such as fleshly rituals and Pagan-inspired practices.

Have faith
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Man of Faith on December 17, 2014, 12:07:04 AM
Quote
Quote from: Man of Faith on Yesterday at 01:22:43 PM

    I would say it does not refer to any location at all. Quran refrains from giving location names, probably for solid reasons.


Peace bro,

I agree with you on this 100% and agree with @Armanaziz on some of his points.

Red: It appears I was wrong on this. Qur'an does mention a few locations by name, even if they are in a clear minority. Still I argue that no towns/cities are mentioned, nor is any reference to a building given.

Despite I was wrong on no names of locations, the emphasis is avoiding any particular focus on names whatsoever. And it is disputable whether all the suggestions by hicham9 are truly names of locations.

Have faith
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: mmkhan on December 17, 2014, 12:17:43 AM
Red: It appears I was wrong on this. Qur'an does mention a few locations by name, even if they are in a clear minority. Still I argue that no towns/cities are mentioned, nor is any reference to a building given.

Despite I was wrong on no names of locations, the emphasis is avoiding any particular focus on names whatsoever. And it is disputable whether all the suggestions by hicham9 are truly names of locations.

Have faith

Peace bro,

Sorry, I disagree with you now.

Please take a look at 18:60 (http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=18&verse=60) specially the words مَجْمَعَ الْبَحْرَيْنِ this is how the locations are mentioned in alQuraan. Thanks to @Bender who pointed this out.

Such locations remain for ever until the end of this world. Names of cities/places change always, so Allah never use them to make us confuse.


May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path :pr
mmKhan
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Arman on December 17, 2014, 12:32:54 AM
Arman,
Re: 1) Aalameena (plural) = beings/creations. Unlikely to mean "universes".
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9596520.msg51053#msg51053
Re: 2) Whilst I understand the point you are making, it may not be as solid as you think. There are verses which discuss balad/haram being secure. This is discussed in the article (http://mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-hajj-Quran.html) I linked to.

Salam Wakas.

Quoting the verse for ease of reference.

Quote

3:96 Indeed, the first house laid down for mankind is surely the one at Becca ? blessed  and guidance for the universe (Aalameena).

3:97 There are clear signs in it ? Abraham?s standpoint ? and whoever enters it happens to be secured. And to Allah upon mankind is the hajj* (literally debate / deep consideration) of the house - whoever is able - a path to it; and whoever represses (faith) ? then Allah is affluent of the universe.

(My personal translation; cross checking recommended.)


1)   Even if you understand ?Aalameena? to be beings/creations/mankind (note the English word ?universe? also can be used to convey similar ideas) ? it is absurd to imagine a physical house can be guidance for ?Aalameena?. Many people in various corner of the world would have never heard of Mekkah or Jerusalem ? and even if they hear of it ? they are nothing but alien places of alien culture to them. Does it really make sense that they owe God a ?pilgrimage? to any of these sights if they know the path to reach there? Besides there have been times in history when both these sites have been center of pagan rituals / ideology.

Compared to that ? the spiritual ?safehouse? that Abraham constructed (i.e. surrender to the Master of Universe and refrain from associating partners with Him) ? is a guidance for all time and all nations. Any conscious soul (be he a Japanese / South American / Australian aborigine or even non-human) can take guidance from this safe-house, even if they haven?t heard of Torah or Gospel or Abraham or Qur?an or Islam. Any conscious soul who finds a path to this understanding (i.e. stumbles upon this proposition in their lifetime) owes to God that they would debate and thoroughly consider (hajj) this idea ? before they reject it in favor of a contradictory idea (e.g. atheism). But even if the entire universe chooses to repress (faith) then Allah is affluent of the universe. Do you see how the verse completely fits in and becomes wonderfully meaningful?

The question remains why is it called the ?House at Bakkah?. The only Bakkah we are sure aware of is the Bakkah is Psalm. The people of the book have traditionally understood Bakkah as a spiritual oasis on the path of the difficult journey of life (refer to Jewish / Christian interpretation of the relevant Bible verse). So, it makes perfect sense that author of Qur?an would indicate the ?spiritual? nature of this house by referring it as ?the house at Bakkah?. There are other instances of Qur'an metaphorically referring to biblical places (e.g. Garden of Eden at 9:72).

2)   Frankly, your linked article is too long to go through to figure out exactly which point you are referring. However, I believe you are referring to 2:126. Abraham may have requested for a safe land for his descendants ? but I believe this verse too is metaphorical, and you can find my understanding here:

http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9606927.msg357937#msg357937

?Whoever enters the house happens to be safe? ? is a very strong claim. If we accept the House to be a physical house ? logically the security needs to be of physical nature as well. But we have seen during the  Grand Mosque Seizure during November and December 1979 the ?House at Mekkah? did not give security to Al-Qahtani. Nor did it give security to those who attempted seizure of Mecca in 683 and 692. How about the Jaheliat idols and their worshippers at Kabba? Did the house give them security in any form? The Temple mount at Jerusalem also has seen many deadly seizure, capture and recapture throughout history.

Compared to that - the ?spiritual safe-house? created by Abraham guarantees spiritual security to whoever ?enters? it by protecting him/her from the provocation of perverted ideas and ideologies.

For me the signs that the ?House at Bakkah? is a spiritual house / shelter ? are obvious as broad daylight. But whoever is not happy with this explanation can feel free to go for the ?wild goose chase? to find physical location of Bakkah. My Master guides whomever He wills to a straight route.

May Allah guide us all.

Regards,
Arman
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Man of Faith on December 17, 2014, 01:55:02 AM
Peace bro,

Sorry, I disagree with you now.

Please take a look at 18:60 (http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=18&verse=60) specially the words مَجْمَعَ الْبَحْرَيْنِ this is how the locations are mentioned in alQuraan. Thanks to @Bender who pointed this out.

Such locations remain for ever until the end of this world. Names of cities/places change always, so Allah never use them to make us confuse.


May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path :pr
mmKhan

مَجْمَعَ الْبَحْرَيْنِ is not a location name and the location is anonymous even if descriptive. Allah uses such because locations are not important for its spiritual message.

And, Masjed Haram does not refer to any building whatsoever...

Have faith
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Wakas on December 17, 2014, 02:43:03 AM
peace Arman,

Thanks for clarifying you haven't read the article I linked to, as that explains much of your reply, i.e. preaching to the choir (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=preaching+to+the+choir).

Quote
2)   Frankly, your linked article is too long to go through to figure out exactly which point you are referring. However, I believe you are referring to 2:126. Abraham may have requested for a safe land for his descendants ? but I believe this verse too is metaphorical

2:126 is only one verse, and it's actually not that difficult to find what verses I am referring to, e.g. ctrl+F then simply type in "balad" or "haram" and it will take you to the verses, however I pretty much discuss them in one section.

In any case, the point you seem to make is that no physical structure is a guarantor of security, regardless of Quran context. This viewpoint may force one to re-interpret any Quran verses which discuss any physical structure, be it land/town/balad or haram/sanctuary etc as being secure or when you are safe etc in another way, e.g. metaphorical. This is fine, but can it be made to work (Quranically)? Let's see.

You said: I believe you are referring to 2:126. Abraham may have requested for a safe land for his descendants ? but I believe this verse too is metaphorical

Dictionary definition of metaphorical:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/metaphorical
a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance

Here is what you actually said about 2:126 in the link you provided (underlined highlights mine):
In this verse, Abraham is praying for the inhabitants of the land where the house is located. In spiritual sense, he is seeking protection to Allah to all those who would be accepting the safe heaven that he created and live around it. God, however, clarifies that even living within the vicinity of the house there will be people who would repress their faith

It is clear to me from the underlined parts that you are taking some parts literally. So, let's clarify:

In your view, can a land be secure? (even if only for a while)
Yes/No/other

Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Arman on December 17, 2014, 02:54:57 AM
In your view, can a land be secure? (even if only for a while)
Yes/No/other

Salam Wakas:

Can a land be secure? (even if only for a while)
Yes.

So, it is OK to accept "whoever enters it happens to be secured" can the "characteristics" of a physical house?  

No, because these words imply it to be a permanent characteristic. Such permanent characteristics can only apply for a metaphorical house.

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Regards,
Arman
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Samira1234 on December 17, 2014, 03:31:32 AM
Hello guys,

I have a question. What is your opinion on not letting people who set up partners to God into Mecca city or near Masjid al-Haram, because they are considered as najas (translated as impure)? Seeing this verse:

9:28 O you who believe, the polytheists are impure, so let them not approach the Restricted Temple after this year of theirs; and if you fear poverty, then God will enrich you from His blessings if He wills. God is Knowledgeable, Wise.

I am not sure how others translated specific words, so any opinions would be welcome.

Peace,

Samira
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Wakas on December 17, 2014, 05:58:02 AM
peace Arman,

Thanks for acknowledging a physical land can be secure sometimes.

No, because these words imply it to be a permanent characteristic. Such permanent characteristics...

Only "imply"? Can you clarify the evidence you have for it being permanent, considering the verb dakhala in 3:97 is in the perfect tense, e.g.
wa man dakhala hu kana
and whoever enters/entered (perfect) it is/was (kana)

It seems to me, Quran could have used the imperfect if it meant an ongoing/incomplete action, e.g.
2:108 and whoever exchanges (imperfect)...
2:121 and whoever disbelieves (imperfect) in it...
2:130 and whoever turns away (imperfect) from...

I'm no expert in Arabic grammar, hence asking if you have further evidence other than it seems to "imply" permanence. "Imply" doesn't sound like solid ground to me. You may find this discussion interesting (if you read it):
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604116.0


Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Arman on December 17, 2014, 08:18:14 PM
Salam Brother Wakas.

I am also not an Arabic grammar expert. My humble understanding is Arabic Perfect Verbs (like "Kana") imply continuity (both past and present and even future is implied). Here is a quick checklist on how famous translators have translated the phrase ?wa man dakhalahu kana ameenan?:

Quote

Sahih International: whoever enters it shall be safe
Pickthall: whosoever entereth it is safe.
Yusuf Ali: whoever enters it attains security;
Shakir: whoever enters it shall be secure
Muhammad Sarwar: Whoever seeks refuge therein will be protected by the laws of amnesty.
Mohsin Khan: whosoever enters it, he attains security
Arberry: whosoever enters it is in security.


Other than Muhammad Sarwar ? who appear to be interpreting, rather than translating ? the others seem to read this statement as a ?permanent characteristic? of the house in question.

I have seen from the article (http://mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-hajj-Quran.html) you linked that you too are convinced Bakkah or the ?house at Bakkah? is not a physical house. The only point that I am adding to what the article says is ?Bakkah? is also known as ?a spiritual oasis in one?s journey towards his destiny? to the people of Bible and I feel Qur?an is mentioning Bakkah to refer to that.

That being the case, I am confused why you are debating on points which we both seem to agree. I am convinced ?wa man dakhalahu kana ameenan? cannot be the property of a physical house ? if you think this is not a solid enough argument, then be it ? you are fully entitled to have your opinion. If your sole objective of debating is to get the pleasure of winning ? then I?ll give you a pass ? ?You win, I lose. My arguments are weaker than yours?. Hope this makes you happy.

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Regards,
Arman
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: mmkhan on December 17, 2014, 10:26:04 PM
مَجْمَعَ الْبَحْرَيْنِ is not a location name and the location is anonymous even if descriptive. Allah uses such because locations are not important for its spiritual message.

And, Masjed Haram does not refer to any building whatsoever...

Have faith

Peace,

That is what I was trying to say that only locations are mentioned in alQuraan not the names. And I believe even though the locations mentioned in alQuraan are seemed anonymous to us right now can be found.

Yes I agree that alMasjid alHaraam does not refer to physical structure.


May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path :pr
mmKhan
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: mmkhan on December 17, 2014, 10:29:23 PM
I am also not an Arabic grammar expert. My humble understanding is Arabic Perfect Verbs (like "Kana") imply continuity (both past and present and even future is implied).

Salaam brother,

Can you please translate 18:50 (http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=18&verse=50) for me? Specially the word Kaana in it. Thanks.


May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path :pr
mmKhan
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Wakas on December 18, 2014, 04:16:54 AM
peace Arman,

Thanks for the list of translations but I don't give them much weight, as I prefer to know the theoretical possibilities, then determine what is strongest. As far as I know, it could also be taken as past tense, and you did not provide evidence to the contrary.

 
?Bakkah? is also known as ?a spiritual oasis in one?s journey towards his destiny? to the people of Bible

Interesting. Do you have a reference?

Quote
I am confused why you are debating on points which we both seem to agree.

No need to be confused. We disagree on some points, and I highlighted them in my first response to you. You then brought up some other points (e.g. permanent/future tense) which were also discussed. Personally, if I post a view that may be inaccurate or not as solid as I think, I'd like to be told about it. We are all students of Quran here, learning as we go.

Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Arman on December 18, 2014, 07:24:34 PM
Salamun alaikum.

Interesting. Do you have a reference?

Yes, I provided the reference in my first post in this thread:

http://biblehub.com/psalms/84-6.htm

No need to be confused. We disagree on some points, and I highlighted them in my first response to you. You then brought up some other points (e.g. permanent/future tense) which were also discussed. Personally, if I post a view that may be inaccurate or not as solid as I think, I'd like to be told about it. We are all students of Quran here, learning as we go.

My point was... "wa man dakhalahu kana ameenan" implies a permanent characteristic of the house.
You are arguing ... it "may not" imply a permanent characteristic, right?

Hypothetically, if I accept the proposition that "wa man dakhalahu kana ameenan" imples "and someone who entered the house was secured" ... does it really fit in the context of the verse? Any house in the world can provide temporary security to someone in some point of time in the past - what makes that point worthy of mentioning as an attribute of the "House at Bakkah"? I was confused with your arguments because you are bringing a grammatical argument that the phrase may mean something - whereas you yourself are convinced that the phrase does not really mean that.

But again, if the sole point of this debate is that I cannot "prove" kana implies permanent characteristic, and it is theoretically possible to read it as a verb in past tense - then I have already declared you winner in that argument.

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Regards,
Arman
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Farabi on December 19, 2014, 05:10:11 AM
BYT cannot be translated as assembly or congregation, it mean was house. I think this verse clearly used it.

http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=33&verse=13
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Farabi on December 19, 2014, 05:12:19 AM
I think the quran was telling us that the first house was Bakkah in israel land, and then it turned to makkah and masjidilharrom. The qiblah turning was to test who was following Muhammad who are not.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Wakas on December 19, 2014, 08:19:14 AM
peace Arman,

You are arguing ... it "may not" imply a permanent characteristic, right?

Exactly.

Quote
Hypothetically, if I accept the proposition that "wa man dakhalahu kana ameenan" imples "and someone who entered the house was secured" ... does it really fit in the context of the verse? Any house in the world can provide temporary security to someone in some point of time in the past - what makes that point worthy of mentioning as an attribute of the "House at Bakkah"?

As you know I don't translate it as "house", but anyways, to me it may be worthy of mentioning because it tells us that God's guidance implemented at a locality provides security for all, and also perhaps make us reflect upon what brings about this security, e.g. open, fair, just, true, peaceful etc. A secure environment is no small thing.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: hawk99 on December 19, 2014, 10:12:02 AM
I think the quran was telling us that the first house was Bakkah in israel land, and then it turned to makkah and masjidilharrom. The qiblah turning was to test who was following Muhammad who are not.

Correct!

6/10 When Daniel knew that the document had been signed, he went to his house where he had windows in
his upper chamber open toward Jerusalem. He got down on his knees three times a day and prayed and
gave thanks before his God, as he had done previously.  yeah, yeah, yeah I know its from the Bible


We know that the Qiblah was Jerusalem, the direction that all previous Prophets and messengers faced during
prayer, but then:



2/143 And thus We have made you a medium (just) nation that you may be the bearers of witness
to the people and (that) the Messenger may be a bearer of witness to you; and We did not make
that which you would have to be the qiblah but that We might distinguish him who follows the
Messenger from him who turns back upon his heels, and this was surely hard except for those
whom Allah has guided aright; and Allah was not going to make your faith to be fruitless; most
surely Allah is Affectionate, Merciful to the people.

Muhammad fond of Mecca

2/144   Indeed We see the turning of your face to heaven, so We shall surely turn you to a
qiblah which you shall like
; turn then your face towards the Sacred Mosque, and wherever
you are, turn your face towards it, and those who have been given the Book most surely
know that it is the truth from their Lord; and Allah is not at all heedless of what they do.


Masjid Al Qiblatain (Mosque of the two Qiblas)


Masjid al-Qiblatain (المسجد القبلتین) (Mosque of the two Qiblas) is a mosque in Medina that is
historically important for Muslims as the place where the Islamic prophet Muhammad,
leading the prayer, is said to have been commanded to change the direction of prayer
(qibla) from Jerusalem to Mecca. Thus it uniquely contained two prayer niches (mihrabs).
Recently the mosque was renovated; the old prayer niche facing Jerusalem was removed,
and the one facing Mecca was left.


God bless you

   :peace:

Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Farabi on December 20, 2014, 05:39:47 AM
Also, ancient israel land was bought by ibrahim on the more ancient time. It make me convinced that the first BYTELHM was on israel land. But, what is maqom ibrahim mean? On my native language, maqom mean grave, Indonesia language was took lots of arabic words, but, is on arabic maqom mean grave too? I dont think so. It still confuse me.

On the quran, we did not know which ibrahim son who built the BYT. If we know it, we can easly point that location, since HJR was exiled to a desert, while SRH was on a versatile land.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: csmith on July 25, 2015, 09:30:26 AM
The Muslims fled to a Christian Kingdom, where they were granted asylum by the king from enemies that had pursued them there to kill them.

And He is the One who withheld their hands against you, and your hands against them in the interior of Mecca, after He had made you victorious over them. God is Seer of what you do.

In Mohammed's time, there was a Christian Kingdom called Makkah, referred to today as the Kingdom of Makuria. Makuria, literally place of Makur, seems like the best candidate for the Makkah mentioned in Quran 48:24.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Christian_Nubia.png)

The Kingdom of Makuria received favourable treatment by the Muslims during the later expansion of the Islamic Empire, and good relations persisted for four centuries. The period between 750 and 1150 is known as the Makurian Golden Age.

Wikipedia Makuria: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Makuria
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 11:03:04 AM
The Muslims fled to a Christian Kingdom, where they were granted asylum by the king from enemies that had pursued them there to kill them.

And He is the One who withheld their hands against you, and your hands against them in the interior of Mecca, after He had made you victorious over them. God is Seer of what you do.

In Mohammed's time, there was a Christian Kingdom called Makkah, referred to today as the Kingdom of Makuria. Makuria, literally place of Makur, seems like the best candidate for the Makkah mentioned in Quran 48:24.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Christian_Nubia.png)

The Kingdom of Makuria received favourable treatment by the Muslims during the later expansion of the Islamic Empire, and good relations persisted for four centuries. The period between 750 and 1150 is known as the Makurian Golden Age.

Wikipedia Makuria: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Makuria

Interesting theory.  But how do you explain the earliest battle involving muslim forces is dated 642, 10 years after the death of Muhammad?  The historical events you are referring to are post-Quran.

I think the western scholarly view is correct: 48:24 uses an aramaic imported word to denote a valley - from Syro-Aramaic root Km (ma, actually makk) (lower, to be low), adjective akm (m?kk?) (masc.), atkm (m?kk1?) (fem.), meaning "(the) lower (one)."  Coincidentally modern Israel/Palestine has some of the lowest points on earth, below sea-level even.

How can one claim to be a muslim, when one is showing nothing but confusion about the qiblah?  There is and only ever has been one Qiblah.  Jerusalem.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 12:19:35 PM
Salam/Peace,

Just to share my understanding for the benefit of others.

I used to believe that Bakka and the Restricted Sanctuary were one in the same.

My understanding after much study is that they are two distinct locations.

Bakkah = Jerusalem (the site of the first sanctuary established for the people and the location of Abraham's test)

Restricted Temple/Restricted Sanctuary = Mecca (the site of the second temple and the location of Lot as well as many events mentioned in the Quran)

Mecca was destroyed by a meteor shower, from which the black stone of the Kaaba is taken.

The sanctuary/temple of Mecca was a stopping point for Pilgrims and is an acceptable site for making the animal sacrifice for those who cannot continue the journey.

Bombay in India is now called Mumbai ... if a historical text talked about Bombay would you say that it does not mean Mumbai? You do not know whether the name has gone through a change over the generations. It could quite well have ... as have many names of many historical cities throughout the ages.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 12:45:34 PM
Mecca destroyed by a meteor shower?  There was almost nothing there.  The place was entirely insignificant and not mentioned in ANY historical record of existing cultures of that time.

Mecca a pilgrimage site?  My God, where do you get such ideas?  Do you have any non-hadith source saying Mecca was a site of pilgrimage? 

Certainly if Lot and Abraham are to be located in the Arabian peninsula, we would find evidence of Jews and Christians acknowledging it as such. 

But by all means stick to a qibla that was never appointed by God.

People who accept Mecca to be their Qibla are equal to those with imaginary friends in my book.  Delusional.

Again I question those showing confusion about the qibla, how can you claim being muslim and at the same time show so much uncertainty about the most elementary of signs?  I notice a majority here does not know their Qibla.  Clueless about salat.  Doubtful about hell.  Questioning muhammad even existed.  Most of you adhere to an Islamic faith that is still dragging a sh*tload of hadith inspired nonsense with it.  The majority on this forum adheres to a sectarian branch within the abrahamic faith.  Seperate from Judaism, seperate from christianity, with your own seperate qibla and self-invented rules.

If you adhere to the faith of Abraham, there is no confusion about the qibla.  There is only one.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 01:13:51 PM
Mecca destroyed by a meteor shower?  There was almost nothing there.  The place was entirely insignificant and not mentioned in ANY historical record of existing cultures of that time.

Mecca a pilgrimage site?  My God, where do you get such ideas?  Do you have any non-hadith source saying Mecca was a site of pilgrimage? 

Certainly if Lot and Abraham are to be located in the Arabian peninsula, we would find evidence of Jews and Christians acknowledging it as such. 

But by all means stick to a qibla that was never appointed by God.

People who accept Mecca to be their Qibla are equal to those with imaginary friends in my book.  Delusional.

Again I question those showing confusion about the qibla, how can you claim being muslim and at the same time show so much uncertainty about the most elementary of signs?

Peace

We have Qurans that can be dated to the life of the Prophet (PBUH) and you question whether Mecca even existed?

Ok if Mecca never existed in Arabia but was located in Egypt then when was it established as the center of the Islamic faith in Arabia (at the current location)? Which year and by whom was this done? And how did that person / people convince the Islamic world to accept this new found Mecca as a place of worship for their faith? And how was all previous mention of it being in Egypt erased by the people?
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 01:16:38 PM
We have Qurans that can be dated to the life of the Prophet (PBUH) and you question whether Mecca even existed?

Ok if Mecca never existed then when was it created as the center of the Islamic faith? Which year and by whom? And how did that person / people convince the Islamic world to accept this new found Mecca as a place of worship?

I'm not saying mecca didn't exist.  I'm saying:

1. It was insignificant.
2. Not a pre-quranic place of worship.

My proof: there is not one non-hadith source even mentioning the place.   Persians and Yemenites who kept huge administrative records of the places they conquered don't even mention it.  In my understanding even Quran does not mention Mecca.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 01:24:19 PM
We have Qurans that can be dated to the life of the Prophet (PBUH) and you question whether Mecca even existed?

Ok if Mecca never existed in Arabia but was located in Egypt then when was it established as the center of the Islamic faith in Arabia (at the current location)? Which year and by whom was this done? And how did that person / people convince the Islamic world to accept this new found Mecca as a place of worship for their faith? And how was all previous mention of it being in Egypt erased by the people?

Mecca gained importance after the Justinian plague.  This affected the medditerranean trade routes massively and favoured the trade routes using the persian Gulf and red Sea.  The history of Mecca however is obscured by tonnes of hadith garbage and zero archaelogical studies.  So one can't tell how Mecca gained importance for sure.  All we know is during the life of Muhammad it had so little significance villages consisting of very few inhabitants can be found in historical records of neighbouring powers but none of Mecca.  To me it doesn't really matter, it's an insignificant place and a good catalyst to draw sectarian arabs towards displaying their pagan traditions.

http://religionresearchinstitute.org/mecca/archeology.htm (http://religionresearchinstitute.org/mecca/archeology.htm)
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 01:28:19 PM
I'm not saying mecca didn't exist.  I'm saying:

1. It was insignificant.
2. Not a pre-quranic place of worship.

My proof: there is not one non-hadith source even mentioning the place.   Persians and Yemenites who kept huge administrative records of the places they conquered don't even mention it.  In my understanding even Quran does not mention Mecca.

Peace

How many "non-hadith" mentions do you have of places like 'lahore' or 'peshawar' of that time? Does that mean that just because the outsiders never mentioned it and it was only mentioned by the locals then it never existed?
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 01:30:12 PM
Check the link posted above, it deals with the issue in much detail.  I assume you are one that accepts Mecca to be their qibla?

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 01:30:58 PM
Mecca gained importance after the Justinian plague.  This affected the medditerranean trade routes massively and favoured the trade routes using the persian Gulf and red Sea.  The history of Mecca however is obscured by tonnes of hadith garbage and zero archaelogical studies.  So one can't tell how Mecca gained importance for sure.  All we know is during the life of Muhammad it had so little significance villages consisting of very few inhabitants can be found in historical records of neighbouring powers but none of Mecca.  To me it doesn't really matter, it's an insignificant place and a good catalyst to draw sectarian arabs towards displaying their pagan traditions.

http://religionresearchinstitute.org/mecca/archeology.htm (http://religionresearchinstitute.org/mecca/archeology.htm)

 So are you saying that Mecca may have existed?
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 01:32:47 PM
How many "non-hadith" mentions do you have of places like 'lahore' or 'peshawar' of that time? Does that mean that just because the outsiders never mentioned it and it was only mentioned by the locals then it never existed?

Well not only is the absence of historical records for Mecca problematic, so is the fact Mecca has never been acknowledged by any pre-quranic Abrahamic faith.  Don't you think that's odd knowing they speak about the same abraham?

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 01:33:37 PM
Check the link posted above, it deals with the issue in much detail.  I assume you are one that accepts Mecca to be their qibla?

Peace

Yes I accept Mecca as qibla. I assume you are of those who like to create new history for the local inhabitants of that area.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 01:33:49 PM
So are you saying that Mecca may have existed?

It possibly existed as a meaningless village.  We don't know for sure however.  Contrast this absence of archaelogical evidence with that of Sharif Al-Haram. 

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 01:34:33 PM
Yes I accept Mecca as qibla. I assume you are of those who like to create new history for the local inhabitants of that area.

I'm not rewriting history.  The history of Jerusalem is well established and backed up by Quran.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 01:36:23 PM
Yes I accept Mecca as qibla. I assume you are of those who like to create new history for the local inhabitants of that area.

Well don't think I'm trying to convince you of accepting the right qibla.  But know I'm witness of what qibla you have turned on your heels for.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 01:38:30 PM
Well not only is the absence of historical records for Mecca problematic, so is the fact Mecca has never been acknowledged by any pre-quranic Abrahamic faith.  Don't you think that's odd knowing they speak about the same abraham?

Peace

Did you consider the fact that where the kaaba is located was not always referred to as mecca (especially during times of the old prophets)?
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 01:40:08 PM
I'm not rewriting history.  The history of Jerusalem is well established and backed up by Quran.

Peace

History of Jerusalem? Why are we talking about Jerusalem?
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 01:41:57 PM
It possibly existed as a meaningless village.  We don't know for sure however.  Contrast this absence of archaelogical evidence with that of Sharif Al-Haram. 

Peace

So now it "possibly existed" ? Is that your answer?
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 01:42:31 PM
Did you consider the fact that where the kaaba is located was not always referred to as mecca (especially during times of the old prophets)?

Well to begin with.  Quran nowhere speaks of kaaba as a meteorite rock.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 01:43:05 PM
History of Jerusalem? Why are we talking about Jerusalem?

Bakka is in Jerusalem, near Temple Mount.

Makka is an aramaic loanword in Quran as proven by its non full inflection. In aramaic it means lower region/valley.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 01:44:44 PM
Well to begin with.  Quran nowhere speaks of kaaba as a meteorite rock.

Peace

Who said that it does?
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 01:46:32 PM
Who said that it does?

Good for you if you realize it doesnt.  But while realizing this you still accept a qibla revolving around some meteorite?  Worshipping stones is an old arab bad habit religiouswise you know?  Would God allow the qibla to be polluted with a pagan worship?  Is that what you've learned from Quran?  I've learned when the qibla gets even touched by polytheists Gods sends a messenger to reclaim the qibla.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 01:49:26 PM
Bakka is in Jerusalem, near Temple Mount.

Makka is an aramaic loanword in Quran as proven by its non full inflection. In aramaic it means lower region/valley.

Peace

So as per you it is more logical that mecca was in Jerusalem when the Prophet of Islam was a leader of an Arabian Islamic nation at the time of his death. And somehow, someone said to the Muslims ... you know what ... lets say that Mecca of Jerusalem is actually a place in the Arabian desert that no one has ever heard of. Yeah that should be so much fun! Only problem is convincing the hundreds of thousands of Muslims around the world. No biggie !!
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 01:50:45 PM
So as per you it is more logical that mecca was in Jerusalem when the Prophet of Islam was a leader of an Arabian Islamic nation at the time of his death. And somehow, someone said to the Muslims ... you know what ... lets say that Mecca of Jerusalem is actually a place in the Arabian desert that no one has ever heard of. Yeah that should be so much fun! Only problem is convincing the hundreds of thousands of Muslims around the world. No biggie !!

I don't care about what Arabs other Muslims do.  Quran does not by accident tell us the arabs are the worst when it comes down to hypocrisy.  Neither does Quran by accident tell us that if you follow the majority you will be led astray.

You still misunderstand.  Islam is not an arabic faith.  The message was in arab.  You are one of those that has been brainwashed by hadith and sectarian politics distorting the meaning of Quran, hijacking it to gain political power.  Muhammad was instructed to safeguard the qibla, masjid al haram in Palestine.  Nothing else.  Still today Temple Mount is secure and under the watchful eye of muslims. 

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 01:53:05 PM
Good for you if you realize it doesnt.  But while realizing this you still accept a qibla revolving around some meteorite?  Worshipping stones is an old arab bad habit religiouswise you know?  Would God allow the qibla to be polluted with a pagan worship?  Is that what you've learned from Quran?  I've learned when the qibla gets even touched by polytheists Gods sends a messenger to reclaim the qibla.

Peace

I consider the kaaba to be a direction for prayer ... so I don't know know what you're talking about. Maybe thats what you believe in. If your problem with the Kaaba is not to worship stones, then my suggestion to you is to not worship stones ... I for one don't worship any meteorite.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 01:54:21 PM
I don't care about what Arabs other Muslims do.  Quran does not by accident tell us the arabs are the worst when it comes down to hypocrisy.  Neither does Quran by accident tell us that if you follow the majority you will be led astray.

Peace

Quran does not say that Arabs are the worst. Can you reference that for me plz.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 01:55:40 PM
Quran does not say that Arabs are the worst. Can you reference that for me plz.

http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=9&verse=97#(9:97:1) (http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=9&verse=97#(9:97:1))
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 01:56:38 PM
I consider the kaaba to be a direction for prayer ... so I don't know know what you're talking about. Maybe thats what you believe in. If your problem with the Kaaba is not to worship stones, then my suggestion to you is to not worship stones ... I for one don't worship any meteorite.

Okay you dont worship a stone thats good but do you think God would allow pagans to worship a stone like in modern day mecca?  Think again!  If such a fahisha would occur at the true qibla God will send a messenger.  God does not allow such things.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 02:00:27 PM
You still misunderstand.  Islam is not an arabic faith.  The message was in arab.  You are one of those that has been brainwashed by hadith and sectarian politics distorting the meaning of Quran, hijacking it to gain political power.  Muhammad was instructed to safeguard the qibla, masjid al haram in Palestine.  Nothing else.  Still today Temple Mount is secure and under the watchful eye of muslims. 

Peace

And I'm sure have a lot of historical record to back up your claim of Islam not being an Arab faith or that Muhammad was actually on a mission to secure the masjid al haram in Palestine.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 02:01:48 PM
Okay you dont worship a stone thats good but do you think God would allow pagans to worship a stone like in modern day mecca?  Think again!  If such a fahisha would occur at the true qibla God will send a messenger.  God does not allow such things.

Peace

None of them worship a stone. I think you need to re-educate yourself on the traditional Muslim view point on what the Kaaba is.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 02:02:09 PM
 Historical and Quranic.  They fit like a glove.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 02:02:49 PM
None of them worship a stone. I think you need to re-educate yourself on the traditional Muslim view point on what the Kaaba is.

All I see is they placed a meteorite in what they claim to be the most sacred.  What I see is laughable.  I'm not offended by their practices since it's at a FALSE qibla.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 02:04:04 PM
http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=9&verse=97#(9:97:1) (http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=9&verse=97#(9:97:1))

What is this? To be honest I really don't understand. Can you quote a Quranic verse that says that arabs are the worst hypocrites?
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 02:05:20 PM
The arabs are the worst in disbelief and hypocrisy... continued

What do you read in 9:97?

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 02:05:50 PM
All I see is they placed a meteorite in what they claim to be the most sacred.  What I see is laughable.  I'm not offended by their practices since it's at a FALSE qibla.

Peace

False Qibla because you say so? Or because God says so? Can you prove to me that anyone in the Islamic world worships the meteorite?
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 02:06:17 PM
False Qibla because you say so? Or because God says so? Can you prove to me that anyone in the Islamic world worships the meteorite?

The proof is in the pudding in this case the meteorite is in the most sacred.

God instructs my qibla to be at Temple Mount in Quran.  And it fits the historical record of Jerusalem perfectly.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 02:08:14 PM
Temple Mount is where my faith started.  Where did your faith start?  In some backwarded village in the desert no one even heared of, not even the jews?

The most sacred of Temple Mount is that it is the place where the abrahamic faith began.  Not some meteorite a random nobody placed there to make it look more special.

What will you answer when God confronts you on the Last Day with your ritual of facing a meteorite instead of the qibla God appointed to Ibrahim, and every other messenger after him?

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 02:15:39 PM
The arabs are the worst in disbelief and hypocrisy... continued

What do you read in 9:97?

Peace

Do you just read 9:97 or do you read after that as well. Let me quote the whole thing:

"And there were, among the desert Arabs (also), men who made excuses and came to claim exemption; and those who were false to Allah and His Messenger (merely) sat inactive. Soon will a grievous penalty seize the Unbelievers among them."

"There is no blame on those who are infirm, or ill, or who find no resources to spend (on the cause), if they are sincere (in duty) to Allah and His Messenger: no ground (of complaint) can there be against such as do right: and Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."

"Nor (is there blame) on those who came to thee to be provided with mounts, and when thou saidst, "I can find no mounts for you," they turned back, their eyes streaming with tears of grief that they had no resources wherewith to provide the expenses."

"The ground (of complaint) is against such as claim exemption while they are rich. They prefer to stay with the (women) who remain behind: Allah hath sealed their hearts; so they know not (What they miss)."

"They will present their excuses to you when ye return to them. Say thou: "Present no excuses: we shall not believe you: Allah hath already informed us of the true state of matters concerning you: It is your actions that Allah and His Messenger will observe: in the end will ye be brought back to Him Who knoweth what is hidden and what is open: then will He show you the truth of all that ye did."

"They will swear to you by Allah, when ye return to them, that ye may leave them alone. So leave them alone: For they are an abomination, and Hell is their dwelling-place,-a fitting recompense for the (evil) that they did."

"They will swear unto you, that ye may be pleased with them but if ye are pleased with them, Allah is not pleased with those who disobey."

"The Arabs of the desert are the worst in Unbelief and hypocrisy, and most fitted to be in ignorance of the command which Allah hath sent down to His Messenger: But Allah is All-knowing, All-Wise."

"Some of the desert Arabs look upon their payments as a fine, and watch for disasters for you: on them be the disaster of evil: for Allah is He That heareth and knoweth (all things)."

"But some of the desert Arabs believe in Allah and the Last Day, and look on their payments as pious gifts bringing them nearer to Allah and obtaining the prayers of the Messenger. Aye, indeed they bring them nearer (to Him): soon will Allah admit them to His Mercy: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."

"The vanguard (of Islam)- the first of those who forsook (their homes) and of those who gave them aid, and (also) those who follow them in (all) good deeds,- well-pleased is Allah with them, as are they with Him: for them hath He prepared gardens under which rivers flow, to dwell therein for ever: that is the supreme felicity."

"Certain of the desert Arabs round about you are hypocrites, as well as (desert Arabs) among the Medina folk: they are obstinate in hypocrisy: thou knowest them not: We know them: twice shall We punish them: and in addition shall they be sent to a grievous penalty."

"Others (there are who) have acknowledged their wrong-doings: they have mixed an act that was good with another that was evil. Perhaps Allah will turn unto them (in Mercy): for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

What in the above makes the arabs to be the worst in disbelief and hypocrisy? I read that Muhmmad was sent as a Prophet among the Arab nation, their issues were discussed as were the issues of everyone else throughout the Quran.

And Btw if you accept the above translations of the Quran then how do you deny Muhammad as being an Arab in Arabia? Kindly explain.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 02:18:16 PM
Do you just read 9:97 or do you read after that as well. Let me quote the whole thing:

"And there were, among the desert Arabs (also), men who made excuses and came to claim exemption; and those who were false to Allah and His Messenger (merely) sat inactive. Soon will a grievous penalty seize the Unbelievers among them."

"There is no blame on those who are infirm, or ill, or who find no resources to spend (on the cause), if they are sincere (in duty) to Allah and His Messenger: no ground (of complaint) can there be against such as do right: and Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."

"Nor (is there blame) on those who came to thee to be provided with mounts, and when thou saidst, "I can find no mounts for you," they turned back, their eyes streaming with tears of grief that they had no resources wherewith to provide the expenses."

"The ground (of complaint) is against such as claim exemption while they are rich. They prefer to stay with the (women) who remain behind: Allah hath sealed their hearts; so they know not (What they miss)."

"They will present their excuses to you when ye return to them. Say thou: "Present no excuses: we shall not believe you: Allah hath already informed us of the true state of matters concerning you: It is your actions that Allah and His Messenger will observe: in the end will ye be brought back to Him Who knoweth what is hidden and what is open: then will He show you the truth of all that ye did."

"They will swear to you by Allah, when ye return to them, that ye may leave them alone. So leave them alone: For they are an abomination, and Hell is their dwelling-place,-a fitting recompense for the (evil) that they did."

"They will swear unto you, that ye may be pleased with them but if ye are pleased with them, Allah is not pleased with those who disobey."

"The Arabs of the desert are the worst in Unbelief and hypocrisy, and most fitted to be in ignorance of the command which Allah hath sent down to His Messenger: But Allah is All-knowing, All-Wise."

"Some of the desert Arabs look upon their payments as a fine, and watch for disasters for you: on them be the disaster of evil: for Allah is He That heareth and knoweth (all things)."

"But some of the desert Arabs believe in Allah and the Last Day, and look on their payments as pious gifts bringing them nearer to Allah and obtaining the prayers of the Messenger. Aye, indeed they bring them nearer (to Him): soon will Allah admit them to His Mercy: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."

"The vanguard (of Islam)- the first of those who forsook (their homes) and of those who gave them aid, and (also) those who follow them in (all) good deeds,- well-pleased is Allah with them, as are they with Him: for them hath He prepared gardens under which rivers flow, to dwell therein for ever: that is the supreme felicity."

"Certain of the desert Arabs round about you are hypocrites, as well as (desert Arabs) among the Medina folk: they are obstinate in hypocrisy: thou knowest them not: We know them: twice shall We punish them: and in addition shall they be sent to a grievous penalty."

"Others (there are who) have acknowledged their wrong-doings: they have mixed an act that was good with another that was evil. Perhaps Allah will turn unto them (in Mercy): for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

What in the above makes the arabs to be the worst in disbelief and hypocrisy?

And Btw if you accept the above translations of the Quran then how do you deny Muhammad as being an Arab in Arabia? Kindly explain.

"The Arabs of the desert are the worst in Unbelief and hypocrisy, and most fitted to be in ignorance of the command which Allah hath sent down to His Messenger: But Allah is All-knowing, All-Wise."

You don't understand me.  I'm not making any claims about the ethnicity of Muhammad.  It's irrelevant to know what ethnicity Muhammad had.  He may have been Arab, even most likely Arab.  But when Quran speaks about the qibla  it clearly speaks about Temple Mount.   Muhammad can be an arab while the qibla being Temple Mount.
 
Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 02:20:05 PM
PS: I disagree with your translation it does not say Arabs of the desert it says Arabs.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 02:20:28 PM
The proof is in the pudding in this case the meteorite is in the most sacred.

God instructs my qibla to be at Temple Mount in Quran.  And it fits the historical record of Jerusalem perfectly.

Peace

What proof is in what pudding? Kindly show me where any muslim sect worships the meteorite.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 02:21:22 PM
If you don't feel offended by a meteorite rock being placed in your qibla, in the most sacred most likely you belong to the sect I'm speaking about.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 02:23:04 PM
Temple Mount is where my faith started.  Where did your faith start?  In some backwarded village in the desert no one even heared of, not even the jews?

The most sacred of Temple Mount is that it is the place where the abrahamic faith began.  Not some meteorite a random nobody placed there to make it look more special.

What will you answer when God confronts you on the Last Day with your ritual of facing a meteorite instead of the qibla God appointed to Ibrahim, and every other messenger after him?

Peace

What does it matter if my faith started in a backward village? What does God or religion have to do with it? Should the next faith start in the Burj Khalifa?
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 02:25:20 PM
"The Arabs of the desert are the worst in Unbelief and hypocrisy, and most fitted to be in ignorance of the command which Allah hath sent down to His Messenger: But Allah is All-knowing, All-Wise."

You don't understand me.  I'm not making any claims about the ethnicity of Muhammad.  It's irrelevant to know what ethnicity Muhammad had.  He may have been Arab, even most likely Arab.  But when Quran speaks about the qibla  it clearly speaks about Temple Mount.   Muhammad can be an arab while the qibla being Temple Mount.
 
Peace

How does the Quran "clearly" speak about the temple mount as qibla?

You say Muhammad can be an Arab but deny that fact that there can be a city named Mecca in Arabia? Even though we all know that it exists?
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 02:25:33 PM
It does matter.  Quran speaks of pre-Quranic places known to Jews and Christians.  It's irrational to identify those places as unknown places to Jews and Christians.  If the historical record further shows no evidence of it having any religious significance, one is even more irrational to uphold that theory.

Mecca as qibla has no prequranic heritage to show for.  Jerusalem has an abundance of it.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 02:26:21 PM
If you don't feel offended by a meteorite rock being placed in your qibla, in the most sacred most likely you belong to the sect I'm speaking about.

Peace

What does a meteorite rock or a stone, or a cement block got anything to do with my belief in one God?
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 02:26:49 PM
How does the Quran "clearly" speak about the temple mount as qibla?

You say Muhammad can be an Arab but deny that fact that there can be a city named Mecca in Arabia? Even though we all know that it exists?

If I were to show you, I'm convinced you wouldn't accept my proof.  So I'm not sure I should even bother.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 02:26:53 PM
PS: I disagree with your translation it does not say Arabs of the desert it says Arabs.

Peace

It is not my translation.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 02:28:53 PM
What does a meteorite rock or a stone, or a cement block got anything to do with my belief in one God?

Well polytheists are not allowed in the masjid al haram.  It contradicts Quran where muslims are instructed to liberate masjid al haram from polytheists and ensure free entrance to all (jews were expelled from Jerusalem and had no access).

The meteorite inside the masjid haram in mecca is a symbol of polytheism.  No way God would allow such an abomination to happen at the true masjid al haram in Jerusalem.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 02:31:48 PM
It does matter.  Quran speaks of pre-Quranic places known to Jews and Christians.  It's irrational to identify those places as unknown places to Jews and Christians.  If the historical record further shows no evidence of it having any religious significance, one is even more irrational to uphold that theory.

Mecca as qibla has no prequranic heritage to show for.  Jerusalem has an abundance of it.

Peace

The Qur'an emphasizes the fact that it is a "reminder" to mankind. It is a reminder about the many many things that the jews and Christians have long forgotten about. Including the Kaaba at Mecca being of historical importance.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 02:33:05 PM
If I were to show you, I'm convinced you wouldn't accept my proof.  So I'm not sure I should even bother.

Peace

Thats ok ... Just give me your proof and let me decide.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 02:33:07 PM
The Qur'an emphasizes the fact that it is a "reminder" to mankind. It is a reminder about the many many things that the jews and Christians have long forgotten about. Including the Kaaba at Mecca being of historical importance.

Here you are persisting the entire historical record and all jews have some giant conspiracy that involves lying about Jerusalem and their acceptance/even knowledge of mecca at that time and before it.  Good luck with that.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 02:33:37 PM
Thats ok ... Just give me your proof and let me decide.

Bro to be honest I don't think I have the energy atm to start explaining.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 02:35:02 PM
I will  post a link here with a message that covers my understanding a bit...
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 02:35:11 PM
Well polytheists are not allowed in the masjid al haram.  It contradicts Quran where muslims are instructed to liberate masjid al haram from polytheists and ensure free entrance to all (jews were expelled from Jerusalem and had no access).

The meteorite inside the masjid haram in mecca is a symbol of polytheism.  No way God would allow such an abomination to happen at the true masjid al haram in Jerusalem.

Peace

Again with your stawman arguments. Lets start with you showing me a sect of Islam that actually worships the meteorite and we'll go on from there. ok?
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 02:37:43 PM
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604467.170

Find my posts in that thread to get an idea what I'm talking about.  If not read Quran and properly try to read what it says without the pre-indoctrinated hadith concepts of change of hadith and the understanding of masjid al haram to be the one at mecca.  Then look at the objective truth of what quran tells you.  You will find there was never any change in qibla.  Neither is mecca mentioned as the qibla.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 02:38:52 PM
Here you are persisting the entire historical record and all jews have some giant conspiracy that involves lying about Jerusalem and their acceptance/even knowledge of mecca at that time and before it.  Good luck with that.

Peace

You have no issue persisting that the whole Muslim world conspired to create a Mecca in Arabia where (according to you) none existed, do you? But you lay more importance on Jewish history when they have not even 1/1000th  the historical record to back up any of their claims?
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 02:39:17 PM
Again with your stawman arguments. Lets start with you showing me a sect of Islam that actually worships the meteorite and we'll go on from there. ok?

What is the significance of mecca to you outside the meteorite?  Abraham never was there.  There is no historical record of it being a destination of pilgrimage.  The place is unknown to the other abrahamic faiths?  Why is mecca your qibla if not for the rock?  And which arguments do you have to support it?  Quranically and historically?

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 02:40:21 PM
You have no issue persisting that the whole Muslim world conspired to create a Mecca in Arabia where (according to you) none existed, do you? But you lay more importance on Jewish history when they have not even 1/1000th  the historical record to back up any of their claims?

The dome of the rock is a giant proof the early muslims knew very well about its significance.  So do the qiblas of the earliest mosques tell a true story.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 02:42:21 PM
See if you make arguments like jewish history vs islamic history you are giving proof of being a sectarian in the abrahamic faith.

There is only one God.  One Abraham.  One faith.  Wake up bro and smell the coffee!

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 02:43:26 PM
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604467.170

Find my posts in that thread to get an idea what I'm talking about.  If not read Quran and properly try to read what it says without the pre-indoctrinated hadith concepts of change of hadith and the understanding of masjid al haram to be the one at mecca.  Then look at the objective truth of what quran tells you.  You will find there was never any change in qibla.  Neither is mecca mentioned as the qibla.

Peace

Why are you sending me to another link? I asked you to simply mention an Islamic sect that worships the meteorite.

You accept that Muhammad was an arab, but don't want to accept that there ever existed a place called Mecca in the Hijaz. Kindly link your proof of it here as I don't have the time or patience to go through dozens of your postings on this website.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 02:46:00 PM
See if you make arguments like jewish history vs islamic history you are giving proof of being a sectarian in the abrahamic faith.

There is only one God.  One Abraham.  One faith.  Wake up bro and smell the coffee!

Peace

There is only one God and only one Abraham. The accuracy of the jewish historical record is another thing and nothing o do with the faith in God.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 02:46:13 PM
Why are you sending me to another link? I asked you to simply mention an Islamic sect that worships the meteorite.

You accept that Muhammad was an arab, but don't want to accept that there ever existed a place called Mecca in the Hijaz. Kindly link your proof of it here as I don't have the time or patience to go through dozens of your postings on this website.

Because I get tired of repeating myself.  You asked for me to give proof of Temple Mount being the qibla, I gave you the thread were I elaborate it.  READ IT.


You are still misquoting me, AGAIN I'm not saying mecca didn't exist, i'm saying:

1. mecca is not mentioned in quran as the qiblah
2. mecca was historically insignificant in that time period in all regards
3. Don't be a lazy ass and read the link I gave you, thank you.

I suggest you read all my posts to understand what I'm saying in that thread most crucially this one http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604467.170

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 02:50:35 PM
What is the significance of mecca to you outside the meteorite?  Abraham never was there.  There is no historical record of it being a destination of pilgrimage.  The place is unknown to the other abrahamic faiths?  Why is mecca your qibla if not for the rock?  And which arguments do you have to support it?  Quranically and historically?

Peace

The other Abrahamic faiths lost the true path. Had they been on the true guidance there would not even have been a need for the Quran. The Quran is not only a guidance but also a reminder to mankind.

Mecca is my Qibla because the last Prophet of God showed his followers what the Qibla is. He was not made leader of a vast nation for no reason. God made him a national leader for a reason. You would understand it if only you allow your heart to believe in the message of God.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 02:53:03 PM
What does Quran say about the Qibla?  Bakka! Not Mecca, Bakka!

Look in the old testament and look for the same root word qbl and you will find another reference to Bakka, a valley one passes on the way to temple mount.  You will find another occurrence referring to Jerusalem.  Who were those Christians and Polytheists in Mecca?  There were no christians in mecca bro!  There were christians in Jerusalem and Persians (polytheists) during the life of Muhammad.  Jerusalem was conquered without shedding blood just like Quran instructs.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 02:53:59 PM
The dome of the rock is a giant proof the early muslims knew very well about its significance.  So do the qiblas of the earliest mosques tell a true story.

Peace

No body is denyine that the dome of the rock does not have importance. What you are saying is that we must all forget the fact that our last Prophet who brought us the Quran lived in medina and then mecca, and he instructed his followers (amounting to hundreds of thousands) that mecca is the Qibla. Lets all forget that and lets all follow you on your new Qibla ... why not eh?
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 02:55:37 PM
No body is denyine that the dome of the rock does not have importance. What you are saying is that we must all forget the fact that our last Prophet who brought us the Quran lived in medina and then mecca, and he instructed his followers (amounting to hundreds of thousands) that mecca is the Qibla. Lets all forget that and lets all follow you on your new Qibla ... why not eh?

The change in Qibla is a hadith lie.  Why would God appoint two qiblas for one faith under one God?

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 02:56:51 PM
Please provide the quranic verse that says Jerusalem is no longer the qibla, it will be mecca now.

Thank you!
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 03:01:53 PM
Because I get tired of repeating myself.  You asked for me to give proof of Temple Mount being the qibla, I gave you the thread were I elaborate it.  READ IT.


You are still misquoting me, AGAIN I'm not saying mecca didn't exist, i'm saying:

1. mecca is not mentioned in quran as the qiblah
2. mecca was historically insignificant in that time period in all regards
3. Don't be a lazy ass and read the link I gave you, thank you.

I suggest you read all my posts to understand what I'm saying in that thread most crucially this one http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604467.170

Peace

"1. mecca is not mentioned in quran as the qiblah"

And the temple mount is? Is that what you're saying?

"2. mecca was historically insignificant in that time period in all regards"

Mecca was and is historically very important before and after the advent of Islam. It was a place for religious congregation of other faiths before the Muhammad spread his message, and that is history which is not denied by anyone other than self appointed historians and linguists of free minds forum. Historians with much greater knowledge than you have not denied the fact.

"3. Don't be a lazy ass and read the link I gave you, thank you."

No thankyou, I neither have the time nor the patience to go through the delusions of self appointed historians.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 03:02:52 PM
Please provide the quranic verse that says Jerusalem is no longer the qibla, it will be mecca now.

Thank you!

Please provide the verse that Jerusalem ever was the Qibla to begin with.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 03:04:10 PM
"1. mecca is not mentioned in quran as the qiblah"

And the temple mount is? Is that what you're saying?

"2. mecca was historically insignificant in that time period in all regards"

Mecca was and is historically very important before and after the advent of Islam. It was a place for religious congregation of other faiths before the Muhammad spread his message, and that is history which is not denied by anyone other than self appointed historians and linguists of free minds forum. Historians with much greater knowledge than you have not denied the fact.

"3. Don't be a lazy ass and read the link I gave you, thank you."

No thankyou, I neither have the time nor the patience to go through the delusions of self appointed historians.

Yes that's what I'm saying.  I'm not inventing history bro the revolt against heraclius and the sassanid conquer of Jerusalem is well documented.  The collaboration of jews with polytheists (sassanids) as well.  So is the the islamic conquer of Jerusalem documented.   I guess you are just afraid to look at the evidence.  To me it's equal just know I think you are a fool that prays in the direction of a meteorite.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 03:04:34 PM
The change in Qibla is a hadith lie.  Why would God appoint two qiblas for one faith under one God?

Peace

Qibla is only a direction of Prayer. It can be where ever God says that it is. If you have a problem, then take it up with God.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 03:05:54 PM
Qibla is only a direction of Prayer. It can be where ever God says that it is. If you have a problem, then take it up with God.

I'm convinced God will take this up with you sometime :-)
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 03:06:45 PM
Yes that's what I'm saying.  I'm not inventing history bro the revolt against heraclius and the sassanid conquer of Jerusalem is well documented.  The collaboration of jews with polytheists (sassanids) as well.  So is the the islamic conquer of Jerusalem documented.   I guess you are just afraid to look at the evidence.  To me it's equal just know I think you are a fool that prays in the direction of a meteorite.

Peace

To be honest I have no idea what you're saying or what your trying to prove with this post. Kindly elaborate.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 03:07:49 PM
You already showed you are unwilling to look at counterevidence when I linked you the thread where I elaborate it.  It's still there for you to find.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 03:09:47 PM
I'm convinced God will take this up with you sometime :-)

Can you plz refer to me the verse where God says in the Quran that Jerusalem was ever a Qibla for the Mualims? Is this not something you have taken from the hadith literature while at the same time ignoring that the hadith says that the new Qibla is Kaaba in mecca?
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 03:13:36 PM
You already showed you are unwilling to look at counterevidence when I linked you the thread where I elaborate it.  It's still there for you to find.

Peace

If there was counter evidence then I would look at it. I do not look at conjecture or a person hopeful assumptions on historical issues.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 03:15:44 PM
Can you plz refer to me the verse where God says in the Quran that Jerusalem was ever a Qibla for the Mualims? Is this not something you have taken from the hadith literature while at the same time ignoring that the hadith says that the new Qibla is Kaaba in mecca?

"The first House (of worship) appointed for men was that at Bibakkata (Bakkah): Blessed and a guidance for all kinds of beings" 003.096

Psalm 84

84.1        How amiable are thy tabernacles, O LORD of hosts!
84.2        My soul longeth, yea, even fainteth for the courts of the LORD: my heart and my flesh crieth out for the living God.
84.3        Yea, the sparrow hath found an house, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she may lay her young, even thine altars, O LORD of hosts, my King, and my God.
84.4        Blessed are they that dwell in thy house: they will be still praising thee. Selah.
84.5        Blessed is the man whose strength is in thee; in whose heart are the ways of them.

84.6        Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 03:16:31 PM
You are only showing signs of prejudice when you are calling my arguments in that thread conjecture BEFORE even looking at them. 

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 03:19:34 PM
"The first House (of worship) appointed for men was that at Bibakkata (Bakkah): Blessed and a guidance for all kinds of beings" 003.096

Psalm 84

84.1        How amiable are thy tabernacles, O LORD of hosts!
84.2        My soul longeth, yea, even fainteth for the courts of the LORD: my heart and my flesh crieth out for the living God.
84.3        Yea, the sparrow hath found an house, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she may lay her young, even thine altars, O LORD of hosts, my King, and my God.
84.4        Blessed are they that dwell in thy house: they will be still praising thee. Selah.
84.5        Blessed is the man whose strength is in thee; in whose heart are the ways of them.

84.6        Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools.

Peace

And Bakah and mecca don't seem to ring a bell for you? Especially considering the fact that mecca lies within a valley? If 500 years down the line someone mentioned bombay, would we not associate that with mumbai of today?
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 03:21:01 PM
Lmao is that your argument seriously?  The M and B can be interchanged at will?  I guess that is how one who prays in the direction of a STONE would read Quran, aye!

It is not mecca.  Mecca was never called Baca.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 03:23:59 PM
Baca is a known place in Jerusalem.  Mentioned in the Old Testament as well.  If both Quran and Old Testament refer to the same Baca wouldn't you agree it speaks about Baca and not Mecca?

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: hawk99 on July 25, 2015, 03:25:55 PM
Lmao is that your argument seriously?  The M and B can be interchanged at will?  I guess that is how one who prays in the direction of a STONE would read Quran, aye!

It is not mecca.  Mecca was never called Baca.

Peace

Peace runninglikezebras, which direction do you face during prayer?

God bless you


              :peace:
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 03:26:12 PM
Lmao is that your argument seriously?  The M and B can be interchanged at will?  I guess that is how one who prays in the direction of a STONE would read Quran, aye!

It is not mecca.  Mecca was never called Baca.

Peace

Yes actually that is my argument because it makes sense if you've ever read history related to many cities in the world. I belong to Peshawar city, it was called Puruṣapura in ancient times and it is still called Pekhawar today by many people. Mumbai of today was bombay of just a decade ago. Names of places may change slightly. That is not something any historian worth his salt would ever disagree with. You are an amateur and trying to look at these issues through amaturish goggles. That is why you find issues where none actually exist.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 03:30:38 PM
Baca is a known place in Jerusalem.  Mentioned in the Old Testament as well.  If both Quran and Old Testament refer to the same Baca wouldn't you agree it speaks about Baca and not Mecca?

Peace

Baka of jerusalum was established in the late 19th century. And its official name is Geulim. So yea, I do not compare this place to Mecca or becca of the Quran.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 03:33:10 PM
Peace runninglikezebras, which direction do you face during prayer?

God bless you


              :peace:

Jerusalem.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 03:34:11 PM
Even before I ever read Quran Jerusalem was like a magnet to me.   I hope you understand this confusion is inexplicable to me.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 03:35:39 PM
Yes actually that is my argument because it makes sense if you've ever read history related to many cities in the world. I belong to Peshawar city, it was called Puruṣapura in ancient times and it is still called Pekhawar today by many people. Mumbai of today was bombay of just a decade ago. Names of places may change slightly. That is not something any historian worth his salt would ever disagree with. You are an amateur and trying to look at these issues through amaturish goggles. That is why you find issues where none actually exist.

Well you have a problem with conjecture but here you are making a conjecture yourself: find proof of mecca ever being called baca.  Once you find it, it stops being conjecture.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 03:38:33 PM
Baka of jerusalum was established in the late 19th century. And its official name is Geulim. So yea, I do not compare this place to Mecca or becca of the Quran.

This is an outright lie.  Historical source?

The Baca valley is a geographical feature in the Jerusalem landscape that has never been known otherwise.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 03:43:11 PM
Well you have a problem with conjecture but here you are making a conjecture yourself: find proof of mecca ever being called baca.  Once you find it, it stops being conjecture.

Peace

I'm not the one claiming that the mecca of today never existed as the qibla for Muslims. Overwhelming historical record show that Islam started from Mecca in the Hijaz. It is you claiming to have knowledge to oppose the majority view. Hence it is up to you to prove your point.

You claim baka in jerusalem, I say this place did not even exist at that time. Prove me wrong.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 03:46:08 PM
This is an outright lie.  Historical source?

The Baca valley is a geographical feature in the Jerusalem landscape that has never been known otherwise.

Peace

Can you give me any historical proof to back up your claim to this baca valley being in jerusalem?
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 03:59:44 PM
There is no historical record of Islam starting in the Hijaz region except for hadith fabrications of which the earliest date 300 years after muhammads death.

Old Testament evidence:

The word Baca is derived from the root which means to weep, but it nowhere means weeping, for which words of a different form are used. Here, as in 2 Samuel 5:23, it probably denotes some kind of balsam-tree, so called from the ?tears? of gum which it exudes. The vale of Baca or the balsam-trees was some vale which, like the vale of Elah or the terebinth (1 Samuel 17:2), and the vale of Shittim or acacias, took its name from the trees which grew there. Balsam-trees are said to love dry situations, growing plentifully for example in the arid valley of Mecca; and this is clearly the point of the reference. The vale of Baca was some waterless and barren valley through which pilgrims passed on their way to Jerusalem; but faith turns it into a place of springs, finding refreshment under the most untoward circumstances, while God refreshes them with showers of blessing from above, as the autumnal rains clothe the dry plains with grass and flowers.

This confirms the Jews knew of a Baca in Jerusalem.

Quran, as demonstrated also mentions Baca.  Confirming, not rejecting the Jewish concept. Where is your proof this Baca of the jews is the wrong baca but should be mecca?

For me this is sufficient proof.  Quran mentions the same place, and doesn't state the Jewish are placing this baca wrongly.  Logic demands it must refer to Jerusalem.

Peace

Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: huruf on July 25, 2015, 04:02:33 PM
Bakka, double k, cannot be the same as any Baka, single K.

Salaam
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 04:11:38 PM
For an imported word denoting a placename the double K is possible.  Baca imported from hebrew into arabic can undergo that kind of change. 

You think it is coincidence both verses in Old Testament and Quran using that placename attach the same symbolic value: Gods first House?



Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 04:14:24 PM
There is no historical record of Islam starting in the Hijaz region except for hadith fabrications of which the earliest date 300 years back.

There is no record of Islam starting from Hijaz? Other than the fact that it was a vast nation which spread throughout the world within a few decades of the Prophets death and they brought their history with them. Are you really trying to say that this vast nation of people one day sat together and decided that we will lie to the world that we came from the Hijaz while we actually came from ______ (fill in the blank). Or are you saying that this nation of Muslims never even existed and that also is a figment of our imagination?

Old Testament evidence:

The word Baca is derived from the root which means to weep, but it nowhere means weeping, for which words of a different form are used. Here, as in 2 Samuel 5:23, it probably denotes some kind of balsam-tree, so called from the ?tears? of gum which it exudes. The vale of Baca or the balsam-trees was some vale which, like the vale of Elah or the terebinth (1 Samuel 17:2), and the vale of Shittim or acacias, took its name from the trees which grew there. Balsam-trees are said to love dry situations, growing plentifully for example in the arid valley of Mecca; and this is clearly the point of the reference. The vale of Baca was some waterless and barren valley through which pilgrims passed on their way to Jerusalem; but faith turns it into a place of springs, finding refreshment under the most untoward circumstances, while God refreshes them with showers of blessing from above, as the autumnal rains clothe the dry plains with grass and flowers.

This confirms the Jews knew of a Baca in Jerusalem.

Quran, as demonstrated also mentions Baca.  Confirming, not rejecting the Jewish concept. Where is your proof this Baca of the jews is the wrong baca but should be mecca?

For me this is sufficient proof.  Quran mentions the same place, and doesn't state the Jewish are placing this baca wrongly.  Logic demands it must refer to Jerusalem.

Peace

Since you didn't have any actual historian backing up your claim to baca ever being a place in Jerusalem, you decided to refer to the bible? Is that your proof? The Quran corrects the bible, and the Torah, it does not confirm it.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 04:14:48 PM
?The Valley of Rephaim lay southwest of Jerusalem and formed part of the boundary between Judah and Benjamin (Joshua 15:8). It may correspond to the ?Valley of Baca? (Psalm 84:6), due to the balsam trees that were there (1 Chronicles 14:14-15). These are named, literally, ?weepers? because of their drops of milky sap.? (Payne)
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 04:16:44 PM
There is no record of Islam starting from Hijaz? Other than the fact that it was a vast nation which spread throughout the world within a few decades of the Prophets death and they brought their history with them. Are you really trying to say that this vast nation of people one day sat together and decided that we will lie to the world that we came from the Hijaz while we actually came from ______ (fill in the blank). Or are you saying that this nation of Muslims never even existed and that also is a figment of our imagination?

Since you didn't have any actual historian backing up your claim to baca ever being a place in Jerusalem, you decided to refer to the bible? Is that your proof?

I'm saying the early muslims had mixed ethnicity, arab, jewish, persian and god knows what else.  I don't deny the later caliphs were mostly arab-centered.  But well we know what Quran says about Arabs and their faith...

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 04:18:42 PM
You still have some questions to answer OnlyOneGodButMultipelQiblas...

Where does Quran say: this baca the Jewish believe is not the right baca it should be mecca.

Who are the christians Quran mentions being at the Qiblah?  Christians in mecca at that time?  Seriously?

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 04:20:10 PM
Another question, if you say the m and b are interchangeable, how do you explain the other reference the sectarians distort uses an M and not a B for the supposedly the same placename?  Does Quran contradict?

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 04:20:33 PM
I'm saying the early muslims had mixed ethnicity, arab, jewish, persian and god knows what else.  I don't deny the later caliphs were mostly arab-centered.  But well we know what Quran says about Arabs and their faith...

Peace

So this mixed ethnicity of arabs, jewish, persian etc got together and decided to create an imaginary place called Mecca. Then decided to make the whole muslim world believe that Islam started from that place. Then forced people to call it their qibla.

When and how did this all actually take place?
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 04:22:04 PM
You can read the history of that in the biographies of the early caliphs.  None of which who were appointed by God.

My dear friend at the time Quran was written THERE WAS NO MASJID AL HARAM in mecca!  They constructed this later, put a meteorite in it.  Returned to their arab pagan ways.  Like Quran says some of them will turn on their heels and continue their old polytheistic ways.  I consider you one of them.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 04:23:19 PM
Another question, if you say the m and b are interchangeable, how do you explain the other reference the sectarians distort uses an M and not a B for the supposedly the same placename?  Does Quran contradict?

Peace

I'm not saying that Quran contradicts, I'm saying that the name of a place may change over time. Especially when this place became more widely mentioned by people of other nations and arabs of other dialects.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 04:23:28 PM
The entire architecture of the masjid al haram in Mecca is a copy of the second temple that used to be in Jersulem.  Can't you see?  Which is older the second temple or the masjid al haram in mecca?

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 04:24:02 PM
I'm not saying that Quran contradicts, I'm saying that the name of a place may change over time. Especially when this place became more widely mentioned by people of other nations and arabs of other dialects.

It may change over time but no way God will use an m here and a b there to denote the same placename.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 04:26:08 PM
You can read the history of that in the biographies of the early caliphs.  None of which who were appointed by God.

My dear friend at the time Quran was written THERE WAS NO MASJID AL HARAM in mecca!  They constructed this later, put a meteorite in it.  Returned to their arab pagan ways.  Like Quran says some of them will turn on their heels and continue their old polytheistic ways.  I consider you one of them.

Peace

Well Allah also talks about people who deal in conjecture. You are trying to make things up without any proof. Good luck with that, i'm sure you'll find many followers.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 04:26:30 PM
I feel like when you are looking at masjid al haram I'm looking at you like you are person who is looking at a replica ferrari with a volkswagen engine under the hood.  But you don't seem to take my word it's not a ferrari.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 04:27:11 PM
Well Allah also talks about people who deal in conjecture. You are trying to make things up without any proof. Good luck with that, i'm sure you'll find many followers.

Not interested in followers.  I'll leave the mass recruiting to the rock-worshippers.  The way it's meant to be.  Consider me a witness.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 04:27:23 PM
It may change over time but no way God will use an m here and a b there to denote the same placename.

Peace

God used the correct place name. You simply do not want to accept it.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 04:28:39 PM
So God used makkatah to say mecca and in the other surah bakka to speak about the same place, both being mecca.  You sir have the mind of an irrational goldfish.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 04:31:35 PM
Don't you think when God uses a B God means B not M?

Either it's B or M one place can't possibly be referred to with different root word letters.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 04:33:41 PM
So God used makkatah to say mecca and in the other surah bakka to speak about the same place, both being mecca.  You sir have the mind of an irrational goldfish.

Peace

Both were mentioned so that people like you today would maybe understand. Peshawar of mine may be called pekhawar and no one would object as they are the name of the same place used in different dialects of Pashto or Pukhto. The fact that you can't understand is your own short coming. Nothing to with the message of God.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 04:37:03 PM
Both were mentioned so that people like you today would maybe understand. Peshawar of mine may be called pekhawar and no one would object as they are the name of the same place used in different dialects of Pashto or Pukhto. The fact that you can't understand is your own short coming. Nothing to with the message of God.

Any other examples of this phenomenon in Quran using proper nouns?  Give me one example of a placename in Quran that allows swapping of the M and B.  Does Quran call Ibrahim "Imrahib"?  It doesn't.  Does Quran call Musa "Busa" as well?  It doesn't.  Where is your proof this change in root form still allows to mean the same identification?

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 04:38:33 PM
The objective truth is you can't just swap an M for a B.  Either you accept that fact and agree they denote different things OR you admit you believe quran is no longer intact and preserved and writing errors were made.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Hizbullah on July 25, 2015, 04:45:32 PM

If you adhere to the faith of Abraham, there is no confusion about the qibla.  There is only one.


I concur with you on this 100%
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 04:45:54 PM
Any other examples of this phenomenon in Quran using proper nouns?  Give me one example of a placename in Quran that allows swapping of the M and B.  Does Quran call Ibrahim "Imrahib"?  It doesn't.  Does Quran call Musa "Busa" as well?  It doesn't.  Where is your proof this change in root form still allows to mean the same identification?

Peace

At the time the Quran was revealed there were many tribes of arabs this message was being conveyed to, and other than them were many non arabs who either lived there or traded there, who would have accepted islam. You are assuming that none of them used bakka for mecca. It is quite possible that many did do so, and hence the use of both words. This is more plausible than your version which puts bakka to be in Jerusalem, which no historian or actual historical record ever shows to be true.

There was never ever a bakka in Jerusalem but there was a Mecca in the Hijaz. What is more plausible?
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 04:47:59 PM
To turn to your faith I would have to overcome the following obstacles:

1.  No historical record for mecca during Muhammads lifetime.  Literally none.
2. Masjid al haram is built by later caliphs.  No evidence of a masjid al haram at Mecca during Muhammads lifetime.  Literally none.
3. I don't like to face a meaningless rock while praying.  I'd like to face the place my faith was given to me.  The first House of God.  Known to Abraham and every prophet in his lineage.
4. I would have to accept the Quran contains mistakes in spelling and thus meaning.  I would have to doubt every word in quran if one can just mistake an M for a B any mistake is possible.  I strongly believe Quran is protected.
5. I can't logically accept one God to install multiple qiblas. 
6. How can I acknowledge a qibla that was never acknowledged by any prophet except the hadith version of muhammad?

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Hizbullah on July 25, 2015, 04:49:22 PM
There is a Kaaba in the Grand Mosque of Sanaa

http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9603432.0
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 04:50:14 PM
At the time the Quran was revealed there were many tribes of arabs this message was being conveyed to, and other than them were many non arabs who either lived there or traded there, who would have accepted islam. You are assuming that none of them used bakka for mecca. It is quite possible that many did do so, and hence the use of both words. This is more plausible than your version which puts bakka to be in Jerusalem, which no historian or actual historical record ever shows to be true.

There was never ever a bakka in Jerusalem but there was a Mecca in the Hijaz. What is more plausible?

The Old Testament which predates Quran mentions Bakka in relation to mount Zion, Jerusalem.  It did exist as the old scriptures confirm and was known to Jews.  Your claim it didn't ever exist in Jerusalem is just your opinion.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 04:55:19 PM
Now please answer the question you have been trying to avoid.  When mentioning the qibla, Quran mentions jews, christians and polytheists.  Are you claiming there were christians in the hijaz region?  If you do, I'm afraid you are not mentally sane.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 05:01:39 PM
The Hijaz [Arabian peninsula] had not been touched by Christian preaching. Hence organisation of the Christian church was neither to be expected nor found.[3]

This is also mentioned in the books dealing with Christianity among Arabs in pre-Islamic times from the point of view of poets.

The testimony of poets to the influence of Christianity in a spiritual and a sociological sense is negative.[4]

Dr. Nab?h Aqel, a Professor of Arabic and Islamic History in the University of Damascus, states in his book Tar?kh al-Arab al-Qad?m:

The big difference between Christianity and Judaism is that Christianity unlike Judaism didn?t have any bases in Hijaz , Christianity was an external source of enlightenment echoed in Hijaz either by missionary activities form Ethiopia, Syria and Iraq or from Alheerah?s Christian centres; dair Hind al-Kubra [the order of Hind al-Kubra] ? Um Amro al-Mundhir [the order of Um Ammro] ? Dair Hind al-Sugra [the order of Hind al-Sugra] or from some of the scattered churches in Bahrain, al-Yamamah and Yemen.[5]

An observation from the point of view of Islamic traditions had been made by Richard Bell quite a long time ago. He says that

?in spite of traditions to the effect that the picture of Jesus was found on one of the pillars of Ka?aba, there is no good evidence of any seats of Christianity in the Hijaz or in the near neighbourhood of Makkah or even of Madina.[6]

Sir William Muir, despite being known as a harsh critic of Islam, admits that

The legend, that the image of Jesus and the Virgin was sculptured on a pillar of the Kaa`ba, and adored by the Arabs, is not an early or a well supported one, and in itself is improbable. Christianity never found much favour at Mecca?[7]
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 05:00:44 PM
Edit: Double post
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 05:02:31 PM
To turn to your faith I would have to overcome the following obstacles:

1.  No historical record for mecca during Muhammads lifetime.  Literally none.
2. Masjid al haram is built by later caliphs.  No evidence of a masjid al haram at Mecca during Muhammads lifetime.  Literally none.

There is an abundance of historical record, you simply do not want to accept it.

3. I don't like to face a meaningless rock while praying.  I'd like to face the place my faith was given to me.  The first House of God.  Known to Abraham and every prophet in his lineage.

Is the temple mount also not a rock and hence as meaningless (or meaningful) as the Kaaba?

4. I would have to accept the Quran contains mistakes in spelling and thus meaning.  I would have to doubt every word in quran if one can just mistake an M for a B any mistake is possible.  I strongly believe Quran is protected.

You seem to want it to contain mistakes although it does not. It mentions the same name in the most used dialects of the time when the Quran was revealed.

5. I can't logically accept one God to install multiple qiblas.

Whats wrong with whatever Qibla your God tells you to pray towards. Why do you think that the baca of the bible cannot be the bakka or mecca of the Quran, located in the Hijaz? What do you actually have against this location which turns you off.

 
6. How can I acknowledge a qibla that was never acknowledged by any prophet except the hadith version of muhammad?

That is your own strawman. How about proving it?

[/quote]
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 05:05:16 PM
See above all historians agree there was no christian influence in the hijaz region.  Who were those christians in mecca during Muhammads lifetime?  Did you just invent those?

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 05:07:04 PM
So far we can see for you an M can mean a B in Quran and vice versa.  Not only this, you claim there was a christian influence in the Hijaz region in contradiction with pretty much every historian.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 05:09:32 PM
How many jewish people do they receive at mecca on a yearly basis?  Zero.  Maybe you are worshipping a different God ;)

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 25, 2015, 05:10:07 PM
Now please answer the question you have been trying to avoid.  When mentioning the qibla, Quran mentions jews, christians and polytheists.  Are you claiming there were christians in the hijaz region?  If you do, I'm afraid you are not mentally sane.

Peace

As this is the first time you're bringing this up, I don't see how i'm avoiding this.

And what is so illogical about christians being in the Hijaz (even though I didn't even bring up this issue)? Do you have proof to claim otherwise?

OK ... now answer my question which you have been avoiding

Why is there no actual historical record of a Baca ever existing in Jerusalem. And I don't consider the books of the bible to be historical proofs.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 05:11:53 PM
As this is the first time you're bringing this up, I don't see how i'm avoiding this.

And what is so illogical about christians being in the Hijaz (even though I didn't even bring up this issue)? Do you have proof to claim otherwise?

OK ... now answer my question which you have been avoiding

Why is there no actual historical record of a Baca ever existing in Jerusalem. And I don't consider the books of the bible to be historical proofs.

The reader can establish I raised this question 3 times AND that you still avoid answering who those christians in Mecca were of which historians say there weren't any?  The historical record of Baca is the Old Testament itself. 

Quran http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=2&verse=140
Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 05:15:13 PM
Or do you say that Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants were Jews or Christians? Say, "Are you more knowing or is Allah ?" And who is more unjust than one who conceals a testimony he has from Allah ? And Allah is not unaware of what you do.

You bro are one saying Abraham and Ishmael were Jews or Christians.  You have your own qibla now, not one which was acknowledged by Abraham, nor Ishmael, nor Isaac nor Jacob or their descendants.  We know the qibla of the descendants: Jerusalem.


Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 05:20:05 PM
The christians many times referred to in Quran can NOT be identified as an influence in the Hijaz region.  However we do know the Byzantine empire was christian and controlled Jerusalem during Muhammads lifetime after losing and gaining it back.  Ultimately losing it to Muslims.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: huruf on July 25, 2015, 06:20:20 PM
For an imported word denoting a placename the double K is possible.  Baca imported from hebrew into arabic can undergo that kind of change. 

You think it is coincidence both verses in Old Testament and Quran using that placename attach the same symbolic value: Gods first House?



Peace

Anything can undego any change, but you have to prove it it has undergone that change. You cannot make at will a thing bein derived from another just like that, You may think it could have been sobut you have to show how, why, and when. It is by no means anything straightfoward or at leas produce several other instances of what you say.

Bakka is a perfectly Arabic word, just la Makka. To make it anything else and derived fromanother language you have to bring some substance and not mere personal conjecture, otherwise it is useless.

Salaam
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 06:24:41 PM
@huruf you expose yourself as one that has never challenged the traditionalist views and is totally unaware of the western scholarly work done studying the etymology of Quran.  Even some sunni scholars had the courage to admit many of these words are indeed foreign.  I could quote some scholars who all studied the etymology of many quranic words. 

Eg:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christoph_Luxenberg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Jeffery
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siegmund_Fraenkel_(Semitist) (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siegmund_Fraenkel_(Semitist))

But quoting those scholars would give you the impression I also agree with their conclusions.  I don't.  But I do agree on the massive amount of evidence of foreign imports inside the Quranic vocabularium.

You are still living in some wonderland in which every word of Quran is originally arabic and arab scholars can explain all the grammar and every spelling of every word in Quran.  You need a reality check.  They can't using arab only.  Imports between languages are frequent and very common.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 25, 2015, 06:45:31 PM
There are many examples of similar imports.  Check any name of any messenger also known to the Jews and you will see a similar phenomenon.  Including how it affects the inflection of the word.

Quote
Changes in spelling
Words taken into different recipient languages are sometimes spelled as in the donor language (such as many of the terms above). Sometimes borrowed words retain original (or near-original) pronunciation, but undergo a spelling change to represent the orthography of the recipient language. Welsh is a language where this is done with some consistency, with words like g?m (game), cwl (cool), and ded-gifawe (dead giveaway). The French expression "cul de sac" (meaning "dead end" or "no through road") is used in English as is, with the same meaning but a spelling pronunciation: the 'l' is mute in French but enunciated in English.

This import only suffered a change in spelling to fit the arab orthography.  Not a change in meaning nor in pronunciation.  Baca imported to bacca is way more plausible than mecca to bacca wouldn't you agree?

Even the name Allah itself in Quran has foreign roots.

Quote
from the Aramaic/Syriac alaha, meaning 'God' or 'the God'.
The final 'a' in the name alaha was originally the definite article
'the' and is regularly dropped when Syriac words and names are
borrowed into Arabic. Middle-eastern Christianity used 'alah' and
'alaha' frequently, and it would have often been heard. 

But in the Aramaic/Syriac language there are two different 'a' vowels,
one rather like the 'a' in English 'hat' and the other more like the
vowel in 'ought'.  In the case of 'alah', the first vowel was like
'hat' and the second like 'ought'. Arabic does not have a vowel like
the one in 'ought', but it seems to have BORROWED this vowel along
with the word 'alah'.  If you know Arabic, then you know that the
second vowel in 'allah' is unique; it occurs only in that one word
in Arabic.

Another import from Aramaic another doubling of a consonant triggered by the ambiguity of the 'a' vowel.  Same phenomenon with "baca". alaha  (aram) -> allah (arab) | baca (aramaic) -> bacca (arab)

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: huruf on July 25, 2015, 08:08:49 PM
Salaam Runninglike...

I am not interested in your conjetures about me at all, so if you can spare them so much the better because once I see where you are going I do not read further.

I requested you some things very specific, if you are not able to bring that, so that is it. Generalisations that you make over your own OPINIONS are not facts that I can use for gaining any further knowledge and I am not a child to engage in battles about who is right on this or who dares that or what this people have done or not done in this or that field. I am quite aged and independent to judge that for myself and if I think somebody's insight into something is worthwhile I will take the trouble to examine it as thouroughly as I can of my own accord, not because anybody "leads me to the straight path". But you do not bring up any such insight that I can see but rather the usual crap of your woulbe allknowers  about this and that which I have outgrown long ago. And bludgeonning me with the horrible threat of been considered a bad girl in whatever snese, leaves me cold.

In general, if you do want people to take your words into account, do not be so patronising. I do not need you to protect me from bad ones who have no knowledge and take me to the straight path and save me from ignorance. If I need a mentor I will choose it myself.

So if you have those things I mentionned to you good, if not, no use preaching to me the things that will make me acceptable to the political correctors because I am under no need to please anybody with my own view of things.

Salaam
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Man of Faith on July 25, 2015, 09:50:20 PM
Hi,

I agree with huruf. Quran contains Semitic origin words only, and is based on the usual trilateral roots. Arabic is a descriptive language and the ancient speakers referred to things in descriptive ways.

In the very past all people in this region used forms of Aramaic sharing the same roots. They were universal.

Be well
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: hawk99 on July 26, 2015, 02:48:52 AM
Even before I ever read Quran Jerusalem was like a magnet to me.   I hope you understand this confusion is inexplicable to me.

Peace

Peace runninglikezebras your qiblah being Jerusalem is just so odd.
Free-minds never ceases to amaze me!


God bless

             :peace:

Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: hicham9 on July 26, 2015, 07:09:33 AM
... massive amount of evidence of foreign imports inside the Quranic vocabularium

The claim of "foreign loanwords" in the Arabian Qurān is pure nonesense!

Aram (http://corpus.quran.com/wordmorphology.jsp?location=(89:7:1))aic is an Arabian tongue.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 26, 2015, 08:39:47 AM
Peace runninglikezebras your qiblah being Jerusalem is just so odd.
Free-minds never ceases to amaze me!


God bless

             :peace:

Peace hawk99,

Well to me a qibla that is not Jerusalem is totally weird.  If you acknowledge Abraham how can you acknowledge a qibla that was never part of Abrahams life?

How can one identify masjid al haram in Mecca when there was no such thing as a masjid in mecca at that time.

How can one identify the christians in the hijaz region when there is a total absence of christian influence in the hijaz region during that time?

How can one ignore the events happening in Jerusalem during that time period which fit the Quranic narrative like a glove? (3 main actors all present as mentioned in the surah dealing with the qibla: persians (polytheists), byzantines (christians) and muslims.

How can one ignore the old testament contains verses with the same aramaic root word qbl: all speaking of a prayer direction being Jerusalem.

How can one accept a qibla to be in mecca that does not allow jewish people only muslims in contradiction with what Quran instructs (safe access to Jews).

If you believe all those things regardless of the lack of any evidence for them, you might as well believe the Grimm fairytales are the word of God.

I'm still waiting for an answer of those who identify the qibla to be Mecca, to identify who these mysterious christians were in the hijaz region of which history has no record.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 26, 2015, 08:43:19 AM
Hi,

I agree with huruf. Quran contains Semitic origin words only, and is based on the usual trilateral roots. Arabic is a descriptive language and the ancient speakers referred to things in descriptive ways.

In the very past all people in this region used forms of Aramaic sharing the same roots. They were universal.

Be well

You agree with huruf while she denies arab contains any foreign words?  Is there any logic on this forum at all?  I'm not surprised the majority of members of a forum on the internet  dealing with religion consists largely of the delusional and irrational.  But one would expect to find a few who demonstrate some capability of rational thought.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 26, 2015, 08:51:27 AM
Salaam Runninglike...

I am not interested in your conjetures about me at all, so if you can spare them so much the better because once I see where you are going I do not read further.

I requested you some things very specific, if you are not able to bring that, so that is it. Generalisations that you make over your own OPINIONS are not facts that I can use for gaining any further knowledge and I am not a child to engage in battles about who is right on this or who dares that or what this people have done or not done in this or that field. I am quite aged and independent to judge that for myself and if I think somebody's insight into something is worthwhile I will take the trouble to examine it as thouroughly as I can of my own accord, not because anybody "leads me to the straight path". But you do not bring up any such insight that I can see but rather the usual crap of your woulbe allknowers  about this and that which I have outgrown long ago. And bludgeonning me with the horrible threat of been considered a bad girl in whatever snese, leaves me cold.

In general, if you do want people to take your words into account, do not be so patronising. I do not need you to protect me from bad ones who have no knowledge and take me to the straight path and save me from ignorance. If I need a mentor I will choose it myself.

So if you have those things I mentionned to you good, if not, no use preaching to me the things that will make me acceptable to the political correctors because I am under no need to please anybody with my own view of things.

Salaam

Don't falsely accuse me of not answering your question or being incapable of doing so.  I gave you two examples: one involving the foreign names of messengers known to jews and another example of the import of the aramaic alaha to arab.

In case you have some visual handicap here it is again:

Quote
from the Aramaic/Syriac alaha, meaning 'God' or 'the God'.
The final 'a' in the name alaha was originally the definite article
'the' and is regularly dropped when Syriac words and names are
borrowed into Arabic. Middle-eastern Christianity used 'alah' and
'alaha' frequently, and it would have often been heard. 

But in the Aramaic/Syriac language there are two different 'a' vowels,
one rather like the 'a' in English 'hat' and the other more like the
vowel in 'ought'.  In the case of 'alah', the first vowel was like
'hat' and the second like 'ought'. Arabic does not have a vowel like
the one in 'ought', but it seems to have BORROWED this vowel along
with the word 'alah'.  If you know Arabic, then you know that the
second vowel in 'allah' is unique; it occurs only in that one word
in Arabic.

Another import from Aramaic another doubling of a consonant triggered by the ambiguity of the 'a' vowel.  Same phenomenon with "baca". alaha  (aram) -> allah (arab) | baca (aramaic) -> bacca (arab)

Besides I already supported this etymology with how these proper nouns are non fully inflected denoting their foreign origin.

Is Yaqub not Jacob?  Is Ibrahim not Abraham?

@huruf do you think you have removed the hadith from your faith?  If you still are so stubborn to ignore the massive influx of hebrew, aramaic, akkadian even persian words in the Quranic vocabularium you are trying to understand Quran using the language of hadith.  Not the language of Quran.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 26, 2015, 09:09:04 AM
Again I want to stress what I'm posting is not an effort to convince anyone.  If you don't know where your qibla is, that is not my responsibility.  I'm only witness to what qibla some of you have turned on their heels for (2:143).

Make no mistake though, everyone of us at some point will be asked about their qibla.  The question will not have to be answered to me.

In a sense the false qibla at Mecca confirms Quran to me: 2:143 We make evident he who follows the messenger from he who turns back on their heels.

The masjid-al-copycat-haram in Mecca is a giant magnet, drawing moths to it like the moon, for those turning on their heels and God makes most evident who is turning.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: hawk99 on July 26, 2015, 10:11:21 AM
And thus we have made you a just community that you will be
witnesses over the people and the Messenger will be a witness over you. And
We did not make the qiblah which you used to face except that We might
make evident who would follow the Messenger from who would turn back on
his heels.
And indeed, it is difficult except for those whom Allah has guided.
And never would Allah have caused you to lose your faith. Indeed
Allah is, to the people, Kind and Merciful.

Peace runninglikezebras, so what was the qiblah we used to face
and what was the new qiblah?


God bless you



                       8)
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Man of Faith on July 26, 2015, 10:23:48 AM
I still argue that a location is not more holy than the soul on-site at any given moment. The concept of physical "focal points" is totally not right.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 26, 2015, 10:25:55 AM
And thus we have made you a just community that you will be
witnesses over the people and the Messenger will be a witness over you. And
We did not make the qiblah which you used to face except that We might
make evident who would follow the Messenger from who would turn back on
his heels.
And indeed, it is difficult except for those whom Allah has guided.
And never would Allah have caused you to lose your faith. Indeed
Allah is, to the people, Kind and Merciful.

Peace runninglikezebras, so what was the qiblah we used to face
and what was the new qiblah?


God bless you



                       8)

Hi hawk99,

The community addressed had different qiblas as quran clearly states, on which they didn't agree.  These different qiblas are the hallmark of polytheists.  Before following the messenger, many of those following had polytheistic practices.  The qibla appointed to them by the messenger is Temple Mount/Sharif Al Haram.  The response of those receiving this instruction is also described in Quran: former polytheists asking why they should accept a qibla that has been abandoned by the Jews while they were on it (the Jewish were expelled from Jerusalem).  Quran also warns not all of those given the entire book containing all the clear signs (Quran) will accept this qibla.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 26, 2015, 10:32:14 AM
And thus we have made you a just community that you will be
witnesses over the people and the Messenger will be a witness over you.

The above verse shows how valid this still is today.  Temple mount is still under muslim authority while safeguarding free access to all adherents of the abrahamic faith.

Who is this balanced community in Mecca that safeguards access to muslims, christians and jews?

That is for one whose people are not at-hand/present (at) al masjid al haram
hindering from the way/path of God and to reject in it and (reject in) al masjid al haram, and expelling its people from it is a greater wrong AAinda/(in the presence of) God

And why should God not punish them while they hinder from al maSJD al haram, and they were not its guardians/protectors! Its guardians/protectors are the conscientious
those who have rejected/concealed and hinder from the path of God and al masjid al haram which We made for mankind, equal are the devotee/attached/resident in it and the bedouin/visitor/traveller, and whoever intends/wishes in it deviation (or) wrongdoing, We will make him taste from painful retribution.


(http://i.imgur.com/Sffn4yN.png) (http://imgur.com/Sffn4yN)

If Mecca is your qibla the above picture is the traffic sign pointing to it, fully in contradiction with Quran.  Congrats!  Not to mention all the rituals performed there are 100% pagan 0% monotheistic.  The hypocrisy can't be more evident.  When sassanid conquerors and byzantine Christians tried to restrict access to the real masjid al haram in Jerusalem in a similar fashion, God intervened.  The result is Quran.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 26, 2015, 10:37:59 AM
I still argue that a location is not more holy than the soul on-site at any given moment. The concept of physical "focal points" is totally not right.

It's just a means to an end, making evident those turning back on their heels (to pagan/polytheistic ways) from those following the messenger and thus the message.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 26, 2015, 10:55:38 AM
For some Rabbinic and Talmudic evidence:

Quote
"...O Jerusalem, the built up Jerusalem is like a city that is united together...Pray for the peace of Jerusalem..." (Psalms 122:2-6);

Berakhot 30 ?One should direct one?s HEART towards Jerusalem.?

Brachot 27a If one is praying in the Land of Israel, he should direct his heart towards Jerusalem; If he is standing in Jerusalem, he should face towards the Holy Temple

Why are the fruits of Ginosar not found in Jerusalem? So that the pilgrims should not say "were it only incumbent on us to eat the fruits of Ginosar in Jerusalem, it would be enough" ? Pesachim 8b

Jerusalem is the light of the world ? Bereshit Rabbah 59

The Land of Israel sits at the centre of the world and Jerusalem sits at the centre of the Land of Israel ? Tanchuma Kedoshim 10

All who pray in Jerusalem - it is as if he prayed before the throne of glory, because the gate of heaven is situated there ? Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer 35

From the day Jerusalem was destroyed, God has no joy, until He rebuilds Jerusalem and returns Israel to it ? Yalkut Shimoni Lamentations 1009

 1 Kings 8:46-50 ""If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captive unto the land of the enemy, far off or near; 47 yet if they shall bethink themselves in the land whither they are carried captive, and turn again, and make supplication unto thee in the land of them that carried them captive, saying, We have sinned, and have done perversely, we have dealt wickedly; 48 if they return unto thee with all their heart and with all their soul in the land of their enemies, which carried them captive, and pray unto thee toward their land, which thou gavest unto their fathers, the city which thou hast chosen, and the house which I have built for thy name: 49 then hear thou their prayer and their supplication in heaven thy dwelling place, and maintain their cause; 50 and forgive thy people which have sinned against thee, and all their transgressions wherein they have transgressed against thee; and give them compassion before those who carried them captive, that they may have compassion on them."

The mizrah of old synagogues all point to Jerusalem:

Quote
Excavations of ancient synagogues show that their design generally conformed with the Talmudic and traditional rule on prayer direction. The synagogues excavated west of Eretz Israel in Miletus, Priene, and Aegina all show an eastern orientation. Josephus, in his work Against Apion, recorded that the same was the case for Egyptian synagogues. Synagogues north of Jerusalem and west of the Jordan River, as in Bet Alfa, Capernaum, Hammath, and Khorazin, all face southward, whereas houses of worship east of the Jordan all face west. In the south, the synagogue excavated at Masada faces northwest to Jerusalem. The Tosefta's regulation that the entrance to the synagogue should be on the eastern side, while the orientation of the building should be toward the west was followed only in the synagogue in Irbid.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: hafeez kazi on July 26, 2015, 02:21:55 PM
peace all

We have certainly seen the turning of your face, [O Muhammad], toward the heaven, and We will surely turn you to a qiblah with which you will be pleased. So turn your face toward al-Masjid al-Haram. And wherever you [believers] are, turn your faces toward it. Indeed, those who have been given the Scripture well know that it is the truth from their Lord. And Allah is not unaware of what they do 2:144

So from wherever you go out/exit turn your face toward al- Masjid al-Haram, and indeed, it is the truth from your Lord. And Allah is not unaware of what you do.2:149

And from wherever you go out/exit, turn your face toward al-Masjid al-Haram. And wherever you [believers] may be, turn your faces toward it in order that the people will not have any argument against you, except for those of them who commit wrong; so fear them not but fear Me. And [it is] so I may complete My favor upon you and that you may be guided 2:150

WHERE IS THE WORD SALAT IN THE ABOVE THREE VERSES?

First prove that these three verses are revealed in the context of SALAT.and then proceed further.

from wherever you go out/exit turn your face toward al- Masjid al-Haram: IS THIS A COMMAND FOR SALAT DIRECTION?

AMBIGUOUS COMMAND FROM ALLAH? SURPRISING?
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 26, 2015, 02:35:40 PM
You can find your answer in http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=2&verse=144

Do you have examples of a qibla not used as a prayer direction?

Every early synagogue and early mosque is orientated towards Jerusalem.  How would you call this if not a qibla?

Where is the ambiguity?

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: hawk99 on July 26, 2015, 03:09:46 PM
Peace runninglikezebras, while I agree in principle, I do have a problem with
shared rites and rituals as you propose.  We are a different community than
the Jews, Christians, Hindus and others and we each have our rites and rituals.
The sacred Masjid for Muslims is in Mecca not Jerusalem.  We do not celebrate
others holidays or pray or fast the way they do or make pilgrimage the same.
You are free to face Jerusalem if you like.

5/48  And We have revealed to you the Book with the truth, verifying what is before it of
the Book and a guardian over it, therefore judge between them by what Allah has
revealed, and do not follow their low desires (to turn away) from the truth that has
come to you; for every one of you did We appoint a law and a way, and if Allah had
pleased He would have made you (all) a single people, but that He might try you in
what He gave you,
therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to
Allah is your return, of all (of you), so He will let you know that in which you differed;



from wherever you go out/exit turn your face toward al- Masjid al-Haram: IS THIS A COMMAND FOR SALAT DIRECTION?

Yep!


God bless


               8)
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: 357 on July 26, 2015, 03:11:03 PM
peace all

We have certainly seen the turning of your face, [O Muhammad], toward the heaven, and We will surely turn you to a qiblah with which you will be pleased. So turn your face toward al-Masjid al-Haram. And wherever you [believers] are, turn your faces toward it. Indeed, those who have been given the Scripture well know that it is the truth from their Lord. And Allah is not unaware of what they do 2:144

So from wherever you go out/exit turn your face toward al- Masjid al-Haram, and indeed, it is the truth from your Lord. And Allah is not unaware of what you do.2:149

And from wherever you go out/exit, turn your face toward al-Masjid al-Haram. And wherever you [believers] may be, turn your faces toward it in order that the people will not have any argument against you, except for those of them who commit wrong; so fear them not but fear Me. And [it is] so I may complete My favor upon you and that you may be guided 2:150

WHERE IS THE WORD SALAT IN THE ABOVE THREE VERSES?

First prove that these three verses are revealed in the context of SALAT.and then proceed further.

from wherever you go out/exit turn your face toward al- Masjid al-Haram: IS THIS A COMMAND FOR SALAT DIRECTION?

AMBIGUOUS COMMAND FROM ALLAH? SURPRISING?

Salaam Br. Hafeez

Why do you keep turning towards something that is Haram?Should one turn away from Haram?

http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607501.msg367543#msg367543



Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 26, 2015, 03:15:03 PM
Peace runninglikezebras, while I agree in principle, I do have a problem with
shared rites and rituals as you propose.  We are a different community than
the Jews, Christians, Hindus and others and we each have our rites and rituals.
The sacred Masjid for Muslims is in Mecca not Jerusalem.  We do not celebrate
others holidays or pray or fast the way they do or make pilgrimage the same.
You are free to face Jerusalem if you like.

5/48  And We have revealed to you the Book with the truth, verifying what is before it of
the Book and a guardian over it, therefore judge between them by what Allah has
revealed, and do not follow their low desires (to turn away) from the truth that has
come to you; for every one of you did We appoint a law and a way, and if Allah had
pleased He would have made you (all) a single people, but that He might try you in
what He gave you,
therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to
Allah is your return, of all (of you), so He will let you know that in which you differed;


Yep!


God bless



               8)

So I guess to you Ibrahim is not Abraham, Ishmail is not Ishmael, Ishaq is not Isaac, Yaqub is not Jacob. 

I will cite from Quran answering to you:

Or do you say that Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants were Jews or Christians? Say, "Are you more knowing or is Allah ?" And who is more unjust than one who conceals a testimony he has from Allah ? And Allah is not unaware of what you do.

To me it's equal if you persist in a sectarian take on Abrahams faith.  You'd be surprised to find out your tradition of hajj and zakaat is as old as judaism is.  It's rather ironic though to find a distorted interpretation of Quran on this forum that is openly promoting division and sectarianism.

To me Quran did not bring any new tradition nor faith.  It reminded us of an existing faith involving salat, zakat, hajj all of which are traditions predating Quran.  Everyone of the messengers named in Quran except Muhammad predate Quran.  If you fail to accept this you are bound to stray away from the abrahamic faith similar to what happened to the sunni and shia sects.

Different traditions you say:

Muslims: Once a year Muslims are commanded to make a pilgrimage (Hajj) to Mecca
Jews: Three times a year Jews were commanded to make a pilgrimage (Hag ? hag ha-matzot, hag ha-sukkot, hag ha-shavuot) to Jerusalem
Muslims: Only those capable of traveling to Mecca are obligated to go
Jews: Only those capable of traveling to the Temple were obligated to go
Muslims: Purify the body with water before going on Hajj
Jews: Purify the body with water before going on Hag
Muslims: Circle the Kaaba seven times (Tawaf) anti-clockwise
Jews: Circle the Temple seven times anti-clockwise
Muslims: During Hajj pilgrims are obligated to offer certain animals as a qurban (sacrifice)
Jews: As part of the Hag pilgrims were obligated to offer certain animals as a korban (sacrifice)
Muslims: If a woman is in her menses she should refrain from circling the Kaaba
Jews: If a woman is in her menses she should refrain from ascending to the Temple Mount and circling the Temple
Muslims: It is preferable to enter the al-Haram complex barefoot
Jews: It is preferable to enter the Temple complex barefoot

The only difference I see is that the majority of muslims doesnt know their qibla anymore.  Other than that the traditions are still intact and hard to distinct from eachother except for the geographical location.

But again, by all means, keep facing a meaningless STONE during prayers.

ps: "a law and a way" are singular not plural

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: hawk99 on July 26, 2015, 04:08:08 PM
So I guess to you Ibrahim is not Abraham, Ishmail is not Ishmael, Ishaq is not Isaac, Yaqub is not Jacob. 

I will cite from Quran answering to you:

Or do you say that Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants were Jews or Christians? Say, "Are you more knowing or is Allah ?" And who is more unjust than one who conceals a testimony he has from Allah ? And Allah is not unaware of what you do.

To me it's equal if you persist in a sectarian take on Abrahams faith.  You'd be surprised to find out your tradition of hajj and zakaat is as old as judaism is.

ps: "a law and a way" are singular not plural

Peace

Peace runninglikezebras, yes Ibrahim is Abraham, Ishmail is Ishmael,
Ishaq is Isaac, Yaqub is Jacob.  Like I said in my earlier post, fasting
Hajj, prayer and other rites and rituals exist around the world and
predate Islam, we do not "share" a qibla, or sacred masjid we have our way
and they each have theirs.

God bless you


                :peace: 

Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 26, 2015, 04:10:17 PM
Peace runninglikezebras, yes Ibrahim is Abraham, Ishmail is Ishmael,
Ishaq is Isaac, Yaqub is Jacob.  Like I said in my earlier post, fasting
Hajj, prayer and other rites and rituals exist around the world and
predate Islam, we do not "share" a qibla, or sacred masjid we have our way
and they have theirs.

God bless you


                :peace:

That's a rather schizophrenic point of view don't you think?  You acknowledge Abraham, you acknowledge the jewish Hajj predates the Quranic reference to Hajj.   I could give you a much longer list with similar religious traditions existing with both muslims and jews. But still you feel the right qibla is some meteorite rock someone placed in a shrine in the desert?  Was Abraham jewish, christian or muslim?  When you answered that question try to answer the same question about the masjid al haram is it jewish, christian or muslim?

If there is only one Abraham there can only be one masjid al haram.  Unless you are suffering from some schizophrenic disorder, you can't avoid facing this issue.  Either it's mecca or it's jerusalem.  If you say it's mecca what evidence - quranically and historically - is there to support mecca?  Why did the early caliphs construct the dome of the rock in Jerusalem?  Why does neither the quran nor the dome of the rock have any message saying: jerusalem is the wrong  qibla - similar to how Quran and the dome of the rock tell christians Jesus is not a God?  Don't you think the dome of the rock confirms this symbolical place related to Abraham rather than contradicting it?  If you were caliph and you knew Jerusalem to be the wrong qibla would you build a octagonal shrine on it pointing in all directions as a qibla? 

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 26, 2015, 04:33:17 PM
What I find surprising is hawk99's total denial Jerusalem even ever was a Qiblah.  Even sunni scholars admit at one point Jerusalem was the correct qibla.  Then God supposedly changed this qibla but forgot to tell about it in the Quran.  Sunni scholars abuse this argument to make their hadith mandatory.  Part of this is actually true.  We see a difference in the qibla of early mosques placed on a timeline.  The more you go back into the past: the more they will point to Jerusalem.   Later mosques consistently point to Mecca.

The only valid debate here I'm seeing is whether God really instructed a change in qibla in the sense of no longer the existing qibla at Jerusalem.  Instead I'm into a debate with people who seem to ignore historical facts that even the most hardcore sunni scholars admit to.

The same applies for the building date of the masjid al haram in mecca.  The only source: hadith that were written centuries after the actual events.  Who constructed the masjid al haram in Mecca?  Was it Muhammad?  Where is this confirmed in Quran?  Where is the instruction of God ordering to build a temple in Mecca?  It's nowhere to be found except in hadith fantasy stories dating 300 years after the events took place.

My estimation is the current masjid al haram is not older than 8th century.  If not 9th.  Never wondered why saudi's are so afraid to allow any archaelogical study on the matter?

There is no historical mist surrounding the construction date of the dome of the rock and by who it was built however.

I have asked this question before, not one has answered in defense of Mecca but where is your proof of christian influence in the Hijaz region?  There is no trace of them.  Not one sign there ever were christians during that era in Hijaz.  Yet all verses dealing with qibla and masjid al haram mention christians.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: huruf on July 26, 2015, 04:51:36 PM
Don't falsely accuse me of not answering your question or being incapable of doing so.  I gave you two examples: one involving the foreign names of messengers known to jews and another example of the import of the aramaic alaha to arab.

In case you have some visual handicap here it is again:

Quote
from the Aramaic/Syriac alaha, meaning 'God' or 'the God'.
The final 'a' in the name alaha was originally the definite article
'the' and is regularly dropped when Syriac words and names are
borrowed into Arabic. Middle-eastern Christianity used 'alah' and
'alaha' frequently, and it would have often been heard. 

But in the Aramaic/Syriac language there are two different 'a' vowels,
one rather like the 'a' in English 'hat' and the other more like the
vowel in 'ought'.  In the case of 'alah', the first vowel was like
'hat' and the second like 'ought'. Arabic does not have a vowel like
the one in 'ought', but it seems to have BORROWED this vowel along
with the word 'alah'.  If you know Arabic, then you know that the
second vowel in 'allah' is unique; it occurs only in that one word
in Arabic.

Another import from Aramaic another doubling of a consonant triggered by the ambiguity of the 'a' vowel.  Same phenomenon with "baca". alaha  (aram) -> allah (arab) | baca (aramaic) -> bacca (arab)

Besides I already supported this etymology with how these proper nouns are non fully inflected denoting their foreign origin.

Is Yaqub not Jacob?  Is Ibrahim not Abraham?

@huruf do you think you have removed the hadith from your faith?  If you still are so stubborn to ignore the massive influx of hebrew, aramaic, akkadian even persian words in the Quranic vocabularium you are trying to understand Quran using the language of hadith.  Not the language of Quran.

Peace

That you parrot nonsense does not make it into an explanation of anything. You assert something without any ground and from there you go on saying that you have proved something. So No Allah in Arabic till it was borrowed from Aramaic? Were you there?

And you are really impetinent and without manners. You have to have your way and be right no matter what. Do you think you penalise me by telling me that I hold onto hadith. Who are you? You do not know any more Arabic than I do nor do you have better consultors in Arabic than I do and you pose as if you were some authority? Don't you have a sense of ridicule?

No it seems you do not, but at any rate that is to be expected from somebody so full of himself as to take it for granted that he knows more than the next person and has a right to put other people down.

Enjoy your "aramaic" but don't waste it on me you are not thorough nor are you logic nort follow a proper argumentation.

Salaam
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 26, 2015, 04:58:03 PM
That you parrot nonsense does not make it into an explanation of anything. You assert something without any ground and from there you go on saying that you have proved something. So No Allah in Arabic till it was borrowed from Aramaic? Were you there?

And you are really impetinent and without manners. You have to have your way and be right no matter what. Do you think you penalise me by telling me that I hold onto hadith. Who are you? You do not know any more Arabic than I do nor do you have better consultors in Arabic than I do and you pose as if you were some authority? Don't you have a sense of ridicule?

No it seems you do not, but at any rate that is to be expected from somebody so full of himself as to take it for granted that he knows more than the next person and has a right to put other people down.

Enjoy your "aramaic" but don't waste it on me you are not thorough nor are you logic nort follow a proper argumentation.

Salaam

If I'm right I'm not going to pretend I'm wrong.  Ad hominems are very poor arguments in any rational debate.   So far you haven't contributed anything substantial concercing historicity, linguistics or rationality.  You keep resorting to an emotional response which usually translates to just hating me.  Well let me tell you, I'm used to that.  If you want to knock me of my horse, better bring some substantial arguments.  Attacking my personality won't convince me of being wrong even if I would be.

You showed unawareness of any foreign words inside the Quran.  How do you expect me to treat you as an equal peer?

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: huruf on July 26, 2015, 05:07:31 PM
Yoy call others names and then you come back saying that others are using ad hominem arguments. You must have some loose screws in your thinking habitacle.

At any rate you pretend you come up with useful stuff, but it is your own stuff not proven by anything and based solely on you own opinion that in the Qur'an the words you fancy are foreign loans.

If you think that because you are very daring when atacking others and do not have a sense of respect everybody is going down to tell you you are right, then you are wrong. You may turn to me and come with the ad hominem thing or whatever you fancy, you are still not right, and you hare not solid in your argumentation and you are overbearing and condescending and you do not know that much Arabic.

Salaam


Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: hawk99 on July 26, 2015, 05:33:29 PM
What I find surprising is hawk99's total denial Jerusalem even ever was a Qiblah. 

Peace runninglikezebras the above is simply not true: please read below.

Correct!

6/10 When Daniel knew that the document had been signed, he went to his house where he had windows in
his upper chamber open toward Jerusalem. He got down on his knees three times a day and prayed and
gave thanks before his God, as he had done previously.  yeah, yeah, yeah I know its from the Bible


We know that the Qiblah was Jerusalem, the direction that all previous Prophets and messengers faced during
prayer, but then:



2/143 And thus We have made you a medium (just) nation that you may be the bearers of witness
to the people and (that) the Messenger may be a bearer of witness to you; and We did not make
that which you would have to be the qiblah but that We might distinguish him who follows the
Messenger from him who turns back upon his heels, and this was surely hard except for those
whom Allah has guided aright; and Allah was not going to make your faith to be fruitless; most
surely Allah is Affectionate, Merciful to the people.

Muhammad fond of Mecca

2/144   Indeed We see the turning of your face to heaven, so We shall surely turn you to a
qiblah which you shall like
; turn then your face towards the Sacred Mosque, and wherever
you are, turn your face towards it, and those who have been given the Book most surely
know that it is the truth from their Lord; and Allah is not at all heedless of what they do.


Masjid Al Qiblatain (Mosque of the two Qiblas)


Masjid al-Qiblatain (المسجد القبلتین) (Mosque of the two Qiblas) is a mosque in Medina that is
historically important for Muslims as the place where the Islamic prophet Muhammad,
leading the prayer, is said to have been commanded to change the direction of prayer
(qibla) from Jerusalem to Mecca. Thus it uniquely contained two prayer niches (mihrabs).
Recently the mosque was renovated; the old prayer niche facing Jerusalem was removed,
and the one facing Mecca was left.


God bless you

   :peace:

God bless you from your schizophrenic forum member.



                           8)
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: good logic on July 26, 2015, 09:20:21 PM
Peace Hawk.

You and I know that ,no  matter what you say, even if it is backed up by Qoran, others are going to claim you are " using hadith"?

Let me explain this " fallacy/applies to you,not to me...etc" argument,logic...:

They come up with history/internet/... which they claim as "fact, because hadith does not contain their history".But they accuse you of using hadith just because your history part happens to be mentioned in hadith?

Should the same rule apply to all? i.e using any "men s word" is hadith and should be checked and backed up by Qoran?

If the history contained in "Hadith" should be checked and validated by GOD s word, then all history written by men should forgo the same test!!!

Of course you and I know that GOD does better than leaving us to go in "every direction" confused. HE sends messengers to "clarify" for us.
That is the real problem, some refuse to listen to or follow "human messengers". These human messengers that GOD sends and backs up with "Bayinat" are liars,use hadith,eat food, make mistakes,go to the market...
Same argument as the past generations, same arrogance as the past generations,same trial by GOD as the past generations, same...

You and I know these things happen. The message gets delivered and people have the choice.

GOD bless you.
Peace.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Wakas on July 27, 2015, 02:31:50 AM
peace gl, all,

I think it's actually more simple than that. Quite simply, a number of students of Quran have no robust and falsifiable method/approach when it comes to their understanding of Quran.

For example, if they think a Quranic word (or their understanding of a subject) means X - they do not apply a robust/falsifiable system of checks to test whether it may or may not mean X.

Ironically, it is similar to the Traditional system, where I have never found a consistent/robust/falsifiable approach.

In such a system, pretty much anything goes, hence the variance. For example, seeming contradictions are explained away by simply adopting an inconsistent approach. Some may find this approach acceptable.

Sometimes I say to people who mention to me there is so much variance amongst those following Quran based islam on salat, hajj, etc I ask of the variant views they have read, which of them has put them to the test using a stated robust/falsifiable method? You will soon find the answer is zero, or almost zero. Once this is looked at, the variance is dramatically reduced.

To get an idea, or a good starting point, I recommend:
http://www.quran434.com/study-method.html

#####

And with regard to this subject of "qiblah":
http://mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-masjid-al-haram-Quran.html

 
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 27, 2015, 09:19:52 AM
Peace runninglikezebras the above is simply not true: please read below.

God bless you from your schizophrenic forum member.



                           8)

Peace hawk99,

My apologies for missing that post.  So you do admit there was a shared tradition once, confirmed by the mosque of the two qiblas.  You seemed to deny this earlier.

Please answer these questions:

Who built the shrine at mecca?

How old is the masjid al haram in mecca?

What source do you have proving who built the masjid al haram in mecca and when?

Do you claim there was christian influence in the hijaz region?

Where in Quran do you see Mecca named as the qibla?

Do you agree Quran says hindering access to masjid al haram is a great injustice?

If you do, how do you justify that with the practice of only allowing muslims at Mecca?

Thank you.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 27, 2015, 09:24:01 AM
peace gl, all,

I think it's actually more simple than that. Quite simply, a number of students of Quran have no robust and falsifiable method/approach when it comes to their understanding of Quran.

For example, if they think a Quranic word (or their understanding of a subject) means X - they do not apply a robust/falsifiable system of checks to test whether it may or may not mean X.

Ironically, it is similar to the Traditional system, where I have never found a consistent/robust/falsifiable approach.

In such a system, pretty much anything goes, hence the variance. For example, seeming contradictions are explained away by simply adopting an inconsistent approach. Some may find this approach acceptable.

Sometimes I say to people who mention to me there is so much variance amongst those following Quran based islam on salat, hajj, etc I ask of the variant views they have read, which of them has put them to the test using a stated robust/falsifiable method? You will soon find the answer is zero, or almost zero. Once this is looked at, the variance is dramatically reduced.

To get an idea, or a good starting point, I recommend:
http://www.quran434.com/study-method.html

#####

And with regard to this subject of "qiblah":
http://mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-masjid-al-haram-Quran.html

Well we have all seen what your methodology has rendered Quran into Wakas.  Gibberish.  Your article about masjid al haram completely conceals the pre-Quranic occurence of the word qibla in older scriptures.  Totally concealing the aramaic root of the word.  Ultimately rendering it into some version of English that is not even valid to English standards.

Not only your article about masjid al haram suffers from the above.  434 is rendered to citing!  Lmao, cite your wife boys!  Whatever that means.  I wonder if Wakas ever gets confronted with a situation applicable to 434 how he would react.  Imagine his partner living with him from his income, murders her own child.  Will Wakas ultimately just cite her and not part ways with her?  I wonder...

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 27, 2015, 09:44:38 AM
Peace Hawk.

You and I know that ,no  matter what you say, even if it is backed up by Qoran, others are going to claim you are " using hadith"?

Let me explain this " fallacy/applies to you,not to me...etc" argument,logic...:

They come up with history/internet/... which they claim as "fact, because hadith does not contain their history".But they accuse you of using hadith just because your history part happens to be mentioned in hadith?

Should the same rule apply to all? i.e using any "men s word" is hadith and should be checked and backed up by Qoran?

If the history contained in "Hadith" should be checked and validated by GOD s word, then all history written by men should forgo the same test!!!

Of course you and I know that GOD does better than leaving us to go in "every direction" confused. HE sends messengers to "clarify" for us.
That is the real problem, some refuse to listen to or follow "human messengers". These human messengers that GOD sends and backs up with "Bayinat" are liars,use hadith,eat food, make mistakes,go to the market...
Same argument as the past generations, same arrogance as the past generations,same trial by GOD as the past generations, same...

You and I know these things happen. The message gets delivered and people have the choice.

GOD bless you.
Peace.

I'd still like to see that quranic proof for Mecca locating masjid al haram.  So far I have those in support of mecca only seen avoiding precise questions.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Wakas on July 27, 2015, 11:18:35 AM
Well we have all seen what your methodology has rendered Quran into Wakas.  Gibberish.  Your article about masjid al haram completely conceals the pre-Quranic occurence of the word qibla in older scriptures.  Totally concealing the aramaic root of the word.  Ultimately rendering it into some version of English that is not even valid to English standards.

As I have said to you before, do not mistake your reasoning for sound reasoning. Readers can see from this post when we previously discussed this subject:
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604467.msg367433#msg367433

And will note how you re-interpreted multiple issues regarding the verses, in order to make your view fit. Not that I think your view actually fits.

How about you start your own thread with a detailed review of the verses in question presenting your view, then we can all see if it works or not. Or will you run like a zebra from such a simple request?

Quote
Not only your article about masjid al haram suffers from the above.  434 is rendered to citing!  Lmao, cite your wife boys!  Whatever that means.  I wonder if Wakas ever gets confronted with a situation applicable to 434 how he would react.  Imagine his partner living with him from his income, murders her own child.  Will Wakas ultimately just cite her and not part ways with her?  I wonder...

I think this comment demonstrates well your reasoning. Not only do you seemingly lack the logic to connect "cite them" with authority involvement in the very next verse, you bring up a wrong/crime such as murder when the verses do not even discuss this.

In my years of experience in having discussions on this forum, I have often noted that when people have little or no substance to their arguments, they often resort to comments like yours.

When you have something of substance to say, I may respond. Peace out.

Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 27, 2015, 11:20:27 AM
You can lead a zebra to water but you can't make him drink it.


runninglikezebras you say that:

"The reader can establish I raised this question 3 times AND that you still avoid answering who those christians in Mecca were of which historians say there weren't any?  The historical record of Baca is the Old Testament itself.

Quran http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=2&verse=140"

In order to prove your point you link a verse of the Quran. Do you even understand what it means?

I would love to have your opinion on the verse that you just quoted to prove that there were never any Christians in the Hijaz.

Btw you still failed to prove that bekka in the old testament was ever a historical city in Jerusalem.

Good luck with that.

Peace

Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 27, 2015, 11:56:01 AM
Quote
In order to prove your point you link a verse of the Quran. Do you even understand what it means?

It is a direct reference to http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=2&verse=136

Say, [O believers], "We have believed in Allah and what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants and what was given to Moses and Jesus and what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him."

This confirms what was given to Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants.  If you distinct a jewish qibla from an islamic qibla and a christian qibla, then you are no longer believing in what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants.

This verse does not prove there were no christians in the Hijaz region - that is your misunderstanding.  It proves the qibla spoken of in Quran is known to the christians and Jews - christians of which there is no trace of in the Hijaz region by all archaelogical and historical evidence.  Jewish of which there is no record of them acknowledging any shrine in the Hijaz region ever.

@hawk99 how do you interprete  http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=2&verse=136 - Dont you think it's directly contradicting what you say here:

Quote
Peace runninglikezebras, yes Ibrahim is Abraham, Ishmail is Ishmael,
Ishaq is Isaac, Yaqub is Jacob.  Like I said in my earlier post, fasting
Hajj, prayer and other rites and rituals exist around the world and
predate Islam, we do not "share" a qibla, or sacred masjid we have our way
and they have theirs.




Peace


Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 27, 2015, 12:06:17 PM
Quote
Who built the shrine at mecca?

How old is the masjid al haram in mecca?

What source do you have proving who built the masjid al haram in mecca and when?

Do you claim there was christian influence in the hijaz region?

Where in Quran do you see Mecca named as the qibla?

Do you agree Quran says hindering access to masjid al haram is a great injustice?

If you do, how do you justify that with the practice of only allowing muslims at Mecca?

These questions are still to be answered by the stone worshippers.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 27, 2015, 12:14:04 PM
Btw you still failed to prove that bekka in the old testament was ever a historical city in Jerusalem.

Good luck with that.

Peace

I never claimed baca was a historical city.  I never claimed any such thing.  Baca is an area inside Jerusalem.  Referred to in old scriptures: jewish and christian manuscripts.  You show me one scripture mentioning mecca predating Quran.  If this was such an important place, historical records of it predating Quran shouldn't be hard to find.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 27, 2015, 12:23:15 PM
It is a direct reference to http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=2&verse=136

Say, [O believers], "We have believed in Allah and what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants and what was given to Moses and Jesus and what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him."

This confirms what was given to Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants.  If you distinct a jewish qibla from an islamic qibla and a christian qibla, then you are no longer believing in what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants.

This verse does not prove there were no christians in the Hijaz region - that is your misunderstanding.  It proves the qibla spoken of in Quran is known to the christians and Jews - christians of which there is no trace of in the Hijaz region by all archaelogical and historical evidence.  Jewish of which there is no record of them acknowledging any shrine in the Hijaz region ever.

@hawk99 how do you interprete  http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=2&verse=136 - Dont you think it's directly contradicting what you say here:




Peace

Who says that I don't agree that these messengers also brought the message of Islam. But what the bible and torah of today are promoting as the message of the messengers is not true.

[3:78] There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, "That is from Allah," but it is not from Allah: It is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it!

Do you believe that God intended Jesus to be declared a "son" of God? Do you believe that the whole of the torah has been retained as per when it was revealed to the Prophet Moses (PBUH)?

Do you believe that Quran is the final reminder to those who believe?

What sort of "archeological" and "historical" evidence would prove that Christians ever lived in the Hijaz? And obviously by association you are implying that Muhammad (PBUH) never lived in the hijaz. Do you have any counter historical proof for that?
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 27, 2015, 12:26:43 PM
Who says that I don't agree that these messengers also brought the message of Islam. But what the bible and torah of today are promoting as the message of the messengers is not true.

[3:78] There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, "That is from Allah," but it is not from Allah: It is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it!

Do you believe that God intended Jesus to be declared a "son" of God? Do you believe that the whole of the torah has been retained as per when it was revealed to the Prophet Moses (PBUH)?

Do you believe that Quran is the final reminder to those who believe?

What sort of "archeological" and "historical" evidence would prove that Christians ever lived in the Hijaz? And obviously by association you are implying that Muhammad (PBUH) never lived in the hijaz. Do you have any counter historical proof for that?

Quran tells us Jesus is not the son of God.  However the Quran nowhere tells us the 10 commandments are wrong, nor does it say the qibla of the Jews is wrong.  I believe Quran is a reminder.  That's why I only accept one Qibla, One Abraham. 

Archaelogical evidence of christian influence would be a church an inscription with christian symbolism etc.  I'm not making claims about the ethnicity of Muhammad.  I'm making claims about the qibla however.

Please consider the following:

Quote
According to the Qur?an, the direction of prayer (the Qibla), was canonized (or finalized) towards Mecca for all Muslims in or around 624 A.D. 1.
Yet, the earliest evidence from outside Muslim tradition regarding the direction in which Muslims prayed, and by implication the location of their sanctuary, points to an area much further north than Mecca, in fact somewhere in north-west Arabia 2. Consider the archaeological evidence which has been and is continuing to be uncovered from the first mosques built in the seventh century:
According to archaeological research carried out by Creswell and Fehervari on ancient mosques in the Middle East, two floor-plans from two Umayyad mosques in Iraq, one built at the beginning of the 8th century by the governor Hajjaj in Wasit (noted by Creswell as, ?the oldest mosque in Islam of which remains have come down to us? ? Creswell 1989:41), and the other attributed to roughly the same period near Baghdad, have Qiblas (the direction which these mosques are facing) which do not face Mecca, but are oriented too far north 3. The Wasit mosque is off by 33 degrees, and the Baghdad mosque is off by 30 degrees 4.
This agrees with Baladhuri?s testimony (called the Futuh) that the Qibla of the first mosque in Kufa, Iraq, supposedly constructed in 670 A.D. 5, also lay to the west, when it should have pointed almost directly south 6.
The original ground-plan of the mosque of Amr b. al As, located in Fustat, the garrison town outside Cairo, Egypt shows that the Qibla again pointed too far north and had to be corrected later under the governorship of Qurra b. Sharik 7. Interestingly this agrees with the later Islamic tradition compiled by Ahmad b. al-Maqrizi that Amr prayed facing slightly south of east, and not towards the south 8.
If you take a map you will find where it is that these mosques were pointing. All four of the above instances position the Qibla not towards Mecca, but much further north, in fact closer possibly to the vicinity of Jerusalem. If, as some Muslims now say, one should not take these findings too seriously as many mosques even today have misdirected Qiblas, then one must wonder why, if the Muslims back then were so incapable of ascertaining directions, they should all happen to be pointing to a singular location; to an area in northern Arabia, and possibly Jerusalem?
We find further corroboration for this direction of prayer by the Christian writer and traveller Jacob of Edessa, who, writing as late as 705 A.D. was a contemporary eye-witness in Egypt. He maintained that the Mahgraye? (Greek name for Arabs) in Egypt prayed facing east which was towards their Ka?ba 9. His letter (which can be found in the British Museum) is indeed revealing. Therefore, as late as 705 A.D. the direction of prayer towards Mecca had not yet been canonized.
Note: The mention of a Ka?ba does not necessarily infer Mecca (as so many Muslims have been quick to point out), since there were other Ka?bas in existence during that time, usually in market-towns 10. It was profitable to build a Ka?ba in these market towns so that the people coming to market could also do their pilgrimage or penitence to the idols contained within. The Ka?ba Jacob of Edessa was referring to was situated at ?the patriarchal places of their races,? which he also maintains was not in the south. Both the Jews and Arabs ( Mahgraye?) maintained a common descent from Abraham who was known to have lived and died in Palestine, as has been corroborated by recent archaeological discoveries 11. This common descent from Abraham is also corroborated by the Armenian Chronicler, Sebeos, as early as 660 A.D. 12.
According to Dr. Hawting, who teaches on the sources of Islam at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS, a part of the University of London), new archaeological discoveries of mosques in Egypt from the early 700s also show that up till that time the Muslims (or Haggarenes) were indeed praying, not towards Mecca, but towards the north, and possibly Jerusalem. In fact, Dr. Hawting maintains, no mosques have been found from this period (the seventh century) which face towards Mecca (noted from his class lectures in 1995). Hawting cautions, however, that not all of the Qiblas face towards Jerusalem. Some Jordanian mosques have been uncovered which face north, while there are certain North African mosques which face south, implying that there was some confusion as to where the early sanctuary was placed. Yet, the Qur?an tells us (in sura 2) that the direction of the Qibla was fixed towards Mecca by approximately two years after the Hijra, or around 624 A.D., and has remained in that direction until the present!
Thus, according to Crone and Cook and Hawting, the combination of the archaeological evidence from Iraq along with the literary evidence from Egypt points unambiguously to a sanctuary [and thus direction of prayer] not in the south, but somewhere in north-west Arabia (or even further north) at least till the end of the seventh century 13.
What is happening here? Why are the Qiblas of these early mosques not facing towards Mecca? Why the discrepancy between the Qur?an and that which archaeology as well as documents reveal as late as 705 A.D.?
Some Muslims argue that perhaps the early Muslims did not know the direction of Mecca. Yet these were desert traders, caravaneers! Their livelihood was dependant on travelling the desert, which has few landmarks, and, because of the sandstorms, no roads. They, above all, knew how to follow the stars. Their lives depended on it. Certainly they knew the difference between the north and the south.
Furthermore, the mosques in Iraq and Egypt were built in civilized urban areas, amongst a sophisticated people who were well adept at finding directions. It is highly unlikely that they would miscalculate their qiblas by so many degrees. How else did they perform the obligatory Hajj, which we are told was also canonized at this time? And why are so many of the mosques facing in the direction of northern Arabia, or possibly Jerusalem? A possible answer may be found by looking at archaeology once again; this time in Jerusalem itself.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 27, 2015, 12:26:53 PM
I never claimed baca was a historical city.  I never claimed any such thing.  Baca is an area inside Jerusalem.  Referred to in old scriptures: jewish and christian manuscripts.  You show me one scripture mentioning mecca predating Quran.  If this was such an important place, historical records of it predating Quran shouldn't be hard to find.

Peace

Ok so now you don't claim that baca is a historical city? But didn't you claim to me earlier when I disputed it as being a historical place, that:

"This is an outright lie.  Historical source?

The Baca valley is a geographical feature in the Jerusalem landscape that has never been known otherwise."


Show me proof of this Jerusalem landscape always being known as beca valley.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 27, 2015, 12:30:50 PM
According to Islamic tradition, the caliph Suleyman, who reigned as late as 715-717 A.D., went to Mecca to ask about the Hajj. He was not satisfied with the response he received there, and so chose to follow abd al-Malik (i.e. travelling to the Dome of the Rock) (note: not to be confused with the Imam, Malik b. Anas who, because he was born in 712 A.D. would have been only three years old at the time). This fact alone, according to Dr. Hawting at SOAS, points out that there was still some confusion as to where the sanctuary was to be located as late as the early eighth century. It seems that Mecca was only now (sixty years after the Muhammad?s death) taking on the role as the religious centre of Islam. One can therefore understand why, according to tradition, Walid I, who reigned as Caliph between 705 and 715 A.D., wrote to all the regions ordering the demolition and enlargement of the mosques (refer to ?Kitab al-?uyun wa?l-hada?iq,? edited by M. de Goeje and P. de Jong 1869:4). Could it be that at this time the Qiblas were then aligned towards Mecca? If so it points to a glaring contradiction in the Qur?an which established Mecca as the sanctuary and thus direction for prayer during the lifetime of Muhammad some eighty to ninety years earlier

This is how they changed the qibla.  Caliph Walid I ordered the demolition and enlargment of all mosques see ?Kitab al-?uyun wa?l-hada?iq,? edited by M. de Goeje and P. de Jong 1869:4.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 27, 2015, 12:32:52 PM
Ok so now you don't claim that baca is a historical city? But didn't you claim to me earlier when I disputed it as being a historical place, that:

"This is an outright lie.  Historical source?

The Baca valley is a geographical feature in the Jerusalem landscape that has never been known otherwise."


Show me proof of this Jerusalem landscape always being known as beca valley.

You can find those yourself, look for old jewish manuscripts and christian manuscripts referring to Baca.  You can find the references to the verses in my previous posts.  A geographic feature is not a city, you dufus.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 27, 2015, 12:36:21 PM
To summarize: we have archaelogical evidence of all 7th century mosques originally pointing to Jerusalem.  We have an order of caliph Walid I to demolish all mosques.  Suddenly Mecca becomes the qibla.

Do I need to say more?

Do not belong to those worshipping rocks, those turning back on their heels (starting historically 60-80 years after the death of Muhammad).

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 27, 2015, 12:43:11 PM
Quran tells us Jesus is not the son of God.  However the Quran nowhere tells us the 10 commandments are wrong, nor does it say the qibla of the Jews is wrong.  I believe Quran is a reminder.  That's why I only accept one Qibla, One Abraham. 

Archaelogical evidence of christian influence would be a church an inscription with christian symbolism etc.  I'm not making claims about the ethnicity of Muhammad.  I'm making claims about the qibla however.

Please consider the following:

So if Jesus is not the son of God then obviously there is something wrong with the bible. Correct? When Quran reminds the believers and sets the record straight, you believe that?

" However the Quran nowhere tells us the 10 commandments are wrong, nor does it say the qibla of the Jews is wrong.  I believe Quran is a reminder."

The Quran only corrects what needs to be corrected. What do you think the Quran says about the sabath regarding Muslims? Do you think it is still to be followed by us?

How about the stoning to death penalty in the torah? Do you believe the Quran agrees with it?

"Archaelogical evidence of christian influence would be a church an inscription with christian symbolism etc."

Why do you believe that all christian sects in the Hijaz believed in creating churches. Even if they did, why would you assume that those churches would survive for 1400 years while being in the belly of the Muslim world?
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 27, 2015, 12:47:22 PM
According to Islamic tradition, the caliph Suleyman, who reigned as late as 715-717 A.D., went to Mecca to ask about the Hajj. He was not satisfied with the response he received there, and so chose to follow abd al-Malik (i.e. travelling to the Dome of the Rock) (note: not to be confused with the Imam, Malik b. Anas who, because he was born in 712 A.D. would have been only three years old at the time). This fact alone, according to Dr. Hawting at SOAS, points out that there was still some confusion as to where the sanctuary was to be located as late as the early eighth century. It seems that Mecca was only now (sixty years after the Muhammad?s death) taking on the role as the religious centre of Islam. One can therefore understand why, according to tradition, Walid I, who reigned as Caliph between 705 and 715 A.D., wrote to all the regions ordering the demolition and enlargement of the mosques (refer to ?Kitab al-?uyun wa?l-hada?iq,? edited by M. de Goeje and P. de Jong 1869:4). Could it be that at this time the Qiblas were then aligned towards Mecca? If so it points to a glaring contradiction in the Qur?an which established Mecca as the sanctuary and thus direction for prayer during the lifetime of Muhammad some eighty to ninety years earlier

This is how they changed the qibla.  Caliph Walid I ordered the demolition and enlargment of all mosques see ?Kitab al-?uyun wa?l-hada?iq,? edited by M. de Goeje and P. de Jong 1869:4.

Peace

Which Islamic tradition says all this ... make sure you quote references to your claims.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 27, 2015, 12:47:42 PM
So if Jesus is not the son of God then obviously there is something wrong with the bible. Correct? When Quran reminds the believers and sets the record straight, you believe that?

I believe it does.  But Quran doesn't tell us the jewish qibla to be wrong.  Neither does Quran tell us the qibla is to be changed.  The order to change the qibla came from Caliph Walid I as archaelogical evidence points out.

" However the Quran nowhere tells us the 10 commandments are wrong, nor does it say the qibla of the Jews is wrong.  I believe Quran is a reminder."

The Quran only corrects what needs to be corrected. What do you think the Quran says about the sabath regarding Muslims? Do you think it is still to be followed by us?

How about the stoning to death penalty in the torah? Do you believe the Quran agrees with it?

You are going off-topic to demonstrate a point, so I'll oblige.  The instructions in Quran overrule any of the older scriptures.  But see above.  The order to change qibla did not come from God, it came from caliph Walid I.

"Archaelogical evidence of christian influence would be a church an inscription with christian symbolism etc."

Why do you believe that all christian sects in the Hijaz believed in creating churches. Even if they did, why would you assume that those churches would survive for 1400 years while being in the belly of the Muslim world?

Well in Yemen they did find a church dating back to that era.   But like I said any historical evidence is good.  Inscriptions, manuscripts, etc.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 27, 2015, 12:49:22 PM
Which Islamic tradition says all this ... make sure you quote references to your claims.

I wouldn't take Islamic tradition to hold truth, but aligns perfectly with the archaelogical evidence on the field.  But it's kind of funny how some of that criminal change in qibla is even documented in their own hadith.  God reveals the truth and makes evident who is lying about the qibla.

The evidence that is archaelogically backed up can't be denied.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 27, 2015, 12:53:11 PM
You can find those yourself, look for old jewish manuscripts and christian manuscripts referring to Baca.  You can find the references to the verses in my previous posts.  A geographic feature is not a city, you dufus.

Peace

Again with the biblical references. You say that the bible lies about Jesus being a son of God and then quote it as a historical record to "a geographic feature" which no one other than your bible group has heard about and then rudely refer to me as a dufus? Not very intelligent of you. Kindly show us records of this "geographic feature" ever having existed historically, next to or within Jerusalem.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 27, 2015, 12:55:25 PM
Again with the biblical references. You say that the bible lies about Jesus being a son of God and then quote it as a historical record to "a geographic feature" which no one other than your bible group has heard about and then rudely refer to me as a dufus? Not very intelligent of you. Kindly show us records of this "geographic feature" ever having existed historically, next to or within Jerusalem.

Don't worry I'm not part of a bible group.  Again I can only refer you to the references in the old testament (manuscripts that have been carbon dated) making evident the place baca was known to the Jewish and situated in Jerusalem.  Stop asking me the same question over and over again, are you trying to ignore the evidence I posted showing the qibla of all the early mosques until some dufus caliph decided on his own initiative to destroy all of those and orientate them differently? 

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 27, 2015, 01:07:09 PM
In the centre of Jerusalem sits an imposing structure (even today) called the Dome of the Rock, built by Abd al-Malik in 691 A.D. One will note, however, that the Dome of the Rock is not a mosque, as it has no Qibla (no direction for prayer). It is built as an octagon with eight pillars 14, suggesting it was used for circumambulation (to walk around). Thus, it seems to have been built as a sanctuary (Glasse 1991:102). Today it is considered to be the third most holy site in Islam, after Mecca and Medina. Muslims contend that it was built to commemorate the night when Muhammad went up to heaven to speak with Moses and Allah concerning the number of prayers required of the believers (known as the Mi?raj in Arabic) 15.
Yet, according to the research carried out on the inscriptions on the walls of the building by Van Berchem and Nevo, they say nothing of the Mi?raj, but state mere polemical quotations which are Qur?anic, though they are aimed primarily at Christians. The inscriptions attest the messianic status of Jesus, the acceptance of the prophets, Muhammad?s receipt of revelation, and the use of the terms ?islam? and ?muslim? 16. Why, if the Dome of the Rock were built to commemorate that momentous event, does it saying nothing about it? Perhaps this building was built for other purposes than that of commemorating the Mi?raj. The fact that such an imposing structure was built so early suggests that this and not Mecca became the sanctuary and the centre of a nascent Islam up until at least the late seventh century, 17!
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 27, 2015, 01:08:51 PM
I believe it does.  But Quran doesn't tell us the jewish qibla to be wrong.  Neither does Quran tell us the qibla is to be changed.  The order to change the qibla came from Caliph Walid I as archaelogical evidence points out.

You are going off-topic to demonstrate a point, so I'll oblige.  The instructions in Quran overrule any of the older scriptures.  But see above.  The order to change qibla did not come from God, it came from caliph Walid I.

Well in Yemen they did find a church dating back to that era.   But like I said any historical evidence is good.  Inscriptions, manuscripts, etc.

Peace

"I believe it does.  But Quran doesn't tell us the jewish qibla to be wrong.  Neither does Quran tell us the qibla is to be changed.  The order to change the qibla came from Caliph Walid I as archaelogical evidence points out."

So you think the following is not a command by God to change Qibla? And please make the effort to read all of it and tell me that God did not change the Qibla:

Quran [2:138 - 147]
"(Our religion is) the Baptism of Allah: And who can baptize better than Allah? And it is He Whom we worship."
"Say: Will ye dispute with us about Allah, seeing that He is our Lord and your Lord; that we are responsible for our doings and ye for yours; and that We are sincere (in our faith) in Him?"
"Or say ye that Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes were Jews or Christians? Say: Do ye know best, or doth Allah? And who is more unjust than he who hideth a testimony which he hath received from Allah? Allah is not unaware of what ye do."
"That was a people that hath passed away. They shall reap the fruit of what they did, and ye of what ye do! Of their merits there is no question in your case:"
"The fools among the people will say: "What hath turned them from the Qibla to which they were used?" Say: To Allah belong both east and West: He guideth whom He will to a Way that is straight."
"Thus We have appointed you a middle nation, that ye may be witnesses against mankind, and that the messenger may be a witness against you. And We appointed the qiblah which ye formerly observed only that We might know him who followeth the messenger, from him who turneth on his heels. In truth it was a hard (test) save for those whom Allah guided. But it was not Allah's purpose that your faith should be in vain, for Allah is Full of Pity, Merciful toward mankind."
"We have seen the turning of thy face to heaven (for guidance, O Muhammad). And now verily We shall make thee turn (in prayer) toward a qiblah which is dear to thee. So turn thy face toward the Inviolable Place of Worship, and ye (O Muslims), wheresoever ye may be, turn your faces (when ye pray) toward it. Lo! Those who have received the Scripture know that (this revelation) is the Truth from their Lord. And Allah is not unaware of what they do."
"Even if thou wert to bring to the people of the Book all the Signs (together), they would not follow Thy Qibla; nor art thou going to follow their Qibla; nor indeed will they follow each other's Qibla. If thou after the knowledge hath reached thee, Wert to follow their (vain) desires,-then wert thou Indeed (clearly) in the wrong."
"The people of the Book know this as they know their own sons; but some of them conceal the truth which they themselves know."
"The Truth is from thy Lord; so be not at all in doubt. "

So then do you believe in Gods words?

Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 27, 2015, 01:11:26 PM
"I believe it does.  But Quran doesn't tell us the jewish qibla to be wrong.  Neither does Quran tell us the qibla is to be changed.  The order to change the qibla came from Caliph Walid I as archaelogical evidence points out."

So you think the following is not a command by God to change Qibla? And please make the effort to read all of it and tell me that God did not change the Qibla:

Quran [2:138 - 147]
"(Our religion is) the Baptism of Allah: And who can baptize better than Allah? And it is He Whom we worship."
"Say: Will ye dispute with us about Allah, seeing that He is our Lord and your Lord; that we are responsible for our doings and ye for yours; and that We are sincere (in our faith) in Him?"
"Or say ye that Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes were Jews or Christians? Say: Do ye know best, or doth Allah? And who is more unjust than he who hideth a testimony which he hath received from Allah? Allah is not unaware of what ye do."
"That was a people that hath passed away. They shall reap the fruit of what they did, and ye of what ye do! Of their merits there is no question in your case:"
"The fools among the people will say: "What hath turned them from the Qibla to which they were used?" Say: To Allah belong both east and West: He guideth whom He will to a Way that is straight."
"Thus We have appointed you a middle nation, that ye may be witnesses against mankind, and that the messenger may be a witness against you. And We appointed the qiblah which ye formerly observed only that We might know him who followeth the messenger, from him who turneth on his heels. In truth it was a hard (test) save for those whom Allah guided. But it was not Allah's purpose that your faith should be in vain, for Allah is Full of Pity, Merciful toward mankind."
"We have seen the turning of thy face to heaven (for guidance, O Muhammad). And now verily We shall make thee turn (in prayer) toward a qiblah which is dear to thee. So turn thy face toward the Inviolable Place of Worship, and ye (O Muslims), wheresoever ye may be, turn your faces (when ye pray) toward it. Lo! Those who have received the Scripture know that (this revelation) is the Truth from their Lord. And Allah is not unaware of what they do."
"Even if thou wert to bring to the people of the Book all the Signs (together), they would not follow Thy Qibla; nor art thou going to follow their Qibla; nor indeed will they follow each other's Qibla. If thou after the knowledge hath reached thee, Wert to follow their (vain) desires,-then wert thou Indeed (clearly) in the wrong."
"The people of the Book know this as they know their own sons; but some of them conceal the truth which they themselves know."
"The Truth is from thy Lord; so be not at all in doubt. "

So then do you believe in Gods words?

The verse you highlighted seems to fit you pretty well don't you think?  You have the Book with all the Signs (Quran) and still you don't know your Qibla.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 27, 2015, 01:14:12 PM
The verse you highlighted seems to fit you pretty well don't you think?  You have the Book with all the Signs (Quran) and still you don't know your Qibla.

Peace

I told you to read all of it ... plz don't be lazy. I highlighted another part for your benefit.

And BTW "People of the book" are the christians and the Jews.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 27, 2015, 01:16:55 PM
What makes you think I'm unfamiliar with those verses?

If People of the Book are christian and Jews then you contradict with:

"The people of the Book know this as they know their own sons; but some of them conceal the truth which they themselves know."

None of the christians or jews recognize mecca like they recognize their sons.  Literally zero.  Jerusalem is recognized though by muslims, christians and jews.

Peace

Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: good logic on July 27, 2015, 01:20:26 PM
peace runninglikezebras.

You say:

I'd still like to see that quranic proof for Mecca locating masjid al haram.  So far I have those in support of mecca only seen avoiding precise questions.

Qoran says: 48:27

لَقَد صَدَقَ اللَّهُ رَسولَهُ الرُّءيا بِالحَقِّ لَتَدخُلُنَّ المَسجِدَ الحَرامَ إِن شاءَ اللَّهُ ءامِنينَ مُحَلِّقينَ رُءوسَكُم وَمُقَصِّرينَ لا تَخافونَ فَعَلِمَ ما لَم تَعلَموا فَجَعَلَ مِن دونِ ذٰلِكَ فَتحًا قَريبًا

Please translate and give evidence where this " Masjid al-Haram" is?

Thank you.
GOD bless you.
Peace.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 27, 2015, 01:22:15 PM
What makes you think I'm unfamiliar with those verses?

If People of the Book are christian and Jews then you contradict with:

"If People of the Book are christian and Jews then you contradict with:

The people of the Book know this as they know their own sons; but some of them conceal the truth which they themselves know."


None of the christians or jews recognize mecca like they recognize their sons.  Literally zero.  Jerusalem is recognized though by muslims, christians and jews.

Peace

Well it is quite obvious that you are unfamiliar with these verses otherwise you would never claim that we as Muslims follow the qibla of the Christians and the Jews.

"The people of the Book know this as they know their own sons; but some of them conceal the truth which they themselves know."

Contradict with what? That the qibla has been changed (as clearly mentioned in the above verses)? Kindly elaborate.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 27, 2015, 01:23:31 PM
peace runninglikezebras.

You say:

I'd still like to see that quranic proof for Mecca locating masjid al haram.  So far I have those in support of mecca only seen avoiding precise questions.

Qoran says: 48:27

لَقَد صَدَقَ اللَّهُ رَسولَهُ الرُّءيا بِالحَقِّ لَتَدخُلُنَّ المَسجِدَ الحَرامَ إِن شاءَ اللَّهُ ءامِنينَ مُحَلِّقينَ رُءوسَكُم وَمُقَصِّرينَ لا تَخافونَ فَعَلِمَ ما لَم تَعلَموا فَجَعَلَ مِن دونِ ذٰلِكَ فَتحًا قَريبًا

Please translate and give evidence where this " Masjid al-Haram" is?

Thank you.
GOD bless you.
Peace.


Am I some kind of translator robot now?  You can find the translation yourself.  To identfy this place:


"The people of the Book know this as they know their own sons; but some of them conceal the truth which they themselves know."

None of the christians or jews recognize mecca like they recognize their sons.  Literally zero.  Jerusalem is recognized though by muslims, christians and jews.

Like posted above.  There is no such place in the world that is recognized by all the abrahamic faiths.  It's not that hard to find out where masjid al haram is.  Still today temple mount is called sharif al haram.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 27, 2015, 01:28:09 PM
Well it is quite obvious that you are unfamiliar with these verses otherwise you would never claim that we as Muslims follow the qibla of the Christians and the Jews.

"The people of the Book know this as they know their own sons; but some of them conceal the truth which they themselves know."

Contradict with what? That the qibla has been changed (as clearly mentioned in the above verses)? Kindly elaborate.

That verse contradicts with mecca as a possible candidate.  The qibla has never been changed by Gods or his messenger authority.  We know caliph Walid I changed the qibla.  As demonstrated by archealogy of early mosques.  The earliest archaelogical evidence of a qibla towards mecca is 8th century.  Well after the lifespan of Muhammad.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 27, 2015, 01:33:02 PM
This is still a one way debate in which the meccans like to ask me questions while avoiding mine.  Here's my list again:

Please answer these questions:

Who built the shrine at mecca?

How old is the masjid al haram in mecca?

What source do you have proving who built the masjid al haram in mecca and when?

Do you claim there was christian influence in the hijaz region?

Where in Quran do you see Mecca named as the qibla?

Do you agree Quran says hindering access to masjid al haram is a great injustice?

If you do, how do you justify that with the practice of only allowing muslims at Mecca?

Thank you.

Please answer these questions.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 27, 2015, 01:34:50 PM

"The people of the Book know this as they know their own sons; but some of them conceal the truth which they themselves know."

None of the christians or jews recognize mecca like they recognize their sons.  Literally zero.  Jerusalem is recognized though by muslims, christians and jews.

Like posted above.  There is no such place in the world that is recognized by all the abrahamic faiths.  It's not that hard to find out where masjid al haram is.  Still today temple mount is called sharif al haram.

Peace

Did you not yourself say that these abrahamic faiths recognize Bekka?

You couldn't find any historical record to place bekka in Jerusalem. But we know that the Qur'an refers to it.

Seems to me more of an issue about you not accepting Quran rather than anything else.

Quran is a reminder to mankind, and thus to expect the Jews and the Christians to know what their Prophets were talking about is not feasible. You yourself accept that the christians are wrong when they talk about the trinity. So then why would you accept that they know where bekka is located when the Quran is giving you clear answers to it?
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 27, 2015, 01:38:44 PM
Quran is giving clear answers:

"The people of the Book know this as they know their own sons; but some of them conceal the truth which they themselves know."

This is literally what Quran says about the qibla.  Some of the jewish and christians conceal the truth.  Telling us the majority knows where this is. 

Again baca can only be identified in Jerusalem.  As only the baca in Jerusalem fits that description.  Mecca never fitted that description.  If you think it does please provide sources attesting at least some christians and jews recognized Mecca to be a site of pilgrimage.  They don't exist.

Then you tell me I have a problem accepting Quran?  That made me smile, seriously.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 27, 2015, 01:49:50 PM
This is still a one way debate in which the meccans like to ask me questions while avoiding mine.  Here's my list again:

Please answer these questions:

Who built the shrine at mecca?

How old is the masjid al haram in mecca?

What source do you have proving who built the masjid al haram in mecca and when?

Do you claim there was christian influence in the hijaz region?

Where in Quran do you see Mecca named as the qibla?

Do you agree Quran says hindering access to masjid al haram is a great injustice?

If you do, how do you justify that with the practice of only allowing muslims at Mecca?

Thank you.

Please answer these questions.

"Who built the shrine at mecca?"


Who built the shrine at the temple mount. Actually the better question would be. Was there ever anything Jewish related on the temple mount that you pray to? Atleast we know that the Kaaba is there in Mecca, and have never had any proof to show that there never was a Kaaba in Mecca (other than your fantasies).

"How old is the masjid al haram in mecca?"

The Masjid al Haram keeps being renovated. And it is renovated because we don't care about the rocks it is made of. It is simply a direction of Prayer.
How old is the temple Mount? and how come the Jews have yet to prove its link to any abrahamic prophet?

"What source do you have proving who built the masjid al haram in mecca and when?"

What source do you have for proving these things related to your Qibla in Jerusalem?

"Do you claim there was christian influence in the hijaz region?"

I have no reason to doubt it. What is your proof to doubt the whole academic world on this, including the vast majority of western non-muslim scholars. It is you who is on the weak wicket on this issue, not me.

"Where in Quran do you see Mecca named as the qibla?"

Where do you see Jerusalem being named as the Qibla. What we DO see is God telling us to follow Muhammad (PBUH) in the direction of Qibla. Unless you think that Mohammad (PBUH) never lived in the Hijaz, and was never a leader of a vast Arab empire at the time of his death. Do you think he was a figment of the Hadithers imagination?

"if you do, how do you justify that with the practice of only allowing muslims at Mecca?"

How does the saudi governments decision have anything to do with the message of God? Does Allah (SWT) say anywhere in the Quran that non-muslims are not allowed. If he does then thats Gods decision, not mine.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 27, 2015, 01:53:04 PM
I see answering questions to you means raising questions to me in return.  My God, how old are you?

But we can conclude OnlyOneGodMultipleQiblas demonstrates the following 'reason':

He doesn't know who built the shrine at mecca.

He doesn't know how old it is or if it predates quran.

He doesn't have any sources for what he believes to be the qibla.

He is ignorant to factual data such as no christian influence in the hijaz reason.

He doesn't know where Quran tells him mecca is the qibla, simply because it isn't there.  He trusts the hadith to be true on this matter.

He believes God would tolerate the exclusive access to the most sacred by polytheists and thinks as a muslim he is not obliged to safeguard the most sacred.

He is not impressed by any archaeological evidence but prefers the fantastic stories we find in the hadith. 

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 27, 2015, 02:03:01 PM
Quran is giving clear answers:

"The people of the Book know this as they know their own sons; but some of them conceal the truth which they themselves know."

This is literally what Quran says about the qibla.  Some of the jewish and christians conceal the truth.  Telling us the majority knows where this is. 

Again baca can only be identified in Jerusalem.  As only the baca in Jerusalem fits that description.  Mecca never fitted that description.  If you think it does please provide sources attesting at least some christians and jews recognized Mecca to be a site of pilgrimage.  They don't exist.

Then you tell me I have a problem accepting Quran?  That made me smile, seriously.

Peace

Well the christians and the Jews living there DID know the truth. You simply want to ignore those people.

"Again baca can only be identified in Jerusalem."

As per whom? You have yet to give any solid evidence on this other than your love for quoting the bible. At one time you claim that the bible is false and then go on to use it as a historical grid reference for places no one has heard of. I would suggest that u choose a side and stick to it.

"As only the baca in Jerusalem fits that description."

Which description of Baca? By whom?

" If you think it does please provide sources attesting at least some christians and jews recognized Mecca to be a site of pilgrimage."

The christian writers of the bible were not Prophets of God, therefore, for them to not know the actual location of baca is understandable. Why would they mention a place like Mecca where they had never even visited it?

God in his last message sent a Messenger to that location, whether you want to believe or not is obviously up to you.

Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 27, 2015, 02:04:51 PM
I'm sort of done with debating with you OnlyOneGod, you don't show much rationality.

If you still claim the hadith to be true when the archaeological evidence of the qibla of early mosques contradicts this, then you are simply insane in my book.  There is no mosque that can be dated to the 7th century pointing to Mecca.  Not one testimony of the qibla being mecca that can be dated to 7th century.  Your meccan qibla is only supported by hadith and contradicted not only by Quran, but by the entire historical record.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: good logic on July 27, 2015, 02:07:28 PM
Peace runninglikezebra.

Here is a  history quote , similar to your history quotes from your posts,but in disagreement with your point of view:

Kaaba & Mecca In History

Edward Gibbon writes about the Ka'bah and its existence before the Christian era in his book:

..... of blind mythology of barbarians - of the local deities, of the stars, the air, and the earth, of their sex or titles, their attributes or subordination. Each tribe, each family, each independent worrier, created and changed the rites and the object of this fantastic worship; but the nation, in every age, has bowed to the religion as well as to the language of Mecca. The genuine antiquity of Caaba ascends beyond the Christian era: in describing the coast of the Red sea the Greek historian Diodorus has remarked, between the Thamudites and the Sabeans, a famous temple, whose superior sanctity was revered by all the Arabians; the linen of silken veil, which is annually renewed by the Turkish emperor, was first offered by the Homerites, who reigned seven hundred years before the time of Mohammad.[2]

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.[3]

It is interesting to know that Claudius Ptolemy of Alexandria, mathematician and astronomer, flourishing about a century after Pliny, undertook to make an atlas of the habitable world. He was not a descriptive geographer, and his book was intended to be no more than a commentary on his maps. He enumerated some hundred and fourteen cities or villages in Arabia Felix.

For example, Dumaetha, placed by Ptolemy just outside the northern boundary of Arabia Felix, must be the mediaeval Arabian Daumet, which is today the chief village of the great oasis of Jauf. Hejr, famous in the "times of ignorance" as the seat of a kingdom, and now Medayin Salih, is Ptolemy's Egra. His Thaim is Teima, now known for its inscriptions to have had temples and some sort of civilization as far back as 500 BC. It is the Tema of Job. In Lathrippa, placed inland from Iambia (Yambo), we recognize the Iathrippa of Stephan of Byzantium, the Yathrib of the early Arab traditions, now honoured as El Medina, the City of Cities.[4]

Apart from this a place called Macoraba is also shown which is identified as Mecca (please refer to the map facing page 17 of reference [3]). G E von Grunebaum says:

Mecca is mentioned by Ptolemy, and the name he gives it allows us to identify it as a South Arabian foundation created around a sanctuary.[5]

The main question should be:

Where/what is "Masjid -Al-Haram"? 

Of course evidence from Qoran required.

Many thanks.
GOD bless you.
Peace.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 27, 2015, 02:07:49 PM
The christian writers of the bible were not Prophets of God, therefore, for them to not know the actual location of baca is understandable. Why would they mention a place like Mecca where they had never even visited it?

God in his last message sent a Messenger to that location, whether you want to believe or not is obviously up to you.

This shows how little logic you have.  Quran says people of the Book recognize the place like their sons.  Here you are saying they never even visited Mecca while still pretending Quran says the qibla is in Mecca.   You sir are crazy in the coconut.  Delusional.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 27, 2015, 02:09:54 PM
I see answering questions to you means raising questions to me in return.  My God, how old are you?

But we can conclude OnlyOneGodMultipleQiblas demonstrates the following 'reason':

He doesn't know who built the shrine at mecca.

He doesn't know how old it is or if it predates quran.

He doesn't have any sources for what he believes to be the qibla.

He is ignorant to factual data such as no christian influence in the hijaz reason.

He doesn't know where Quran tells him mecca is the qibla, simply because it isn't there.  He trusts the hadith to be true on this matter.

He believes God would tolerate the exclusive access to the most sacred by polytheists and thinks as a muslim he is not obliged to safeguard the most sacred.

He is not impressed by any archaeological evidence but prefers the fantastic stories we find in the hadith. 

Peace

Difference between you and me is that not only do I believe in the Quran, I also believe in the world wide academic historians opinion, that matches my belief.

You on the other hand, believe in things because you want to believe in things.

This campaign to disprove the existance of Prophet Muhammad and the whole history od Mecca etc is quite old and worn out. You don't want to believe that Muslims recorded a history of their origins. Thats your choice. I think we've been through this roundabout long enough:

"To you your religion and to me mine."
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 27, 2015, 02:11:37 PM
Peace runninglikezebra.

Here is a  history quote , similar to your history quotes from your posts,but in disagreement with your point of view:

Kaaba & Mecca In History

Edward Gibbon writes about the Ka'bah and its existence before the Christian era in his book:

..... of blind mythology of barbarians - of the local deities, of the stars, the air, and the earth, of their sex or titles, their attributes or subordination. Each tribe, each family, each independent worrier, created and changed the rites and the object of this fantastic worship; but the nation, in every age, has bowed to the religion as well as to the language of Mecca. The genuine antiquity of Caaba ascends beyond the Christian era: in describing the coast of the Red sea the Greek historian Diodorus has remarked, between the Thamudites and the Sabeans, a famous temple, whose superior sanctity was revered by all the Arabians; the linen of silken veil, which is annually renewed by the Turkish emperor, was first offered by the Homerites, who reigned seven hundred years before the time of Mohammad.[2]

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.[3]

It is interesting to know that Claudius Ptolemy of Alexandria, mathematician and astronomer, flourishing about a century after Pliny, undertook to make an atlas of the habitable world. He was not a descriptive geographer, and his book was intended to be no more than a commentary on his maps. He enumerated some hundred and fourteen cities or villages in Arabia Felix.

For example, Dumaetha, placed by Ptolemy just outside the northern boundary of Arabia Felix, must be the mediaeval Arabian Daumet, which is today the chief village of the great oasis of Jauf. Hejr, famous in the "times of ignorance" as the seat of a kingdom, and now Medayin Salih, is Ptolemy's Egra. His Thaim is Teima, now known for its inscriptions to have had temples and some sort of civilization as far back as 500 BC. It is the Tema of Job. In Lathrippa, placed inland from Iambia (Yambo), we recognize the Iathrippa of Stephan of Byzantium, the Yathrib of the early Arab traditions, now honoured as El Medina, the City of Cities.[4]

Apart from this a place called Macoraba is also shown which is identified as Mecca (please refer to the map facing page 17 of reference [3]). G E von Grunebaum says:

Mecca is mentioned by Ptolemy, and the name he gives it allows us to identify it as a South Arabian foundation created around a sanctuary.[5]

The main question should be:

Where/what is "Masjid -Al-Haram"? 

Of course evidence from Qoran required.

Many thanks.
GOD bless you.
Peace.

You are showing me evidence of pre-quranic pagan worship in Arabia.  I don't dispute that.  It still is a place of pagan worship today.  Question is did Jews or Christians ever recognize Mecca like they would recognize their own sons?  The question is really simple. 

Can you think of any such place in the world that is recognized by muslims, jews and christians that is NOT Jerusalem?  Also a simple question.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 27, 2015, 02:21:15 PM
Can you think of any such place in the world that is recognized by muslims, jews and christians that is NOT Jerusalem?  Also a simple question.

Peace

I am forced to say this but please remember what I quoted to you from the Quran:

"Even if thou wert to bring to the people of the Book all the Signs (together), they would not follow Thy Qibla; nor art thou going to follow their Qibla; nor indeed will they follow each other's Qibla. If thou after the knowledge hath reached thee, Wert to follow their (vain) desires,-then wert thou Indeed (clearly) in the wrong."

What does it matter what the previous Qibla was.

Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 27, 2015, 02:29:44 PM
@OnlyOneGod just out of curiosity what is your nationality?

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 27, 2015, 02:33:26 PM
@OnlyOneGod just out of curiosity what is your nationality?

Peace

Pakistani

Whats yours
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 27, 2015, 02:34:09 PM
Belgian.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 27, 2015, 02:40:59 PM
The verse you quoted do you know what historical events it relates to?  To which actors?  Clearly the People of The Book who refuse to follow 'Thy qibla' are not all the People of the Book but a specific group, otherwise it would contradict with "The people of the Book know this as they know their own sons; but some of them conceal the truth which they themselves know."

I can identify each of those groups, can you?

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 27, 2015, 02:50:28 PM
"Even if thou wert to bring to the people of the Book all the Signs (together), they would not follow Thy Qibla nor art thou going to follow their Qibla; nor indeed will they follow each other's Qibla."

For Jews the qibla was always Jerusalem.  Christians don't have a qibla.  The christians mentioned here are the byzantines who would never accept a qibla that is associated with the Jews or the Muslims.

Christians expelled the Jews from Jerusalem.  In turn certain Jews collaborated with Sassanids (persian polytheists) to reconquer Jerusalem.  They are historically known as the Tiberian jews and the followers of Nehemiah ben Hushiel.  They betrayed their convenant with God when they sided with polytheists to reconquer Jerusalem.  Nehemiah ben Hushiel was a mystic, he was installed into power as an exilarch and there are many indicitations these jews worshipped him like a messianic Ezra.

This verse is telling muslims not to expect these Tiberian Jews or Christians will ever accept your qibla and God is telling them not to follow their example which turned them into polytheists.

Who could God turn to to protect the most sacred?  Christians expel and refuse access to Jews.  Jews collaborate with polytheists.

Muslims get appointed as a balanced community to establish the correct Qibla once again.  The same qibla given to Abraham and to be the guardians of Temple Mount.  A promise which is still kept today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Islamic_Waqf

Peace

Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: good logic on July 27, 2015, 02:58:32 PM
Peace runninglikezebras:

This verse:الَّذينَ ءاتَينٰهُمُ الكِتٰبَ يَعرِفونَهُ كَما يَعرِفونَ أَبناءَهُم وَإِنَّ فَريقًا مِنهُم لَيَكتُمونَ الحَقَّ وَهُم يَعلَمونَ ,that you keep quoting does not talk about a place or qibla?

The word "Yaarifounahu" is masculine ,It just means they know the "truth" about the new messenger bringing a new scripture! It is written in the Torah and the Gospel.

GOD bless you.
Peace.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 27, 2015, 03:01:29 PM
Peace runninglikezebras:

This verse:الَّذينَ ءاتَينٰهُمُ الكِتٰبَ يَعرِفونَهُ كَما يَعرِفونَ أَبناءَهُم وَإِنَّ فَريقًا مِنهُم لَيَكتُمونَ الحَقَّ وَهُم يَعلَمونَ ,that you keep quoting does not talk about a place or qibla?

The word "Yaarifounahu" is masculine ,It just means they know the "truth" about the new messenger bringing a new scripture! It is written in the Torah and the Gospel.

GOD bless you.
Peace.

I suggest you read the entire sura if you think it does not speak about the qibla.  If you take the previous verses into account its clearly not speaking about recognizing the truth about a messenger but the truth about the correct qibla.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 27, 2015, 03:09:48 PM
The verse you quoted do you know what historical events it relates to?  To which actors?  Clearly the People of The Book who refuse to follow 'Thy qibla' are not all the People of the Book but a specific group, otherwise it would contradict with "The people of the Book know this as they know their own sons; but some of them conceal the truth which they themselves know."

I can identify each of those groups, can you?

Peace

"Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in"!!


"The verse you quoted do you know what historical events it relates to?  To which actors? "

Does it matter?

"Clearly the People of The Book who refuse to follow 'Thy qibla' are not all the People of the Book but a specific group, otherwise it would contradict with "The people of the Book know this as they know their own sons; but some of them conceal the truth which they themselves know."

You are assuming that this verse [2:146] talks about the Qibla when none of the major translations say that it is talking about the Qibla. It could be talking about the Quran, as translated by Pickthall, or about Muhammad (PBUH) as translated by Sahih Internationa, Mohsin Khan, Shakir etc.

Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 27, 2015, 03:12:15 PM

"Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in"!!


"The verse you quoted do you know what historical events it relates to?  To which actors? "

Does it matter?

"Clearly the People of The Book who refuse to follow 'Thy qibla' are not all the People of the Book but a specific group, otherwise it would contradict with "The people of the Book know this as they know their own sons; but some of them conceal the truth which they themselves know."

You are assuming that this verse [2:146] talks about the Qibla when none of the major translations say that it is talking about the Qibla. It could be talking about the Quran, as translated by Pickthall, or about Muhammad (PBUH) as translated by Sahih Internationa, Mohsin Khan, Shakir etc.

Amazing! This while the majority of verses leading up to them deal with the qibla.  Isn't that weird?  Does the previous verse speak of qibla or not?  Maybe someone is trying to conceal something?

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 27, 2015, 03:17:28 PM
Amazing! This while the majority of verses leading up to them deal with the qibla.  Isn't that weird?

Peace

You think its strange that thye people of the book are told to follow the Prophet (PBUH) while talking about the Qibla? Does this translation make sense to you in that context?

"Those to whom We gave the Scripture (Jews and Christians) recognise him (Muhammad SAW or the Ka'bah at Makkah) as they recongise their sons. But verily, a party of them conceal the truth while they know it - [i.e. the qualities of Muhammad SAW which are written in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)]. "

Or maybe this translation:

"Those whom We have given the Book recognize him as they recognize their sons, and a party of them most surely conceal the truth while they know (it)."

Seems quite logical to me.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 27, 2015, 03:19:22 PM
You think its strange that thye people of the book are told to follow the Prophet (PBUH) while talking about the Qibla? Does this translation make sense to you in that context?

"Those to whom We gave the Scripture (Jews and Christians) recognise him (Muhammad SAW or the Ka'bah at Makkah) as they recongise their sons. But verily, a party of them conceal the truth while they know it - [i.e. the qualities of Muhammad SAW which are written in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)]. "

My logic mind tells me it is speaking about the truth about the qibla mentioned in the verse before it.  Is that irrational of me?

"they recognize it" NOT "they recognize him"

http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=Erf#(2:146:4)

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 27, 2015, 03:21:14 PM
My logic mind tells me it is speaking about the truth about the qibla mentioned in the verse before it.  Is that irrational of me?

Peace

So Qibla can be compared to sons while the Prophet cannot?

Wouldn't it be more logical to compare Qibla to one of their religions buildings?
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: huruf on July 27, 2015, 03:21:39 PM
 Ba-Kaf-Kaf (e.g. bakka) = pounding or crushing (al-&unuqa: (on) the neck) (daqqul-&unuqa), distinguishing/ranking above others (farraqahu, kharaqahu), jostling, pressing or crowding(crowds:zahm), any crowding(or crowds), competition. (izdihaam) heaping/piling together/amassing (taraakib), super-imposition of things on top of other things (taraakim), a man/male having or the trying to have sex with a female, denial or rejection a thing or person's dignity, to humiliate, cancellation/dissolution/breaking, being in need or being stout, muscular or rough from activity, name of a place.

bakkah n. 3:96

= Miim-Kaf-Kaf = Sucking, Sucking up, Absorbing, drinking up, Destruction/Destroying, diminishing, diminution/failing; failure, to cast, to throw away, to discard, to straighten/tighten or impede/restrict, to beseech/ask/accept, crowding, competition (izdihaam). Makkah (city of).

makkah n.f. 48:24

These two words, suggested by a Moroccan friend very well versed in Arabic and in the Qur'an are complementary and are an apt description either litterally or symbolically of the heart.

B-k-k fills up,

M-k-k empties and with that alternation the heart pounds.

An ocurence of that may signal a single place or single correlation of events or a sttern of events. It means the same thing, but a live thing, pumping life sustance or sustenance, either physically or spiritually.

Salaam


Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: good logic on July 27, 2015, 03:22:14 PM
Peace runninglikezebra.

For example what does this mean:

سَيَقولُ السُّفَهاءُ مِنَ النّاسِ ما وَلّىٰهُم عَن قِبلَتِهِمُ الَّتى كانوا عَلَيها قُل لِلَّهِ المَشرِقُ وَالمَغرِبُ يَهدى مَن يَشاءُ إِلىٰ صِرٰطٍ مُستَقيمٍ

What change does this suggest?

قَد نَرىٰ تَقَلُّبَ وَجهِكَ فِى السَّماءِ فَلَنُوَلِّيَنَّكَ قِبلَةً تَرضىٰها فَوَلِّ وَجهَكَ شَطرَ المَسجِدِ الحَرامِ وَحَيثُ ما كُنتُم فَوَلّوا وُجوهَكُم شَطرَهُ وَإِنَّ الَّذينَ أوتُوا الكِتٰبَ لَيَعلَمونَ أَنَّهُ الحَقُّ مِن رَبِّهِم وَمَا اللَّهُ بِغٰفِلٍ عَمّا يَعمَلونَ



Are you  saying "Masjid-Al-Haram" is in Jerusalem?

Evidence from Qoran please?

GOD bless you.
Peace.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 27, 2015, 03:22:25 PM
So Qibla can be compared to sons while the Prophet cannot?

Wouldn't it be more logical to compare Qibla to one of their religions buildings?

Is the prophet a thing?  Do you call the prophet IT?

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 27, 2015, 03:23:57 PM
Peace runninglikezebra.

For example what does this mean:

سَيَقولُ السُّفَهاءُ مِنَ النّاسِ ما وَلّىٰهُم عَن قِبلَتِهِمُ الَّتى كانوا عَلَيها قُل لِلَّهِ المَشرِقُ وَالمَغرِبُ يَهدى مَن يَشاءُ إِلىٰ صِرٰطٍ مُستَقيمٍ

What change does this suggest?

قَد نَرىٰ تَقَلُّبَ وَجهِكَ فِى السَّماءِ فَلَنُوَلِّيَنَّكَ قِبلَةً تَرضىٰها فَوَلِّ وَجهَكَ شَطرَ المَسجِدِ الحَرامِ وَحَيثُ ما كُنتُم فَوَلّوا وُجوهَكُم شَطرَهُ وَإِنَّ الَّذينَ أوتُوا الكِتٰبَ لَيَعلَمونَ أَنَّهُ الحَقُّ مِن رَبِّهِم وَمَا اللَّهُ بِغٰفِلٍ عَمّا يَعمَلونَ



Are you  saying "Masjid-Al-Haram" is in Jerusalem?

Evidence from Qoran please?

GOD bless you.
Peace.

Good logic, I think I gave my perspective of those verses in earlier posts, please consult them before asking me.  If not, people will accuse me of repeating.  To save you work, I deny those verses speak about a change at all.  If you see a change in them please tell me where you see it and what evidence you see for it.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 27, 2015, 03:24:47 PM
Is the prophet a thing?  Do you call the prophet IT?

Peace

None of the major translations say "it".
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 27, 2015, 03:26:43 PM
Then those translations suck.  You can crosscheck if you want it does not say "him".

Crosscheck with http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=6&verse=20#(6:20:1)

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 27, 2015, 03:28:33 PM
Then those translations suck.  You can crosscheck if you want it does not say "him".

Peace

Hahaha ... ok so now the translations are wrong.

Btw ... the "it" could also mean "the fact" that the qibla is not the same, as mentioned in earlier verses.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 27, 2015, 03:29:29 PM
If that's news to you, then you have a long way to go bro.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 27, 2015, 03:30:17 PM
You don't have to take my word for it.

Crosscheck with http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=6&verse=20#(6:20:1)
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 27, 2015, 03:32:07 PM
Hahaha ... ok so now the translations are wrong.

Btw ... the "it" could also mean "the fact" that the qibla is not the same, as mentioned in earlier verses.

Oh where does it say the qibla is no longer the same?

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 27, 2015, 03:34:27 PM
Oh where does it say the qibla is no longer the same?

Peace

Have you forgotten about the previous verse?

"And even if you bring to those who have been given the Book every sign they would not follow your qiblah, nor can you be a follower of their qiblah, neither are they the followers of each other's qiblah, and if you follow their desires after the knowledge that has come to you, then you shall most surely be among the unjust."

Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 27, 2015, 03:36:42 PM
And the word change is where?

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 27, 2015, 03:38:33 PM
And the word change is where?

Peace

Were you not quoting the next verse after this?

This is a merry-go-round.

That "it" you want is more related to this part of the verse:

"and if you follow their desires after the knowledge that has come to you, then you shall most surely be among the unjust."
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 27, 2015, 03:39:46 PM
You seriously haven't proven how that verse indicates a change in qibla.  Please elaborate how it indicates a change from old to new.  As far as I'm concerned it describes a massive disagreement surrounding the qibla rather than a change from old to new.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on July 27, 2015, 03:44:23 PM
You seriously haven't proven how that verse indicates a change in qibla.  Please elaborate how it indicates a change from old to new.  As far as I'm concerned it describes a massive disagreement surrounding the qibla rather than a change from old to new.

Peace


"Had We sent this as a Qur'an (in the language) other than Arabic, they would have said: "Why are not its verses explained in detail? What! (a Book) not in Arabic and (a Messenger an Arab?" Say: "It is a Guide and a Healing to those who believe; and for those who believe not, there is a deafness in their ears, and it is blindness in their (eyes): They are (as it were) being called from a place far distant!"
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 27, 2015, 03:46:40 PM
Whatever.

You're still invited to explain how that verse describes:

a) the old situation
b) the new situation
c) the instruction for change

I'm saying it's

d) disagreement about a current situation

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 27, 2015, 03:49:15 PM
"And even if you bring to those who have been given the Book every sign they would not follow your qiblah, nor can you be a follower of their qiblah, neither are they the followers of each other's qiblah, and if you follow their desires after the knowledge that has come to you, then you shall most surely be among the unjust."

If a is not following b and c is not following d and vice versa

Is this a change in direction (qibla) or is it a disagreement about direction?

Logic dictates it's a disagreement about a direction.  The change you see in it is pure conjecture.  Logic 101.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Man of Faith on July 28, 2015, 03:44:13 AM
Why follow a qiblateh at all? That is against the second commandment. But that your friends who interpreted Quran in the first place has done away with. The same mentality that kept a Temple Mount holy and aligned all surrounding temples in its direction. It is actually fairly similar to how the pyramids were aligned according to the sun and a shaft to let the sun beams reach down to the deceased Pharaoh, whom was considered a god due to superstition.

That is keeping dead matter to act like a beacon.

The interesting thing is that the temple in "Mecca's" original building faced Sinai as well. It was probably just an ordinary church/synagogue originally. The arch at the site is part of the original building and it was in a similar direction as Sinai.

No place is holier than its inhabitants at any given moment. And it is hardly the flesh which is holy.

The 'Ten Commandments' as a reference is mentioned the first time in Quran in 2:60, impossible to recognize unless you drop the bias and decipher the passage anew. I only say a pair of stones with ten. One has to really know Arabic though.

Be well
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: 357 on July 28, 2015, 04:28:08 AM
Why follow a qiblateh at all? That is against the second commandment. But that your friends who interpreted Quran in the first place has done away with. The same mentality that kept a Temple Mount holy and aligned all surrounding temples in its direction. It is actually fairly similar to how the pyramids were aligned according to the sun and a shaft to let the sun beams reach down to the deceased Pharaoh, whom was considered a god due to superstition.

That is keeping dead matter to act like a beacon.

The interesting thing is that the temple in "Mecca's" original building faced Sinai as well. It was probably just an ordinary church/synagogue originally. The arch at the site is part of the original building and it was in a similar direction as Sinai.

No place is holier than its inhabitants at any given moment. And it is hardly the flesh which is holy.

The 'Ten Commandments' as a reference is mentioned the first time in Quran in 2:60, impossible to recognize unless you drop the bias and decipher the passage anew. I only say a pair of stones with ten. One has to really know Arabic though.

Be well

Good stuff, nice to know someone sees ten instead of twelve.
 :peace:
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Man of Faith on July 28, 2015, 05:27:17 AM
Wish I could say like the Terminator: "I see everything". Well, at least this I have seen and a bunch of other things. Less of a sheep that way.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 28, 2015, 08:36:57 AM
Wish I could say like the Terminator: "I see everything". Well, at least this I have seen and a bunch of other things. Less of a sheep that way.

Yeah you see as much as a Terminator with the power switched off.  How is recognizing/acknowledging the roots of your faith a form of idol worship?

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Man of Faith on July 28, 2015, 10:39:38 AM
Bla bla bla... idolatry here idolatry there. I see holy places the kind of idolatry that counts.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 28, 2015, 11:01:58 AM
 [updated to level of knowledge 2015-05-26]

I guess we'll have to wait for the next update of Man of Faiths knowledge chip for him to start making sense.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: truthseeker11 on July 29, 2015, 12:09:36 PM
Peace runninglikezebras,

I agree with you that the current so called "Masjid Al-Haram" in the city called "Makkah" cannot be the qiblah mentioned in al-quran.

The current pagan black cube idol known as "Kaaba" cannot be the common noun "kaaba"/base mentioned in al-quran or the "bayt" where hajj is to be held, due to the following contradictions:

3:97 In it are clear signs: the maqam of Abraham. And whoever enters it will be secure. And God is owed from the people to hajj al-bayt, whoever can make a path to it. And whoever rejects, then God has no need of the worlds.

1. Hajj al-bayt is for "the people", "whoever" can make a path to it, and not only for the Muslims as is the case with the current pagan black cube idol.

2. "maqam" of Abraham was IN the bayt and not OUTSIDE it.

3. "whoever enters it" implies that anyone can and should enter the bayt. No one is allowed to enter the current black cube idol except only the elite.

22:26 And We have appointed to Abraham the location of the bayt: "Do not set up anyone with Me, and purify my bayt for those who visit, and those who are standing, and the kneeling, the prostrating."

The original bayt was free of paganism. The current black cube idol is full of paganism and pagan rituals:

1. It perfectly resembles the Djinn Blocks which were representative of the pre quranic Nabatean god Dhu-Shara (identified with Dionysus/sun-god), and Nabatean goddess Allat (identified with Athena/Minerva/Aphrodite) :

http://www.dhushara.com/book/orsin/dhushara.htm

http://jerryandgod.com/2013/12/13/nabataean-gods-and-ezekiel-10-the-glory-of-the-lord/

2. The vulva shaped enclosure housing the black stone, and the black "dress" signifies that the black cube idol is the representation of the Nabatean goddess Allat rather than Dhu Shara.

3. The vulva shaped enclosure precisely aligns with the winter sunrise signifying worship of the sun god and his mother goddess Allat.

4. The black stone which is venerated is a pagan symbol, having nothing to do with islam.

5. Mindlessly spinning 7 times anti-clockwise around the female black cube goddess is a pagan ritual and is found nowhere in al-quran. This ritual is the same as the pagan ritual of circling the inner sanctuary of the pagan Nabatean temple seven times on the birth of the sun god Dhu Shara from the virgin mother goddess Allat, documented by Epiphanus in 4th century:

Quote
They were a North Arabic race who used the Aramaic script, and their principal male deity is Dusura, rendered into Greek as Doundares, and identified by the Greeks with Dionysus. The name means ?he of Shara? (dhu Sara), i.e., ?he of the mountain range esh-shara,? at Petra, and he is a Sun-god according to Strabo. Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, writing in the fourth century, preserves the only illuminating information about the mythology of this great cult of the Nabataeans. As he was born and educated in Palestine, and served in a monastic order there, his statement must be taken authoritatively. He says that the Nabataeans praised the virgin whose Arabic name is Chaabou. In Nabataean the Arabic nominative ending in u is regularly preserved in proper names, and Epiphanius undoubtedly heard the word ka?bu, ?square stone,? symbol in Nabataean religion for both Dusares and the great Mother-goddess, Allat of the Nabataeans. An Arabic writer says that a four-sided stone was worshipped as Allat, who in a Nabataean inscription was called ?Mother of the gods? . . Epiphanius states that Dusares was the offspring of the virgin Chaabou and only son of the ?lord? (Ka?bu). The Panegyrarchs of Nabataean cities came to Petra to assist in the festival of his birth, which was celebrated on the twenty-fifth of December.

"Worship of a dying god, son of the Earth-mother, was the principal cult of this North Arabian people during the period immediately before and after the life of Jesus of Nazareth in Palestine. The title of the Mother-goddess, Allat, is ?Mother of the gods? here, and a translation of the title of the great Mother-goddess of Babylonia, belet ilani, ?queen of the gods,? whose title in Sumerian is also ?goddess Mother.? Dusares and Allat of the Nabataeans are an Arabian reflex of the great Babylonian myth of Tammuz and Ishtar; and if the god is identified with Dionysus, the original character common to both is that of a Sun-god and patron of fertility. Strabe describes the Nabataeans as a particularly abstemious people; the Greeks and Romans called Dusares the Arabian Dionysus or Bacchus; and a statue of him found in the Hauran portrays him as a deity of the vine. The cornucopia and patera are also characteristic of Dusares on coins of Nabataean cities as an Arabian. Bacchus Dusares is a Greek and Roman deity. The celebration of his birth in December at Petra and the northern cities of Bostra and Adraa in the Hauran with games and festivities is a replica of the spring festivities at Babylon, when the death, burial, and resurrection of Marduk were celebrated with weeping, which was exchanged for rejoicing. The meaning of the actia dusaria at Petra may be inferred from the similar festival at Alexandria in Egypt, there called after an unexplained Egyptian word Kikellia, or in Greek the Cronia, which also occurred by night on the twenty-fifth of December. In this festival an image of a babe was taken from the temple sanctuary and greeted with loud acclamation by the worshippers, saying, ?the Virgin has begotten.? On the night of the fifth of December, a festival occurred before the image of Core; it ended with bringing forth from beneath the earth the image of Aion, which was carried seven times around the inner sanctuary of Core?s temple. The image was then returned to its place below the surface of the earth. Epiphanius, in whose writing this Egyptian cult is described, identifies the virgin mother of this myth with the Greek underworld goddess Core, as he does the virgin mother of Dusares, Chaabou of the Nabataeans. There is a wide syncretism here in this Arabic religion, composed of Babylonian, Greek, and Egyptian elements; and beyond all doubt the Nabataeans possessed an elaborate cult of Tammuz and Ishtar, of Osiris and Isis, of Dionysus and Basilinna, the equivalent of Proserpine-Core, in which this deity was represented as a youth, son of the Mother-goddess, who was reborn yearly in midwinter and who died in the summer.

" ?The Mother-goddess of the Nabataeans, Allat, identified with Core by the Greeks, is essentially the North Semitic Astarte, and the Babylonian Ishtar.? "?Stephen H. Langdon, "Semitic Mythology," in Vol. 5 of The Mythology of All Races. Boston: Archaeological Institute of America, Marshall Jones Company, 1931, 15-19."

Emphasis mine.

http://www.bible-sabbath.com/Christmas/Chris2.htm


Furthermore, nowhere in al-quran is "kaaba" proclaimed to be the "qiblah".

"kaaba" being open to all mankind for hajj, and "masjid al-haram" being made off-limits to the pagans proves that they have to be geographically distinct and different.

Mention of both "makkah" and "bakkah" in al-quran is proof that they cannot be referring to the same place. There are no different "dialects" in al-quran which can explain the variance, but one language.

There is ZERO archeological/historical evidence of the existence of a city by the name of "Makkah" in 7th century CE. The earliest reference to Makkah as a city is in the Continuato Byzantia Arabica, an 8th century document.

There is ZERO archeological/historical evidence of the existence of what is currently known as "Masjid Al-Haram" at the time of revelation of al-quran.


Having said all this, I disagree with some of the archeological evidence cited by you. The 7th century mosques that have been discovered do not face the direction of Jerusalem as wrongly asserted by the sources you quoted. The Iraq mosques are off by about 30 degrees from Jerusalem also. The Egyptian mosque is also significantly off from Jerusalem. Rather than face Jerusalem or Makkah, they interestingly face the winter sunset and the winter sunrise respectively proving once again a pagan ritual of worshipping the sun!!

Please see the following:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Dome_Of_The_Rock/qibla.html


Currently I am of the opinion that either "bakkah" and "makkah" are common nouns as mentioned in al-quran, or "Bakkah" is a proper name but its exact location is still unkown.

The exact location of "Bakkah" or "masjid al-haram" (the inviolable masjid) is irrelevant anyway because I am also of the opinion that:

1. Qiblah has nothing to do with a direction for salat as per al-quran. Facing a particular physical direction makes it paganism, as the Infinite Creator is everywhere:

2:115 And to God belong the east and the west, so wherever you turn, there is the face of God. God is Encompassing, Knowledgeable.

2:177 Piety is not to turn your faces towards the east and the west, .............................

2. "From wherever you go out" (2:149, 2:150) implies that qiblah is a mental focal point/purpose/consideration rather than a physical direction, because it is impossible to face a physical direction from "wherever you go out" due to Earth's curvature and astronomical implications. How will you face a physical qiblah from a colony of humans living on the dark side of the moon in the future? Also more than a few miles away and you will be facing the sky or space instead of a physical place due to curvature of the Earth. They were facing a physical qiblah and the Creator corrected them by asking them to make their qiblah a mental one to avoid paganism. Everyone who still face a physical qiblah during salat are "turning on their heels" from the Creator's recommendation.

3. 3:96 talks about the first "bayt" implying there could be other "buyut" following the first. Any "bayt", mutually agreed upon by the muslims, that satisfies the condition of no paganism, and guarantees free access to all, qualifies as the "kaaba"/base for the purpose of hajj.

Peace and best regards.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on July 29, 2015, 12:42:15 PM
The exact location of "Bakkah" or "masjid al-haram" (the inviolable masjid) is irrelevant anyway because I am also of the opinion that:

1. Qiblah has nothing to do with a direction for salat as per al-quran. Facing a particular physical direction makes it paganism, as the Infinite Creator is everywhere:

2:115 And to God belong the east and the west, so wherever you turn, there is the face of God. God is Encompassing, Knowledgeable.

2:177 Piety is not to turn your faces towards the east and the west, .............................

2. "From wherever you go out" (2:149, 2:150) implies that qiblah is a mental focal point/purpose/consideration rather than a physical direction, because it is impossible to face a physical direction from "wherever you go out" due to Earth's curvature and astronomical implications. How will you face a physical qiblah from a colony of humans living on the dark side of the moon in the future? Also more than a few miles away and you will be facing the sky or space instead of a physical place due to curvature of the Earth. They were facing a physical qiblah and the Creator corrected them by asking them to make their qiblah a mental one to avoid paganism. Everyone who still face a physical qiblah during salat are "turning on their heels" from the Creator's recommendation.

3. 3:96 talks about the first "bayt" implying there could be other "buyut" following the first. Any "bayt", mutually agreed upon by the muslims, that satisfies the condition of no paganism, and guarantees free access to all, qualifies as the "kaaba"/base for the purpose of hajj.

Peace and best regards.

Hi truthseeker11,

1. Agreed.  Don't you think it fits temple mount remarkably well?  Not only do all faiths have access to it.  The islamic waqf is still the balanced community in authority over temple mount.
2. It's debatable what you call "bayt".  The masjid al haram in Mecca is a replica of the architecture of the second Temple in Jerusalem.  The "bayt" of the second temple consisted of, like masjid al-haram today, also the courtyard.
3. Even in broader sense, you are not allowed to the entire domain of the masjid without having documents proving you are 'muslim' by the Saudi's standards.  They do check passports to verify this.  None such practices are applicable to enter Temple Mount.  Although there is no free access to all parts of the domain - to me this is irrelevant.  The salaat is traditionally performed on the courtyard not inside the inner structure.

I agree with you on qibla, the direction you pray in is not really a measurement for piety as Quran tells us.  To me it's striking though the exact same root word qbl is used in the old Testament always in reference to Jerusalem.  Next to this there is lots of evidence of early synagogues and mosques they all had a qibla pointing to Jerusalem. 

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: truthseeker11 on July 29, 2015, 02:33:03 PM
Hi runninglikezebras,

1. Agreed.  Don't you think it fits temple mount remarkably well?  Not only do all faiths have access to it.  The islamic waqf is still the balanced community in authority over temple mount.

If I had to speculate about the location of the first bayt for hajj or the "kaaba" or "balad al-amin", then I agree it was most likely what is currently known as Jerusalem. Some circumstantial evidence supporting this and making Makkah unlikely to be the candidate is as follows:

95:1 By the fig and the olive
6:99 And He is the one who sent down water from the heaven, and we brought out with it plants of every kind. We brought out from it the green, from which we bring out multiple seeds; and what is from the palm trees, from its sheaths hanging low and near; and gardens of grapes and olives and pomegranates, similar and not similar. Look at its fruit when it blossoms and its ripeness. In this are signs for a people who believe.

Figs, olives, grapes, pomegranates are plentiful in the area of Jerusalem but not grown in the area of Makkah.

http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9601384.0

37:133 And Lot was one of the messengers.
37:134 When We saved him and all his family.
37:135 Except an old woman who remained.
37:136 Then, We destroyed the rest.
37:137 And you pass by them in the morning;
37:138 And in the night. Do you not comprehend?

Archeological evidence points to the location of the ruins of the city of Lot as being south of the Dead Sea which is about 90-100 km from the current city of Jerusalem.

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/04/The-Discovery-of-the-Sin-Cities-of-Sodom-and-Gomorrah.aspx

The prophet passed by the ruins in the morning and in the night. Now unless he was Superman or Flash enabling him to fly or run from Makkah to the ruins of Lot in the morning and night, he must have been living within a few miles. This puts him in the vicinity of Jerusalem.

Thus it is more likely that "balad al-amin", "kaaba", "bayt al-haram" were either what is currently known as Jerusalem or close to it in Northern Arabia, since the prophet was located nearby.

My current opinion is that "bayt al-haram", "kaaba", and "balad al-amin" in al-quran refer to the same geographical place. Bayt al-haram and kaaba refer to the whole city. The city was a dwelling place (bayt) as well as the base (kaaba) of the believers.

I agree with you on qibla, the direction you pray in is not really a measurement for piety as Quran tells us.

 :handshake:

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: hafeez kazi on July 30, 2015, 02:36:43 AM
peace truthseeker

Quote
Archeological evidence points to the location of the ruins of the city of Lot as being south of the Dead Sea which is about 90-100 km from the current city of Jerusalem.

The historicity of Sodom and Gomorrah is still in dispute by archaeologists, as little archaeological evidence has ever been found in the regions where they were supposedly situated. (WIKIPEDIA)

Endorsing the research of the Christian archaeologists which contradicts Quran?

Quran never said that the so called Sodom and Ghomorrah were under the Dead Sea, but on a established road

And We made the highest part [of the city] its lowest and rained upon them stones of hard clay. 15:74

The faulty translation is because of the fake discovery of sodom and ghomorrah in Jordan

How could have Allah rained on the people of Lout when HE first turned the city upside down? Did Allah rain on the city or people?

So We saved him and his family, except for his wife; We destined her to be of those who remained behind And We rained upon them a rain [of stones], and evil was the rain of those who were warned

فَجَعَلْنَا  And We made (for the people of Lout) عَالِيَهَا   its ARROGANCE into سَافِلَهَا  its HUMILIATION, and rained down ON THEM (the people of Lout) brimstones hard as baked clay 15:74

And We certainly saved the Children of Israel from the humiliating torment from Pharaoh. Indeed, he was عَالِيًا  ARROGANT one among the transgressors. 44:30/31

(This failing), they then sought a stratagem against him, but We made them الْأَسْفَلِينَ the ones most HUMILIATED! 37:98

And indeed, those cities are [situated] on an لَبِسَبِيلٍ مُّقِيمٍ  established road

So We took retribution from them (people of Lout and Shuaib), and indeed, both [cities] ARE on a لَبِإِمَامٍ مُّبِينٍ  clear highway 15:79

Both the cities of Shuaib and Lout (not far away from each other) are on a clear highway. Does the Quran say below the Dead Sea?

The city of Lout was not in Jordan but in YEMEN

And (SHUAIB SAID) O my people, let not [your] dissension from me cause you to be struck by that similar to what struck the people of NOAH or the people of HUD or the people of SALIH. And the people of LOUT are not from you far away. 11:89

The people of SHUAIB knew the people of NOAH, HUD, and SALIH because they were from the same geographical location and the place of LOUT was not far from the place of SHUAIB. Therefore all the above five communities were in the vicinity of each other. If the place of SHUAIB is found in JORDAN then the place of all the remaining four places should also be nearby Jordan.

And assuredly We have destroyed the towns round about you. and We have variously propounded our signs, that haply they might return 46:27

How many towns around MECCA/JERUSALEM were destroyed? Any evidence?

The people of MECCA/JERUSALEM are walking and living in the dwellings of those who were destroyed by Allah

Has it not become clear to them how many generations We destroyed before them, [as] they walk among their dwellings? Indeed in that are signs; then do they not hear? 32:26

Is it not a guidance for them (to know) how many a generation We destroyed before them, amid whose dwellings they walk? Lo! therein verily are signs for men of thought 20:128

And you live among the dwellings of those who wronged themselves, and it had become clear to you how We dealt with them. And We presented for you [many] examples." 14:45

The people of MECCA/JERUSALEM inherited the land after its previous people were destroyed

Has it not become clear to those who inherited the land after its [previous] people that if We willed, We could afflict them for their sins? But We seal over their hearts so they do not hear 7:100

The people of MECCA/JERUSALEM are warned of destruction of the likes of the people of Aad and Thamud. WHY?

But if they turn away, then say: I warn you of a thunderbolt like the thunderbolt (which fell of old upon the tribes) of A'ad and Thamud 41:13

The people of MECCA/JERUSALEM were the successors of the people destroyed

And We had already destroyed generations before you when they wronged, and their messengers had come to them with clear proofs, but they were not to believe. Thus do We recompense the criminal people 10:13

Then We made you successors in the land after them so that We may observe how you will do 10:14

The trees in Mecca

[It is] He who made for you from the green tree, fire, and then from it you ignite. (Yaseen: 80)

Were there trees in the barren desert of Mecca?

This is enough to silence the proponents of MECCA/JERUSALEM as the place of the prophet Muhammad.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: truthseeker11 on July 30, 2015, 08:43:49 AM
Salaamun alaik Hafeez Kazi,

Quote
Does the Quran say below the Dead Sea?

The city of Lout was not in Jordan but in YEMEN

And (SHUAIB SAID) O my people, let not [your] dissension from me cause you to be struck by that similar to what struck the people of NOAH or the people of HUD or the people of SALIH. And the people of LOUT are not from you far away. 11:89

The people of SHUAIB knew the people of NOAH, HUD, and SALIH because they were from the same geographical location and the place of LOUT was not far from the place of SHUAIB. Therefore all the above five communities were in the vicinity of each other. If the place of SHUAIB is found in JORDAN then the place of all the remaining four places should also be nearby Jordan.

Thank you for your observations.

Route 65 seems to be an established road and a clear highway! Please check on Google Maps. If other ruined/destroyed cities/towns have not yet been discovered "not far away" from the south Dead Sea area, it does not preclude their discovery in the future.

Having said that, I am very open minded and completely open to any archeological evidence which conclusively proves the location of LOUT or the other mentioned messengers otherwise.

Some logical questions based on your input:

1. Does al-quran say SHUAIB and LOUT were located in Yemen?
2. What is your subjective definition of "not from you far away" as per 11:89? How many miles? 10 miles? 50 miles? 100 miles? 500 miles?
3. Do you know of any archeological evidence conclusively proving that NOAH, HUD, SALIH, SHUAIB and LOUT were located in Yemen and not south of Dead Sea area?

Quote
This is enough to silence the proponents of MECCA/JERUSALEM as the place of the prophet Muhammad.

I am glad that we are on the same page regarding Makkah.   :handshake:


Best Regards.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: hawk99 on July 31, 2015, 02:39:12 PM
Peace Hawk.

You and I know that ,no  matter what you say, even if it is backed up by Qoran, others are going to claim you are " using hadith"?



Peace good logic, It is true what you say, however in a forum setting
exchanges are not just for the addresser and addressee but for "all"
members to examine the points of view and decide if there is any useful
information.


Peace hawk99,

My apologies for missing that post.  So you do admit there was a shared tradition once, confirmed by the mosque of the two qiblas.  You seemed to deny this earlier.


Thank you runninglikezebras, I do not deny the former qibla.

Please answer these questions:

Who built the shrine at mecca?

How old is the masjid al haram in mecca?

What source do you have proving who built the masjid al haram in mecca and when?

Do you claim there was christian influence in the hijaz region?

Where in Quran do you see Mecca named as the qibla?


These questions may be important to you, but for me they are
of little value, the qibla, and our house are clear to me as per
Quran.


Do you agree Quran says hindering access to masjid al haram is a great injustice?


Hindering non Muslims from Mecca is not an injustice.  I have no desire to visit
other faiths sacred landmarks or participate in their rites and rituals.


These questions are still to be answered by the stone worshippers.

There's a stone also I believe in your Jerusalem!

Bottom line:  There are no shared rites and rituals amongst faiths,
Hindus have their rites, Jews have theirs, Buddhist have their way,
we have ours!  You can face Jerusalem if you like or Ontario or Brazil.


God bless you from the schizophrenic, acrobatic, fleshy beast.    ;D
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: FreedomStands on August 01, 2015, 01:37:32 AM
Just a quick note. Somewhere here something was mentioned. The Zoroastrians seem to be mentioned in the Qur'an by a different term than that of the polytheists, and the Zoroastrians at times were referred to in the Bible in positive terms (such as being called Messiah and righteous at times). Zoroastrian, though having various corruptions or exaggerations, was generally supposed to be mostly monotheistic with Ahura Mazda as the supreme God, but they would praise and glorify other powers too that were said to be subject to Ahura Mazda as servants and emanations of the Ultimate Power.

They were referred to in the New Testament as well, and in a positive way generally at times, rather than called "polytheists".

The polytheists in the Qur'an seem to have certain beliefs which the Zoroastrians don't seem to share in, and there seems to be archaeological evidence for non-Zoroastrian polytheism around the Arabian region and elsewhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Islamic_Arabia

http://www.academia.edu/829636/Pre-Islamic_Christianity_in_Arabia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Christians#Classic_antiquity

Haha the song playing right now is Thumbhang by Anvil
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: good logic on August 01, 2015, 08:35:08 AM
Peace Hawk.
Thank you for the reminder.

 "May my Lord guide me to do better next time."

GOD bless you.
Peace.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Layth on August 01, 2015, 09:58:26 AM
Salam,

The site of Mecca was destroyed if you consider that the fiery stones that were unleashed on the people of Lot have a resonance in traditional history, where they believe that the people of the elephant were destroyed in Mecca by fiery projectiles.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 01, 2015, 10:21:33 AM
What was there to destroy?

Quote
non Islamic Historians cannot find the City of Mecca before 400 AD and many experts seem to think it was not anywhere near the Arabian trade route.
The famous greek geographer Ptolemy mentioned Macoraba as a city in the Arabian interior. Some people wanted to assume that Macoraba was actually Mecca. Macoraba had appeared recently, with respect to Ptolemy?s time. This assumption would result in the conclusion that Mecca was built around the middle of the 2nd century A.D. However, even if this were true, it wouldn?t support the claim that Mecca was an old city existing from the time of Abraham.
Upon further study of the facts concerning Macoraba, we can conclude with certainty that Macoraba can?t be Mecca, and we can refute the idea that Mecca was built in the 2nd century A.D. All the facts point to the historical argument that Mecca was constructed in the 4th century A.D. Since Macoraba is not pronounced similar to Mecca, the scholar Crone suggested that the location of Maqarib, near Yathrib, was actually Macoraba. Maqarib is mentioned by Yaqut al-Hamawi, an Arab geographer who lived from 1179 to1229 A.D., in his geographical dictionary Mujam al-Buldan.[lx][60] This location is more acceptable than Mecca for the modern-day location of Macoraba, because Maqarib is closer in pronunciation to Macoraba than Mecca. Another reason is that Maqarib, though it does not exactly fit the documented location of Macoraba, is closer to the location, according to the latitude and longitude of Ptolemy, than Mecca is to the documented location of Macoraba.

Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Layth on August 01, 2015, 11:00:06 AM
While that may be true, it has no impact on the discussion at hand. Many towns which were destroyed have been lost for centuries, some never being populated again (Petra - capital of the Nabataen empire - was lost for centuries and left abandoned).

That Mecca was only populated in the 2nd or 4th century A.D. does not detract from what it could have been centuries before that.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: hawk99 on August 02, 2015, 06:08:59 AM
Peace Hawk.
Thank you for the reminder.

 "May my Lord guide me to do better next time."

GOD bless you.
Peace.

You are a contributor to the knowledge exchange in this forum,
one does not have to agree with you in order for others to benefit.
Keep up the good work.

That Mecca was only populated in the 2nd or 4th century A.D. does not detract from what it could have been centuries before that.

Agreed, places change names, rise and fall.

God bless



                  :peace:






           
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 04, 2015, 05:50:55 PM
While that may be true, it has no impact on the discussion at hand. Many towns which were destroyed have been lost for centuries, some never being populated again (Petra - capital of the Nabataen empire - was lost for centuries and left abandoned).

That Mecca was only populated in the 2nd or 4th century A.D. does not detract from what it could have been centuries before that.

Well that's an honest reply.  Conjecture but at least you're honest about it.

To me your interpretation still feels incompatible with "recognize it like their sons". I still need to find the first Jew who recognizes mecca like they recognize their sons. 

On my part I admit I have no hard evidence showing Bacca is a historical place in the vicinity of Jerusalem.  I feel comfortable however with the references in OT to bacca, always in conjunction with mount Zion, of which there is no doubt to be situated in Jerusalem.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Arman on August 05, 2015, 02:47:50 AM
references in OT to bacca, always in conjunction with mount Zion, of which there is no doubt to be situated in Jerusalem.

Salam.

This is interesting. I also believe Qur'an becca is a reference to OT becca.
However I did not know that there is any evidence / theory that OT becca is in or around Jerusalem.
Do you have any supporting?

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Arman
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: FreedomStands on August 05, 2015, 04:09:01 AM
Salam.

This is interesting. I also believe Qur'an becca is a reference to OT becca.
However I did not know that there is any evidence / theory that OT becca is in or around Jerusalem.
Do you have any supporting?

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Arman

I think he said right above that he doesn't really have any direct evidence of this except that Mount Zion being mentioned around the same verses or something like that.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Jafar on August 05, 2015, 05:18:03 AM
This is interesting. I also believe Qur'an becca is a reference to OT becca.
However I did not know that there is any evidence / theory that OT becca is in or around Jerusalem.
Do you have any supporting?

"Blessed are those whose strength is in you, whose hearts are set on pilgrimage.
As they pass through the Valley of Baka, they make it a place of springs; the autumn rains also cover it with pools.
They go from strength to strength, till each appears before God in Zion."

-- Psalm:84


(http://www.archatlas.org/workshop/philip/Slide21-edited.jpg)

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pano_Baalbek_1.jpg)

Baalbek or Baalbeck is a town in the Beqaa Valley of Lebanon situated east of the Litani River. Known as Heliopolis (Greek: Ἡλιούπολις) during the period of Roman rule, it was one of the largest sanctuaries in the empire and contains some of the best preserved Roman ruins in Lebanon.

Gigantic Stone in Baalbek which predate the Roman period
(http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_misterios/baalbek_11.jpg)

The roman build temple to their gods on top of a much older gigantic stone slab.

Why would the Roman bothered to set up a temple there?
Far away from Rome, Italy...



Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: huruf on August 05, 2015, 05:27:21 AM
We juggle with words, one says baa and the other says bacca, juggling movings the posts so that anything fits anything else at will.

Up till now, what was sayd about the ot was Baca, now it is transformed into becca. Which is it.

Because a and e might pass, but doubling the consonnant does not. Bakka(t) in Arabic is obviously a root b-k-k and nothing to do with a root b-k and the last letter is a ta marbuta which a marker for feminine.

All hisotrical and archeological research in Palestine ans orroundings is tainted by the previous assumption of the whole Bible being doubtless in every count and everything has been interpreted as taking that for granted and making it fit by hook or crook and now also the whole of Arabia must submit to the literary claims of a boc to which any finding must submit instead of submitting the assertions of the book to the real findings, no matter what the Qur'an says.

And since Pazuzu who exposed this kind of thing now is being buried under the question of the flat earth we apply to subverting the Qur'an also on things that have been cleared already.

Salaam
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Jafar on August 05, 2015, 05:33:41 AM
All hisotrical and archeological research in Palestine ans orroundings is tainted by the previous assumption of the whole Bible being doubtless in every count and everything has been interpreted as taking that for granted and making it fit by hook or crook and now also the whole of Arabia must submit to the literary claims of a boc to which any finding must submit instead of submitting the assertions of the book to the real findings, no matter what the Qur'an says.

I don't believe that the "True God" really command the entire mankind to flock into a SINGLE SPOT on earth anyway.
And shall punish those who refused to do so..
Only fools shall believe in such nonsense..

You want to go to Mecca? Go to Mecca..
You want to go to Becca? Go to Becca..
You want to go to Jerusalem? Go to Jerusalem..
You want to go to Girzim? Go to Girzim..
You want to go to Gangges river? Go to Gangges river
You want to go to Himalaya? Go to Himalaya..
You want to go to Fuji? Go to Fuji..
You want to go to Red Rock? Go to Red Rock..
You want to go to Borobudur? Go to Borobudur..
You want to go to Las Vegas? Go to Las Vegas..
You want to go to Abu Dhabi? Go to Abu Dhabi..

Quote
And since Pazuzu who exposed this kind of thing now is being buried under the question of the flat earth we apply to subverting the Qur'an also on things that have been cleared already.

My condolences on your lost..
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 05, 2015, 06:41:34 AM
Salam.

This is interesting. I also believe Qur'an becca is a reference to OT becca.
However I did not know that there is any evidence / theory that OT becca is in or around Jerusalem.
Do you have any supporting?

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Arman

There is no direct evidence only indirect. 

The indirect evidence in OT is as follows:

"Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools."

The word Baca occurs rarely in the Bible; it is also found in 2 Samuel 5:23,24 and 1 Chronicles 14:14,15 where it identifies a valley in which David fought the Philistines. The word Baka describes a bush, probably a Balsam bush but translated in the AV as a mulberry tree.

In 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles the valley of Baka is a valley full of balsam bushes near the valley of Rephaim. This is to the southwest of Jerusalem and forms an approach route to the city. The Philistines encamped in Rephaim to attack Jerusalem (2 Samuel 5:17,18), which shows that it is not in Arabia and David attacked Philistines who were encamped in the valley of Rephaim from the Valley of Baca (2 Sam. 5:23,24; 1 Chron. 14:14,15). Therefore the valley of Baka is near Jerusalem. It is clearly not in Arabia.

The Psalm is in praise of the house of God (the temple) in Jerusalem. Verses 5-7 describe the last part of the ascent of pilgrims to this house; the particular pilgrims ascend from the south west through the valley of Baca.

Psalm 84:6 describes a well made by the pilgrims. The well Zam-zam in Mecca was not made by pilgrims.

The valley is filled with pools of water by the rains. Mecca is very dry all the year round; it virtually never finds itself surrounded by pools of standing water left by rains.

The end of the pilgrimage is Zion (v. 7). This is, of course, Jerusalem and not Mecca.

http://bibleatlas.org/regional/valley_of_rephaim.htm

The wells are interesting, I relate them to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon%27s_Pools

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/The_pools_of_Solomon_Bethlehem_ca1890.jpg)

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Solomonspool3_n.jpg)

Compare these images to the zam zam well, which can hardly be imagined to be a pool.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 05, 2015, 06:48:06 AM
Why would the Roman bothered to set up a temple there?
Far away from Rome, Italy...

Romans build temples everywhere in their empire.  It's not at all uncommon.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: truthseeker11 on August 05, 2015, 08:52:21 AM
Hello Jafar, others,

"Blessed are those whose strength is in you, whose hearts are set on pilgrimage.
As they pass through the Valley of Baka, they make it a place of springs; the autumn rains also cover it with pools.
They go from strength to strength, till each appears before God in Zion."

-- Psalm:84


(http://www.archatlas.org/workshop/philip/Slide21-edited.jpg)

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pano_Baalbek_1.jpg)

Baalbek or Baalbeck is a town in the Beqaa Valley of Lebanon situated east of the Litani River. Known as Heliopolis (Greek: Ἡλιούπολις) during the period of Roman rule, it was one of the largest sanctuaries in the empire and contains some of the best preserved Roman ruins in Lebanon.

Gigantic Stone in Baalbek which predate the Roman period
(http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_misterios/baalbek_11.jpg)

The roman build temple to their gods on top of a much older gigantic stone slab.

Why would the Roman bothered to set up a temple there?
Far away from Rome, Italy...

 :bravo:

My current opinion/hypothesis is that the 1st quraanic bayt set-up for mankind was at Baalbek at this very location where Romans later built their temple. The Beqaa valley could be the changed name for Bakkah. This fits with other indirect and circumstantial evidences.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Arman on August 05, 2015, 06:41:41 PM
There is no direct evidence only indirect. 

The indirect evidence in OT is as follows:

"Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools."

The word Baca occurs rarely in the Bible; it is also found in 2 Samuel 5:23,24 and 1 Chronicles 14:14,15 where it identifies a valley in which David fought the Philistines. The word Baka describes a bush, probably a Balsam bush but translated in the AV as a mulberry tree.

In 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles the valley of Baka is a valley full of balsam bushes near the valley of Rephaim. This is to the southwest of Jerusalem and forms an approach route to the city. The Philistines encamped in Rephaim to attack Jerusalem (2 Samuel 5:17,18), which shows that it is not in Arabia and David attacked Philistines who were encamped in the valley of Rephaim from the Valley of Baca (2 Sam. 5:23,24; 1 Chron. 14:14,15). Therefore the valley of Baka is near Jerusalem. It is clearly not in Arabia.

Salam runninglikezebras.

The indirect evidences did not seem any more convincing to me than the Becca=Mecca hypothesis. 2 Samuel 5:23,24 and 1 Chronicles 14:14,15 seem to be talking about the tree rather than the valley. But I do agree with you "It is clearly not in Arabia."

Like what brother Jafar suggested my initial impression was also that the reference is for the valley in Lebanon. But then after careful reconsideration of the full message of Al Qur'an 3:96-97 and Psalm 84:5-6, my conclusion is in both this cases the reference is more allegorical / spiritual rather than physical.

You are of course entitled to have your own opinion.

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Regards,
Arman
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: truthseeker11 on August 05, 2015, 08:14:31 PM
Salamun alaik Arman,

The indirect evidences did not seem any more convincing to me than the Becca=Mecca hypothesis. 2 Samuel 5:23,24 and 1 Chronicles 14:14,15 seem to be talking about the tree rather than the valley. But I do agree with you "It is clearly not in Arabia."

Like what brother Jafar suggested my initial impression was also that the reference is for the valley in Lebanon. But then after careful reconsideration of the full message of Al Qur'an 3:96-97 and Psalm 84:5-6, my conclusion is in both this cases the reference is more allegorical / spiritual rather than physical.

Agreed.   :bravo:

My opinion/hypothesis about Baalbek is influenced by the Ancient Alien Theory about extra terrestrial beings having constructed the platform in Baalbek using advanced technology (most likely anti-gravity or sound wave levitation) around the time of Abraham, due to the size of the stones used to construct the platform (800 tons and more). Even modern technology fails to move around such huge stones and lift them up for construction. This coupled with the theory/hypothesis of Gabriel being a higher dimensional positive alien, who could belong to the same group of aliens who constructed Baalbek platform, and who brought the message to the prophet, led to my hypothesis about Baalbek.

The hypothesis of bakkah being "more allegorical/spiritual rather than physical", thereby being a common noun rather than a proper name of a place, is a completely valid hypothesis.

3:96   The first bayt established for the people is bibakkatan/"a cut above the rest", blessed, and a guidance for the worlds.

OR

3:96   The first bayt established for the people is bibakkatan/"with much crowding", blessed, and a guidance for the worlds.

OR

3:96   The first bayt established for the people is the one in Bakkah, blessed, and a guidance for the worlds.

Time, further archeological evidence, or close encounters of the 4th kind, might shed more light on this matter. Either way I am one hundred percent certain bakkah does not refer to Makkah.

Best regards.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: FreedomStands on August 06, 2015, 02:27:54 AM
I think references to Zion are often metaphorical too, if not also literal simultaneously. Such a view accounts for both possibilities and tries to interpret things in multiple ways "it could mean this, it could mean this, it could mean this, from such an interpretation we can take this, from such an interpretation we could take this, and from such and interpretation we could take this, we need not eschew any value for ourselves if there is value in any or all of the interpretations, just that we speak carefully regarding them".
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Man of Faith on August 06, 2015, 03:04:51 AM
Why not ascend Zion instead?
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: hafeez kazi on August 06, 2015, 08:16:47 AM
peace truthseeker

Quote
Either way I am one hundred percent certain bakkah does not refer to Makkah.

You should be 1000% certain that bakkah does not refer to the DUPLICATE MAKKAH of Saudi Arabia.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: FreedomStands on August 06, 2015, 08:55:29 AM
peace truthseeker

You should be 1000% certain that bakkah does not refer to the DUPLICATE MAKKAH of Saudi Arabia.

Why so serious?
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: FreedomStands on August 06, 2015, 08:57:27 AM
Why not ascend Zion instead?

Maybe because they aren't believers innthe Bible over the Quran in its mainstream interpretation.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Man of Faith on August 06, 2015, 09:16:16 AM
Freedomstands,

It was a deceptive statement.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: FreedomStands on August 06, 2015, 11:13:24 AM
Freedomstands,

It was a deceptive statement.

I think Mount Zion is often a metaphorical thing, even "Israel" very often seems to be a spiritual reference rather than a literal place being mentioned in some cases. Similarly "Babylon" has come to have a spiritual implication.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: truthseeker11 on August 06, 2015, 12:29:43 PM
Peace Hafeez,

You should be 1000% certain that bakkah does not refer to the DUPLICATE MAKKAH of Saudi Arabia.

Funny that you said that, because I was about to write 1000% and then at the last second wrote one hundred percent just for the sake of accuracy! I even contemplated writing a million percent for one second :)

Best regards.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: FreedomStands on August 06, 2015, 01:52:46 PM
Peace Hafeez,

Funny that you said that, because I was about to write 1000% and then at the last second wrote one hundred percent just for the sake of accuracy! I even contemplated writing a million percent for one second :)

Best regards.

Haha still too confident!
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: hafeez kazi on August 06, 2015, 05:06:40 PM
peace truthseeker

There are tens of Quranic verses and tens of hadith which contradicts the present fake duplicate Mecca. Numerous times on this website I have posted those Quranic verses which exposed the fake duplicate Mecca. The sectarians have never challenged those verses but while being adamant in their belief in the fake duplicate Mecca they have neglected those verses. They say that they believe in the Quran but when the truth is manifest to them they turn away from it.

Surely I will post those collected hadith of Bukhari and co. which describes Mecca, Safa, Marwah, kaba thus exposing the fake duplicate Mecca

It will surely BOOST your CONFIDENCE.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Man of Faith on August 08, 2015, 05:01:10 AM
Of course Zion is a metaphor. There was never any doubt about it. It's not even of this world.

Babylon is a place though in ancient times.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: FreedomStands on August 08, 2015, 08:37:09 AM
Of course Zion is a metaphor. There was never any doubt about it. It's not even of this world.

Babylon is a place though in ancient times.

That is true, but even Babylon is used as a metaphor often in many writings, including extra stuff that isn't part of the Bible where it was used as a metaphorical word.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on August 12, 2015, 12:33:55 PM
There is no direct evidence only indirect. 

The indirect evidence in OT is as follows:

"Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools."

The word Baca occurs rarely in the Bible; it is also found in 2 Samuel 5:23,24 and 1 Chronicles 14:14,15 where it identifies a valley in which David fought the Philistines. The word Baka describes a bush, probably a Balsam bush but translated in the AV as a mulberry tree.

In 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles the valley of Baka is a valley full of balsam bushes near the valley of Rephaim. This is to the southwest of Jerusalem and forms an approach route to the city. The Philistines encamped in Rephaim to attack Jerusalem (2 Samuel 5:17,18), which shows that it is not in Arabia and David attacked Philistines who were encamped in the valley of Rephaim from the Valley of Baca (2 Sam. 5:23,24; 1 Chron. 14:14,15). Therefore the valley of Baka is near Jerusalem. It is clearly not in Arabia.

The Psalm is in praise of the house of God (the temple) in Jerusalem. Verses 5-7 describe the last part of the ascent of pilgrims to this house; the particular pilgrims ascend from the south west through the valley of Baca.

Psalm 84:6 describes a well made by the pilgrims. The well Zam-zam in Mecca was not made by pilgrims.

The valley is filled with pools of water by the rains. Mecca is very dry all the year round; it virtually never finds itself surrounded by pools of standing water left by rains.

The end of the pilgrimage is Zion (v. 7). This is, of course, Jerusalem and not Mecca.

http://bibleatlas.org/regional/valley_of_rephaim.htm

The wells are interesting, I relate them to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon%27s_Pools

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/The_pools_of_Solomon_Bethlehem_ca1890.jpg)

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Solomonspool3_n.jpg)

Compare these images to the zam zam well, which can hardly be imagined to be a pool.

Peace

"There is no direct evidence only indirect. "

The only "indirect" evidence is your references to the bible / old testament, and your own interpretations of them.

""Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools.""

There is a very well known well in Mecca in case you didn't know. And logic says that this city in the desert would have been founded around an oasis (i.e. rain filleth the pools) as all towns / cities in deserts are established. But I will give you a better explanation of this, please keep reading.

"The word Baca occurs rarely in the Bible; it is also found in 2 Samuel 5:23,24 and 1 Chronicles 14:14,15 where it identifies a valley in which David fought the Philistines."

Mecca is actually a valley (as your bible books say it should be) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mecca.

"In 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles the valley of Baka is a valley full of balsam bushes near the valley of Rephaim. "

In order to prove Mecca wrong, you quote us "2 Samuel" and "1 Chronicles" which both mention the word Baca in reference to "baca-bushes" and not cities. How are they supposed to prove the existence of Becca / mecca being in Jerusalem?

"In 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles the valley of Baka is a valley full of balsam bushes near the valley of Rephaim. "

You say that, while your bible says ... and I quote:

"After David has gone to the rear of his enemies, he is to wait by ?the mulberry trees,? or, as now generally understood, baca-shrubs, a plant resembling the balsam. Here a Divine signal was to be given him in ?the sound of a going,? or, rather, of a march. The word is used of the march of the hosts of the Lord in Judges 5:4; Psalm 68:7. Then David was to ?bestir himself,? literally, be sharp; he was to act quickly and vigorously."

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/2_samuel/5-24.htm

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cmt/kad/ch1014.htm

In the second link search for the word Baca and see in what reference it is used.

So "baca" in your own reference is the baca-bushes / balsam. Where is it referenced as a valley, city? Another reference from the same page for you:

"Barnes' Notes on the Bible:
The mulberry trees - Rather, the Bacah-tree, and found abundantly near Mecca. It is very like the balsam-tree, and probably derives its name from the exudation of the sap in drops like tears when a leaf is torn off. Some think the valley of Baca Psalm 84:6 was so called from this plant growing there."



Please note the mention of "Mecca".

When Allah (swt) in the Quran mentions the word "Bakka" he is talking about the "first house of worship" i.e. what it was called at the time when it was established as the first house of worship. The Quran also mentions Mecca, when talking about the time of the prophet and how it is the place of "Masjid-al-haram":

Quran 48:24-48-25

"And He it is Who held back their hands from you and your hands from them in the valley of Mecca after He had given you victory over them; and Allah is Seeing what you do. It is they who disbelieved and turned you away from the Sacred Mosque and (turned off) the offering withheld from arriving at its destined place; and were it not for the believing men and the believing women, whom, not having known, you might have trodden down, and thus something hateful might have afflicted you on their account without knowledge-- so that Allah may cause to enter into His mercy whomsoever He pleases; had they been widely separated one from another, We would surely have punished those who disbelieved from among them with a painful punishment."


As for your references to the Psalms, lets look at them. Here is your Psalm 84:

"1How lovely is your dwelling place,

Lord Almighty!

2My soul yearns, even faints,

for the courts of the Lord;

my heart and my flesh cry out

for the living God.

3Even the sparrow has found a home,

and the swallow a nest for herself,

where she may have her young?

a place near your altar,

Lord Almighty, my King and my God.

4Blessed are those who dwell in your house;

they are ever praising you. c

5Blessed are those whose strength is in you,

whose hearts are set on pilgrimage.

6As they pass through the Valley of Baka,

they make it a place of springs;

the autumn rains also cover it with pools.d


Footnotes:
a 1 In Hebrew texts 84:1-12 is numbered 84:2-13.
b 1 Title: Probably a musical term
c 4 The Hebrew has Selah (a word of uncertain meaning) here and at the end of verse 8.
d 6 Or blessings"

http://biblehub.com/niv/psalms/84.htm


a) The first part where it is said "they are ever praising you." The foot notes tell us that the original word used is "Selah". Now I don't know about you but that Selah sounds like the salah that we Muslims do around the Kaaba in Mecca. The bible interpreters, for some reason, could not find its meaning.

b) Where it says that "whose hearts are set on pilgrimage.". The biggest annual pilgrimages take place in Mecca, making a pilgrimage is actually a part of being a Muslim.

c) Where it says "the autumn rains also cover it with pools.". The footnotes mention that it could actually mean "blessings" instead of the pools of water. And this is not something we Muslims say, it is the Christians that say it.

To me, your own references are proving Baca as being the Arabian / Muslim Mecca.


Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 12, 2015, 01:01:32 PM
quib?ble  (kwĭb′əl)
intr.v. quib?bled, quib?bling, quib?bles
To argue or find fault over trivial matters or minor concerns; cavil.
n.
1. A trivial matter or minor concern raised in arguing or finding fault.

(https://scontent-ams2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xat1/t31.0-8/11194597_1593686894203343_2825562889758704667_o.jpg)

I have no issue with you locating it in Arabia.  I don't share your view however. 

Is the Quran Arabic?

The Quran is Aramaic Arabic.
Arab means clear, eloquent.
The Arab language is a persian abbasid creation based on the aramaic in the Quran.
The A'arabs (الاعراب) means the closest and most visible neighbours.
There was no such thing as arabs in the region, there were Israelites and the ummyyins (non israelite ummy)

The Quranic language is historically a language of the northern "Arabs" rather than those in the south.

(http://www.lemessieetsonprophete.com/annexes/Kerr_Robert_origine-ecriture-coranique_fichiers/image002.jpg)

When the muslim forces attacked the Byzantines and eventualyy captured Jerusalem there was no mention of Arabs, muslims or followers of Islam.  They were referred to as Saracen.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on August 12, 2015, 01:12:49 PM
quib?ble  (kwĭb′əl)
intr.v. quib?bled, quib?bling, quib?bles
To argue or find fault over trivial matters or minor concerns; cavil.
n.
1. A trivial matter or minor concern raised in arguing or finding fault.

(https://scontent-ams2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xat1/t31.0-8/11194597_1593686894203343_2825562889758704667_o.jpg)

Selah (/ˈsiːlə/; Hebrew: סֶלָה‎, also transliterated as selāh) is a word used seventy-four times in the Hebrew Bible?seventy-one times in the Psalms and three times in Habakkuk. The meaning of the word is not known, though various interpretations are given below. (It should not be confused with the Hebrew word sela? (Hebrew: סֶלַע‎) which means "rock".)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selah
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 12, 2015, 01:20:06 PM
See my edited post.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 12, 2015, 01:26:00 PM
This is an old example of the Quranic script of the Quran:

(http://www.lemessieetsonprophete.com/annexes/Kerr_Robert_origine-ecriture-coranique_fichiers/image004.gif)

Compare this to the south-arabian script:

(http://www.lemessieetsonprophete.com/annexes/Kerr_Robert_origine-ecriture-coranique_fichiers/image006.gif)

There is no such thing as a Quran in south-arabian script.

QED
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on August 12, 2015, 01:30:31 PM
See my edited post.

This is what you posted in your edited post:

Quote
I have no issue with you locating it in Arabia.  I don't share your view however.

Is the Quran Arabic?

The Quran is Aramaic Arabic.
Arab means clear, eloquent.
The Arab language is a persian abbasid creation based on the aramaic in the Quran.
The A'arabs (الاعراب) means the closest and most visible neighbours.
There was no such thing as arabs in the region, there were Israelites and the ummyyins (non israelite ummy)

The Quranic language is historically a language of the northern "Arabs" rather than those in the south.



When the muslim forces attacked the Byzantines and eventualyy captured Jerusalem there was no mention of Arabs, muslims or followers of Islam.  They were referred to as Saracen.

Peace

I thought this post was about the Bekka and the Mecca mentioned in the Quran and how it could actually be the temple mount and not the Mecca of Arabia.

Looks like you want to move on to the topic of the book "The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran: by Christoph Luxenberg".
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on August 12, 2015, 01:32:25 PM
This is an old example of the Quranic script of the Quran:

(http://www.lemessieetsonprophete.com/annexes/Kerr_Robert_origine-ecriture-coranique_fichiers/image004.gif)

Compare this to the south-arabian script:

(http://www.lemessieetsonprophete.com/annexes/Kerr_Robert_origine-ecriture-coranique_fichiers/image006.gif)

There is no such thing as a Quran in south-arabian script.

QED

I would compare the scripts very thoroughly if I were a specialist in that field. But thankfully I am not, and neither are you.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: FreedomStands on August 12, 2015, 01:34:22 PM
This is what you posted in your edited post:

I thought this post was about the Bekka and the Mecca mentioned in the Quran and how it could actually be the temple mount and not the Mecca of Arabia.

Looks like you want to move on to the topic of the book "The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran: by Christoph Luxenberg".

Well that has been a side theme in this thread as well, both have been mentioned before in earlier posts as kind of connected as part of making more sense of the Jerusalem qiblah thing at times it seems.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 12, 2015, 01:35:10 PM
You don't need to be an expert to know there is no ancient version of the Quran in south-arabian script.  I'm not a follower of Luxenberg.  But he raised some very relevant issues. 

The language used in Quran is important to geolocating it.  All the indicators point to Jordan/Palestine/Jerusalem rather than Mecca.  Including the language, alphabet and script.  The aramaic alphabet was simply not used in southern-arabia.

Luxenberg abused this argument to render the Quran as a collection of borrowed Jewish and Christian tales.  Trying to disprove its authenticity.  It's needless to say Luxenberg does not believe in the One God and does not accept Muhammad as a messenger.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on August 12, 2015, 01:42:52 PM
Well that has been a side theme in this thread as well, both have been mentioned before in earlier posts as kind of connected as part of making more sense of the Jerusalem qiblah thing at times it seems.

How does it make sense to connect Bekka with Jerusalum when their own interpreters of the bible clearly say that the Baca in the bible is reference to a bush that actually grows in "Mecca"?

If people want to totally re-interpret the whole arabian language and its history to fulfill their whims and desires over certain issues, then that obviously is something I cannot help them with.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on August 12, 2015, 01:46:32 PM
You don't need to be an expert to know there is no ancient version of the Quran in south-arabian script.  I'm not a follower of Luxenberg.  But he raised some very relevant issues. 

The language used in Quran is important to geolocating it.  All the indicators point to Jordan/Palestine/Jerusalem rather than Mecca.  Including the language, alphabet and script.  The aramaic alphabet was simply not used in southern-arabia.

Luxenberg abused this argument to render the Quran as a collection of borrowed Jewish and Christian tales.  Trying to disprove its authenticity.  It's needless to say Luxenberg does not believe in the One God and does not accept Muhammad as a messenger.

Peace

"You don't need to be an expert to know there is no ancient version of the Quran in south-arabian script. "

I don't know about you but this version of the Quran that (as per the actual experts in the field) could actually be dated to the time of the Prophet seems to have no such issues that you want it to have.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/22/oldest-quran-fragments-found-at-birmingham-university

And this was only found last month. Who knows how much else we will discover. But the point for you to ponder is that this version does not differ with our version of the Quran.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 12, 2015, 01:48:56 PM
Allat, Al Uzza, Manat.
These three goddesses, the daughters of Allah, are well documented in the Jordanian-Syrian epigraphy. However we do not find any trace in the Hijaz.
Al-Lat (Al-ilahat = "The Goddess") was a goddess known Thamoud?ens, Palmyr?ens and Nabataeans. It corresponded to Ham'llat in Safa?tes and Herodotus knew as the Alilat.
Al-'Uzza (Alizat = "Powerful") was a goddess known Nabataeans, D?danites and Lihyanites.
Manat (Maniya = "Destiny") corresponded to the goddess of the Nabataeans and Manawat Palmyriens.
Their father Allah (Al-Ilah = "the god") corresponded to Ilah god of the Nabataeans, safa?te, Thamoud?ens and Lihyanites, the god of the Aramaeans He and El god of the Canaanites.
All these deities take us north of Arabia and not in the Hejaz.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 12, 2015, 01:51:26 PM
"You don't need to be an expert to know there is no ancient version of the Quran in south-arabian script. "

I don't know about you but this version of the Quran that (as per the actual experts in the field) could actually be dated to the time of the Prophet seems to have no such issues that you want it to have.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/22/oldest-quran-fragments-found-at-birmingham-university

And this was only found last month. Who knows how much else we will discover. But the point for you to ponder is that this version does not differ with our version of the Quran.

I don't know what you are trying to prove with that link.  It is the aramaic alphabet in that Quran not the south arabian alphabet.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 12, 2015, 01:53:00 PM
"You don't need to be an expert to know there is no ancient version of the Quran in south-arabian script. "

I don't know about you but this version of the Quran that (as per the actual experts in the field) could actually be dated to the time of the Prophet seems to have no such issues that you want it to have.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/22/oldest-quran-fragments-found-at-birmingham-university

And this was only found last month. Who knows how much else we will discover. But the point for you to ponder is that this version does not differ with our version of the Quran.

Maybe they will.  At that point I may reconsider my opinion.  But so far all the evidence points to North Arabia not the Hejaz.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 12, 2015, 01:53:44 PM
"You don't need to be an expert to know there is no ancient version of the Quran in south-arabian script. "

I don't know about you but this version of the Quran that (as per the actual experts in the field) could actually be dated to the time of the Prophet seems to have no such issues that you want it to have.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/22/oldest-quran-fragments-found-at-birmingham-university

And this was only found last month. Who knows how much else we will discover. But the point for you to ponder is that this version does not differ with our version of the Quran.

Are you by any chance of Arab origin?

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on August 12, 2015, 01:55:15 PM
Allat, Al Uzza, Manat.
These three goddesses, the daughters of Allah, are well documented in the Jordanian-Syrian epigraphy. However we do not find any trace in the Hijaz.
Al-Lat (Al-ilahat = "The Goddess") was a goddess known Thamoud?ens, Palmyr?ens and Nabataeans. It corresponded to Ham'llat in Safa?tes and Herodotus knew as the Alilat.
Al-'Uzza (Alizat = "Powerful") was a goddess known Nabataeans, D?danites and Lihyanites.
Manat (Maniya = "Destiny") corresponded to the goddess of the Nabataeans and Manawat Palmyriens.
Their father Allah (Al-Ilah = "the god") corresponded to Ilah god of the Nabataeans, safa?te, Thamoud?ens and Lihyanites, the god of the Aramaeans He and El god of the Canaanites.
All these deities take us north of Arabia and not in the Hejaz.

Peace

So these deities could only exists in the north of Arabia but not in the south? Care to give your reasons for this?

Muslim recorded history states quite unequivocally that they did exist as deities in the Hejaz as well.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on August 12, 2015, 01:58:10 PM
I don't know what you are trying to prove with that link.  It is the aramaic alphabet in that Quran not the south arabian alphabet.

Peace

Well you can believe what you want of cource. This is after all a "free-minds" website. Just the fact that you know the Arabs language better than them simply puts me in your awe.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 12, 2015, 01:58:31 PM
So these deities could only exists in the north of Arabia but not in the south? Care to give your reasons for this?

Muslim recorded history states quite unequivocally that they did exist as deities in the Hejaz as well.

Do you have non-hadith sources claiming those deities were worshipped at Mecca at the time of Qurans revelation?

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on August 12, 2015, 01:59:44 PM
Are you by any chance of Arab origin?

Peace

Far from it. Are you?
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 12, 2015, 02:00:43 PM
Well you can believe what you want of cource. This is after all a "free-minds" website. Just the fact that you know the Arabs language better than them simply puts me in your awe.

I'm not claiming to understand the Arab language better than anyone.  In fact I'm sure I'm quite mediocre if not a total amateur.  But what I do know is that there is no hard evidence whatsoever of the Hejaz origins of either the Qurans script, language, places nor names it refers to.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 12, 2015, 02:01:01 PM
Far from it. Are you?

No I'm not.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on August 12, 2015, 02:02:18 PM
Do you have non-hadith sources claiming those deities were worshipped at Mecca at the time of Qurans revelation?

Peace

Do you have any non-hadith sources saying anything else about the Hejaz? As far as I know (and what experts on the topic believe) almost all that region was converted to Islam during the lifetime of the Prophet.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 12, 2015, 02:07:37 PM
Quote
"A question of geography
The suspicion that the location is doctrinally inspired is reinforced by the fact that the Qur'an describes the polytheist opponents as agriculturalists who cultivated wheat, grapes, olives, and date palms. Wheat, grapes and olives are the three staples of the Mediterranean; date palms take us southwards, but Mecca was not suitable for any kind of agriculture, and one could not possibly have produced olives there.
In addition, the Qur'an twice describes its opponents as living in the site of a vanished nation, that is to say a town destroyed by God for its sins. There were many such ruined sites in northwest Arabia. The prophet frequently tells his opponents to consider their significance and on one occasion remarks, with reference to the remains of Lot's people, that "you pass by them in the morning and in the evening". This takes us to somewhere in the Dead Sea region. Respect for the traditional account has prevailed to such an extent among modern historians that the first two points have passed unnoticed until quite recently, while the third has been ignored. The exegetes said that the Quraysh passed by Lot's remains on their annual journeys to Syria, but the only way in which one can pass by a place in the morning and the evening is evidently by living somewhere in the vicinity."
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on August 12, 2015, 02:18:00 PM
"A question of geography
The suspicion that the location is doctrinally inspired is reinforced by the fact that the Qur'an describes the polytheist opponents as agriculturalists who cultivated wheat, grapes, olives, and date palms. Wheat, grapes and olives are the three staples of the Mediterranean; date palms take us southwards, but Mecca was not suitable for any kind of agriculture, and one could not possibly have produced olives there.
In addition, the Qur'an twice describes its opponents as living in the site of a vanished nation, that is to say a town destroyed by God for its sins. There were many such ruined sites in northwest Arabia. The prophet frequently tells his opponents to consider their significance and on one occasion remarks, with reference to the remains of Lot's people, that "you pass by them in the morning and in the evening". This takes us to somewhere in the Dead Sea region. Respect for the traditional account has prevailed to such an extent among modern historians that the first two points have passed unnoticed until quite recently, while the third has been ignored. The exegetes said that the Quraysh passed by Lot's remains on their annual journeys to Syria, but the only way in which one can pass by a place in the morning and the evening is evidently by living somewhere in the vicinity."

Well I don't know who you are quoting here .. but can you please give reference to when and where in the Hejaz they were living at the time of the Prophet? Also a link to their old parchments would be nice.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 12, 2015, 02:18:24 PM
My apologies for bad formatting, find the original pdf here http://www.lemessieetsonprophete.com/annexes/Kerr_Robert_origine-koranic-writing.pdf

?The Koran did not originate in Mecca or Medina?, August 4th 2012, by Eilert Mulder

The script fashion and the language used in Mecca and Medina were else than those of the oldest Koranic manuscripts: this is evident from South-Arabian rock inscriptions.
Linguist and Middle East expert Robert Kerr brings new insights into the origin of Islam. According to him, the alphabet used in the oldest manuscripts indicates that the
Koran did not originate in Mecca and Medina, but rather from Jordan, Syria and Iraq. R. Kerr presently is professor at the department Archaeology and Classical
Studies at the University Wilfrid Laurier of Waterloo, Ontario (Canada), after working at the University of Leiden in Holland. He teaches Arabic, Aramaic and Hebrew Languages
and Linguistics, lectures on the Bible, on the Talmud and on the book of Aramaic Proverbs of Ahikar, Ugaritic Literature, and Comparative Semitic or Religious Studies.

The emergence of Islam can only be understood by considering its historical context.
The Canadian scholar Robert Kerr argues, that this cannot happen, if one limits oneself to the texts in classical Arabic, in which the Islamic tradition has been recorded. It is necessary to know also the languages and cultures, with which the Arabs communicated throughout the centuries. It is precisely this kind of expertise that put Kerr on track of this remarkable theory:

the Koran cannot have originated in Mecca or in Medina, because in that case the oldest Koranic manuscripts would have been written using another alphabet.

Diversity of interests is the key to understanding this alternative research on Islam.
Here are just a few of Kerr?s multidisciplinary scientific interests: after a professional career in the Canadian army he studied Assyriology and Egyptology in the German town of T?bingen. In Leiden in the Netherlands he specialized in Comparative Linguistics and Semitic Languages, which includes Arabic, Hebrew, Ethiopian and Punic (the language of Carthago). In his doctoral thesis he demonstrates, how after the destruction of Carthago by the Romans, the Punic language continued to be spoken for many centuries. He did fieldwork in Tunisia and, illegally, in Libya. He also investigated South-Arabian rock inscriptions.

Besides English Kerr also speaks French, German, Dutch, Greek, Latin and Russian. He reads Semitic languages like Punic, Hebrew and Arabic. Presently he teaches in Waterloo,
Ontario. He has worked at the University of Leiden. He is specialized in the pre-islamic Middle East. He is not therefore an expert of Islam, but perhaps it?s precisely because of this that he manages to introduce new perspectives in the discussions about the historical origins of Islam.

Kerr became fascinated by the work of ?revisionist? Islamic scholars, who are dissatisfied with the orthodox traditions and who try to retrace, using sources of contemporary research, the real early history of Islam. The geographic spread of South-Arabian rock inscriptions inspired Kerr to formulate his
provocative theory about the question: where the Koran emerged? Usually, this is said to have happened in Mecca and Medina. But Kerr demonstrates that the alphabet used in these places differs from the alphabet used in the oldest manuscripts of the Koran. This is evident from the South-Arabian rock inscriptions, which have been found to the north of Mecca and Medina.

These date back to the 8th century B.C. until the beginnings of Islam, 1500 years later.  Kerr has other more arguments, linguistic, archaeological, theological and historical,pleading against Mecca and Medina. The oldest example of Arabic language resembling the language of the Koran is a biblical text found near Aleppo in Syria, 1400 kilometers from Mecca. Kerr?s way of arguing is like what lawyers call a ?chain-proof?. Not every single element has to be a conclusive proof, but the combination of them indeed is convincing. An ancient koranic manuscript kept in the House of Manuscripts in San?a? (Yemen), using an old Arabic alphabet. In those days, this alphabet was not in use in Mecca.
Example of the South-Arabic alphabet, as it was used in Mecca at that time. No koranic texts have been found in this writing-system. This stone is kept in the National Museum in San?a?.

Kerr?s observations about the alphabet form the most original part of his chain-proof.
First he invalidates the persistent misunderstanding, that the ancient Arabs did not have any
scripture. In fact, Arabs had been expressing themselves already for some centuries in writing,
only using another alphabet than the present one, and mostly not in their own language. Many
Arabs in the region now called Syria spoke Arabic, but wrote Aramaic. Others wrote Arabic, but
with another alphabet than today?s Arabic. The biblical text of Aleppo, for example, is written in
Greek letters. Other texts are in the South-Arabic language, and these are particularly
interesting for Kerr.
In the seventh century Arabic was less widespread than today. At present this language
is spoken en written from Morocco till Iraq and from Syria till Sudan. In those days Arabic
occurred in many places with other languages, especially in the northern and central parts of
what the Romans called ?Arabia?: the Arabian Peninsula (Saudi-Arabia and its western and
southern neighbours) and the Jordanian steppes, Syria and Iraq.
The northern regions of Arabia were called by the Romans ?Arabia Petraea?, after Petra,
the legendary city carved from red rock in south Jordan. Its inhabitants probably spoke
languages from which today?s spoken Arabic has evolved, mixed with the common cultural
language, Aramaic. They wrote Aramaic in an Aramaic alphabet, of which there were several
varieties. Politically, Petra belonged to the Roman sphere of influence. Its elite consisted of
Roman legionaries and heterodox Christians, who held their own particular opinions about the
nature of Jesus.
According to Kerr, here are to be found the antecedents of the Arabic language and
alphabet as we know them today. The east of northern Arabia, which includes parts of Iraq,
was associated with the Persian Empire.
South of Arabia Petraea was, in the north of present-day Saudi-Arabia, ?Arabia Deserta?
or deserted Arabia. Kerr is circumspect when talking about the languages spoken there. ?These
were Semitic dialects, each oasis having its own different variety, not Arabic, but related to the
language that would later develop into classic Arabic.? They are known from thousands of rock
inscriptions, some dating back to many centuries before Islam.
The people living in Arabia Deserta did not use the Aramaic alphabet, but the SouthArabian,
which emerged in the region now called Yemen, the third and southernmost part of
Arabia. The Romans gave it the name ?Arabia Felix?, or Happy Arabia. The various Yemenite
languages were Semitic, like Arabic, but bore more resemblances with classical Ethiopian.
Despite this linguistic difference, it made more sense for the people of Arabia Deserta, where
Medina and Mecca are situated, to use the alphabet used for the Yemenite languages.
The first reason for this was cultural influence of Yemen, which from 1000 B.C. had
been a legendary civilisation. Furthermore, the South-Arabian alphabet contains letters for all
Semitic basic sounds and can therefore perfectly represent Arabic. Contrastingly the Aramaic
alphabet has too few letters to do this, as is the case for the oldest Arabic alphabet, which
developed out of Aramaic and where one letter may represent seven different sounds. For this
reason ancient manuscripts of the Koran frequently have different options of translation. Only
more recent alphabets took away ambiguity from written Arabic.
Even in the middle of the seventh century when, according to tradition, the Koran was
compiled, the South-Arabian alphabet was still used in Mecca and Medina. Hence Kerr?s thesis:
if the Koran originated in that region, it would have been written in a local old-Arabic dialect
using the South-Arabian alphabet, and not in (proto-) classical Arabic, which was current the
north of Syria. Still, the oldest koranic manuscripts were written using the primitive ambiguous
Arabic alphabet. Conclusion: the Koran is not from Mecca or Medina.
Kerr is angered by the destruction of South-Arabian rock inscriptions, for example
during a recent reconstruction in Mecca. This cultural vandalism of the Saudis deprives science
of potential evidence. According to Kerr it is as barbaric as the scandalous destruction of
statues of Buddha in Afghanistan. Recently Timbuktu has been added to the list.
A good theory is falsifiable, and Kerr?s theory meets that condition. Possibly
archaeologists will find in the surroundings of Mecca texts, written in an Arabic that resembles
the koranic Arabic and dating back from at least the seventh century, in an early kind of Arabic
alphabet. This would throw doubt on Kerr?s theory.
Actually, papyri and inscriptions of Arabic alphabet dating from the seventh century
have been found in Saudi-Arabia [Note of the webmaster: the rock inscriptions which has been
?discovered? since 2010 are obvious Saudi forgeries]. Kerr however is not impressed. ?Because
non-official inscriptions are decisive. These documents are official, governmental. Papyri from
the same century have also been discovered in Afghanistan. Nobody will claim that at that time
Arabic was the common language there. I do not deny that there has been an Arabic empire.
The question is, whether it immediately was an Islamic empire, or if Islam arose later. That
Arabic empire developed a governmental language, in which those papyri have been written?.
Another possible falsification would be the discovery of koranic texts using the SouthArabic
alphabet. In that case too Mecca and Medina could have been the places where the
Koran originated. But as long as those texts have not been found, the origin of the Koran must
be sought, Kerr argues, in a region where Arabs used to live, where Arabic was the spoken
language, but where the Aramaic literary culture (to which also belonged the old Arabic
alphabet) was dominant. This situation did exist in Arabia Petraea and did not in exist in Mecca
or Medina; these places were bereft of an Aramaic literary culture.
With the cooperation of Tomas Milo, illustrations provided by Robert Kerr & Tomas Milo.
?The destruction of inscriptions I Mecca is even scandalous than that
of statues de Buddha in Afghanistan? ? Robert Kerr.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on August 12, 2015, 02:26:36 PM
My apologies for bad formatting, find the original pdf here http://www.lemessieetsonprophete.com/annexes/Kerr_Robert_origine-koranic-writing.pdf

?The Koran did not originate in Mecca or Medina?, August 4th 2012, by Eilert Mulder

The script fashion and the language used in Mecca and Medina were else than those of the oldest Koranic manuscripts: this is evident from South-Arabian rock inscriptions.
Linguist and Middle East expert Robert Kerr brings new insights into the origin of Islam. According to him, the alphabet used in the oldest manuscripts indicates that the
Koran did not originate in Mecca and Medina, but rather from Jordan, Syria and Iraq. R. Kerr presently is professor at the department Archaeology and Classical
Studies at the University Wilfrid Laurier of Waterloo, Ontario (Canada), after working at the University of Leiden in Holland. He teaches Arabic, Aramaic and Hebrew Languages
and Linguistics, lectures on the Bible, on the Talmud and on the book of Aramaic Proverbs of Ahikar, Ugaritic Literature, and Comparative Semitic or Religious Studies.

The emergence of Islam can only be understood by considering its historical context.
The Canadian scholar Robert Kerr argues, that this cannot happen, if one limits oneself to the texts in classical Arabic, in which the Islamic tradition has been recorded. It is necessary to know also the languages and cultures, with which the Arabs communicated throughout the centuries. It is precisely this kind of expertise that put Kerr on track of this remarkable theory:

the Koran cannot have originated in Mecca or in Medina, because in that case the oldest Koranic manuscripts would have been written using another alphabet.

Diversity of interests is the key to understanding this alternative research on Islam.
Here are just a few of Kerr?s multidisciplinary scientific interests: after a professional career in the Canadian army he studied Assyriology and Egyptology in the German town of T?bingen. In Leiden in the Netherlands he specialized in Comparative Linguistics and Semitic Languages, which includes Arabic, Hebrew, Ethiopian and Punic (the language of Carthago). In his doctoral thesis he demonstrates, how after the destruction of Carthago by the Romans, the Punic language continued to be spoken for many centuries. He did fieldwork in Tunisia and, illegally, in Libya. He also investigated South-Arabian rock inscriptions.

Besides English Kerr also speaks French, German, Dutch, Greek, Latin and Russian. He reads Semitic languages like Punic, Hebrew and Arabic. Presently he teaches in Waterloo,
Ontario. He has worked at the University of Leiden. He is specialized in the pre-islamic Middle East. He is not therefore an expert of Islam, but perhaps it?s precisely because of this that he manages to introduce new perspectives in the discussions about the historical origins of Islam.

Kerr became fascinated by the work of ?revisionist? Islamic scholars, who are dissatisfied with the orthodox traditions and who try to retrace, using sources of contemporary research, the real early history of Islam. The geographic spread of South-Arabian rock inscriptions inspired Kerr to formulate his
provocative theory about the question: where the Koran emerged? Usually, this is said to have happened in Mecca and Medina. But Kerr demonstrates that the alphabet used in these places differs from the alphabet used in the oldest manuscripts of the Koran. This is evident from the South-Arabian rock inscriptions, which have been found to the north of Mecca and Medina.

These date back to the 8th century B.C. until the beginnings of Islam, 1500 years later.  Kerr has other more arguments, linguistic, archaeological, theological and historical,pleading against Mecca and Medina. The oldest example of Arabic language resembling the language of the Koran is a biblical text found near Aleppo in Syria, 1400 kilometers from Mecca. Kerr?s way of arguing is like what lawyers call a ?chain-proof?. Not every single element has to be a conclusive proof, but the combination of them indeed is convincing. An ancient koranic manuscript kept in the House of Manuscripts in San?a? (Yemen), using an old Arabic alphabet. In those days, this alphabet was not in use in Mecca.
Example of the South-Arabic alphabet, as it was used in Mecca at that time. No koranic texts have been found in this writing-system. This stone is kept in the National Museum in San?a?.

Kerr?s observations about the alphabet form the most original part of his chain-proof.
First he invalidates the persistent misunderstanding, that the ancient Arabs did not have any
scripture. In fact, Arabs had been expressing themselves already for some centuries in writing,
only using another alphabet than the present one, and mostly not in their own language. Many
Arabs in the region now called Syria spoke Arabic, but wrote Aramaic. Others wrote Arabic, but
with another alphabet than today?s Arabic. The biblical text of Aleppo, for example, is written in
Greek letters. Other texts are in the South-Arabic language, and these are particularly
interesting for Kerr.
In the seventh century Arabic was less widespread than today. At present this language
is spoken en written from Morocco till Iraq and from Syria till Sudan. In those days Arabic
occurred in many places with other languages, especially in the northern and central parts of
what the Romans called ?Arabia?: the Arabian Peninsula (Saudi-Arabia and its western and
southern neighbours) and the Jordanian steppes, Syria and Iraq.
The northern regions of Arabia were called by the Romans ?Arabia Petraea?, after Petra,
the legendary city carved from red rock in south Jordan. Its inhabitants probably spoke
languages from which today?s spoken Arabic has evolved, mixed with the common cultural
language, Aramaic. They wrote Aramaic in an Aramaic alphabet, of which there were several
varieties. Politically, Petra belonged to the Roman sphere of influence. Its elite consisted of
Roman legionaries and heterodox Christians, who held their own particular opinions about the
nature of Jesus.
According to Kerr, here are to be found the antecedents of the Arabic language and
alphabet as we know them today. The east of northern Arabia, which includes parts of Iraq,
was associated with the Persian Empire.
South of Arabia Petraea was, in the north of present-day Saudi-Arabia, ?Arabia Deserta?
or deserted Arabia. Kerr is circumspect when talking about the languages spoken there. ?These
were Semitic dialects, each oasis having its own different variety, not Arabic, but related to the
language that would later develop into classic Arabic.? They are known from thousands of rock
inscriptions, some dating back to many centuries before Islam.
The people living in Arabia Deserta did not use the Aramaic alphabet, but the SouthArabian,
which emerged in the region now called Yemen, the third and southernmost part of
Arabia. The Romans gave it the name ?Arabia Felix?, or Happy Arabia. The various Yemenite
languages were Semitic, like Arabic, but bore more resemblances with classical Ethiopian.
Despite this linguistic difference, it made more sense for the people of Arabia Deserta, where
Medina and Mecca are situated, to use the alphabet used for the Yemenite languages.
The first reason for this was cultural influence of Yemen, which from 1000 B.C. had
been a legendary civilisation. Furthermore, the South-Arabian alphabet contains letters for all
Semitic basic sounds and can therefore perfectly represent Arabic. Contrastingly the Aramaic
alphabet has too few letters to do this, as is the case for the oldest Arabic alphabet, which
developed out of Aramaic and where one letter may represent seven different sounds. For this
reason ancient manuscripts of the Koran frequently have different options of translation. Only
more recent alphabets took away ambiguity from written Arabic.
Even in the middle of the seventh century when, according to tradition, the Koran was
compiled, the South-Arabian alphabet was still used in Mecca and Medina. Hence Kerr?s thesis:
if the Koran originated in that region, it would have been written in a local old-Arabic dialect
using the South-Arabian alphabet, and not in (proto-) classical Arabic, which was current the
north of Syria. Still, the oldest koranic manuscripts were written using the primitive ambiguous
Arabic alphabet. Conclusion: the Koran is not from Mecca or Medina.
Kerr is angered by the destruction of South-Arabian rock inscriptions, for example
during a recent reconstruction in Mecca. This cultural vandalism of the Saudis deprives science
of potential evidence. According to Kerr it is as barbaric as the scandalous destruction of
statues of Buddha in Afghanistan. Recently Timbuktu has been added to the list.
A good theory is falsifiable, and Kerr?s theory meets that condition. Possibly
archaeologists will find in the surroundings of Mecca texts, written in an Arabic that resembles
the koranic Arabic and dating back from at least the seventh century, in an early kind of Arabic
alphabet. This would throw doubt on Kerr?s theory.
Actually, papyri and inscriptions of Arabic alphabet dating from the seventh century
have been found in Saudi-Arabia [Note of the webmaster: the rock inscriptions which has been
?discovered? since 2010 are obvious Saudi forgeries]. Kerr however is not impressed. ?Because
non-official inscriptions are decisive. These documents are official, governmental. Papyri from
the same century have also been discovered in Afghanistan. Nobody will claim that at that time
Arabic was the common language there. I do not deny that there has been an Arabic empire.
The question is, whether it immediately was an Islamic empire, or if Islam arose later. That
Arabic empire developed a governmental language, in which those papyri have been written?.
Another possible falsification would be the discovery of koranic texts using the SouthArabic
alphabet. In that case too Mecca and Medina could have been the places where the
Koran originated. But as long as those texts have not been found, the origin of the Koran must
be sought, Kerr argues, in a region where Arabs used to live, where Arabic was the spoken
language, but where the Aramaic literary culture (to which also belonged the old Arabic
alphabet) was dominant. This situation did exist in Arabia Petraea and did not in exist in Mecca
or Medina; these places were bereft of an Aramaic literary culture.
With the cooperation of Tomas Milo, illustrations provided by Robert Kerr & Tomas Milo.
?The destruction of inscriptions I Mecca is even scandalous than that
of statues de Buddha in Afghanistan? ? Robert Kerr.

Look .. before you spend any more of your strength searching google. Can I please ask yo to give relevant references related to that time period.

You say that Hadith books or old Muslim books like those from Tabari are not telling the truth about the origins of Islam ... so please reference me some old books from non-muslims people of the Hejaz that support your point of view. If I wanted orientalist or christian thoughts about the origin of Islam I know very well that there is no dearth of it on the internet. What I want is links to old manuscripts saying the opposite of what the contemporary Muslims are claiming today.

Edited:

I would also please like references to original non-Muslim sources that say that these dieties you mentioned were unknown in the Hejaz.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 12, 2015, 02:36:42 PM
Look .. before you spend any more of your strength searching google. Can I please ask yo to give relevant references related to that time period.

You say that Hadith books or old Muslim books like those from Tabari are not telling the truth about the origins of Islam ... so please reference me some old books from non-muslims people of the Hejaz that support your point of view. If I wanted orientalist or christian thoughts about the origin of Islam I know very well that there is no dearth of it on the internet. What I want is links to old manuscripts saying the opposite of what the contemporary Muslims are claiming today.

There are no books of people of the Hejaz region of that time.  This is most logical since Mecca wasn't even on the map in that time.  If Quran is not clear to you on these matters (oldest manuscript of that time) there is nothing I can help you with. 

The existing inscriptions found in modern Saudi Arabia are systematically destroyed by the Saudi authorities because the alphabet used in them contradicts the hadith/sunna narrative.

Outside Quran I can only refer you to academic articles which you seem to dismiss using an unproven argument of bias.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 12, 2015, 02:42:17 PM
Oh I forget there is one piece of evidence.  Do you know of the Abraha expedition? 

http://www.mnh.si.edu/epigraphy/e_pre-islamic/fig04_sabaean.htm

(http://www.mnh.si.edu/epigraphy/figs-stones/large/color_lg_jpeg/fig04_c_lg.jpg)

Again, this inscription makes a list of places being historically associated with the Abraha expedition.  Yet, Mecca is nowhere mentioned in it.  Would you think such a famous place of pilgrimage, a famous sanctuary of its time would have been missed by Abraha?  Abraha conquered the Hejaz yet no mention whatsoever of Mecca. 

The hadith claimed he tried conquering mecca using elephants. Historical evidence contradicts this.  If mecca existed at all it was of less significance than some of the places mentioned in that inscription.

Make again note of the entirely different alphabet used than we know from the oldest preserved versions of Quran.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on August 12, 2015, 02:45:16 PM
There are no books of people of the Hejaz region of that time.  This is most logical since Mecca wasn't even on the map in that time.  If Quran is not clear to you on these matters (oldest manuscript of that time) there is nothing I can help you with. 

The existing inscriptions found in modern Saudi Arabia are systematically destroyed by the Saudi authorities because the alphabet used in them contradicts the hadith/sunna narrative.

Outside Quran I can only refer you to academic articles which you seem to dismiss using an unproven argument of bias.

Peace

"There are no books of people of the Hejaz region of that time. "

Yet you claim to know better.

"his is most logical since Mecca wasn't even on the map in that time."

How long after the death of the Prophet did Mecca "get on the map"? You do know that it spread quite quickly.

"If Quran is not clear to you on these matters (oldest manuscript of that time) there is nothing I can help you with."

The oldest manuscript of the time and its adherents say one thing, while you, armed with conjectures and hope say another. Now who should I believe?

"The existing inscriptions found in modern Saudi Arabia are systematically destroyed by the Saudi authorities because the alphabet used in them contradicts the hadith/sunna narrative."

Care to link us to the part that says that Mecca was never the Kaaba for Muslims or that the dieties you mentioned were never worshiped there?

"Outside Quran I can only refer you to academic articles which you seem to dismiss using an unproven argument of bias."

Outside the Quran there are thousands of articles that refute all the claims within your copy pasted articles. I seriously have no patience for a copy paste competition here.

Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 12, 2015, 02:48:53 PM
Feel free to disagree.  It's equal to me and of little importance.  Although I doubt you know your qbl.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on August 12, 2015, 02:54:15 PM

Make again note of the entirely different alphabet used than we know from the oldest preserved versions of Quran.

Peace

Could it be because he was from Yemen?
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 12, 2015, 02:56:27 PM
Manha on the way to Turban

Halban

Ma'ad
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on August 12, 2015, 03:03:29 PM
Manha on the way to Turban

Halban

Ma'ad

How do we know its the same expedition?


 
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 12, 2015, 03:06:02 PM
Could it be because he was from Yemen?

First of all he was ethiopian (aksumite). 

Second, the inscription is not in Ge'ez (ethiopian alphabet of that time) but in Sabaean aka Southern arabic alphabet.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 12, 2015, 03:07:35 PM
How do we know its the same expedition?

Because it explicitly states it:

b kh ya l / r h m n n / w m s ya h ha /
m l k n / a b r ha / z ya b m n / m l k / s b a / w z r ya d n / w h dh r m d t

With the power (help) of god, and the Jesus (=Christian) King Abraha Zeebman (King's title), the King of Saba'a, Zuridan and Hadrmaut.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on August 12, 2015, 03:09:21 PM
First of all he was ethiopian (aksumite). 

Second, the inscription is not in Ge'ez (ethiopian alphabet of that time) but in Sabaean aka Southern arabic alphabet.

Peace

Sabaen is a south arabian 'Language' and not a south arabian 'script'.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 12, 2015, 03:10:50 PM
It has its own alphabet.  As shown in the inscription and shown in the inscriptions found in Yemen.

(https://traveltoeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/wpid-Photo-Dec-4-2012-710-PM.jpg)
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on August 12, 2015, 03:11:49 PM
Because it explicitly states it:

b kh ya l / r h m n n / w m s ya h ha /
m l k n / a b r ha / z ya b m n / m l k / s b a / w z r ya d n / w h dh r m d t

With the power (help) of god, and the Jesus (=Christian) King Abraha Zeebman (King's title), the King of Saba'a, Zuridan and Hadrmaut.

Peace

How does that prove that this was the expedition mentioned in the hadith? Do you think that a yemeni king at that time only ever attacked an arabian village / tribe only once in his life?
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on August 12, 2015, 03:13:07 PM
It has its own alphabet.  As shown in the inscription and shown in the inscriptions found in Yemen.

So why are you comparing it to the Quran? Are you saying no other languages existed in south arabia at that time?
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 12, 2015, 03:15:06 PM
It seems to me you have some reading to do (i.e. historical literature).

A King conquering Mecca would most likely have made mention of it if the hadith were true.  Not only that he would most likely build his church in the Hijaz he conquered.  But in contrary we find Abraha built his church at Sanaa (Yemen) not the Hejaz.  All indicators point towards Mecca being non-existing or insignificant to Abraha, wouldn't you agree?

Are you saying the southern arabs at the time of Qurans revelation used the aramaic alphabet?  Please provide evidence of it we can show to the world.  As far as I know the only scripture using Aramaic alphabet are the Qurans they kept at eg Sanaa.  Using a northern arab (aramaic) alphabet.  None of which can be dated to the Qurans time of revelation but post-quranic revelation.

On top of this Mecca was never the capital of the early caliphs.  Damascus was for a long time their base of operation.   

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 12, 2015, 03:22:23 PM
All this stuff is so basic.  Claiming the Quran was written in southern arabic alphabet is like saying Mao wrote his red book using the Russian alphabet.

For reference see here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Arabic_alphabet

It has a table listing the examples of the different alphabets used, timeframe and location.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on August 12, 2015, 03:40:29 PM
It seems to me you have some reading to do (i.e. historical literature).

A King conquering Mecca would most likely have made mention of it if the hadith were true.  Not only that he would most likely build his church in the Hijaz he conquered.  But in contrary we find Abraha built his church at Sanaa (Yemen) not the Hejaz.  All indicators point towards Mecca being non-existing or insignificant to Abraha, wouldn't you agree?

Are you saying the southern arabs at the time of Qurans revelation used the aramaic alphabet?  Please provide evidence of it we can show to the world.  As far as I know the only scripture using Aramaic alphabet are the Qurans they kept at eg Sanaa.  Using a northern arab alphabet.  None of which can be dated to the Qurans time of revelation but post-quranic revelation.

Peace

"It seems to me you have some reading to do (i.e. historical literature)".

A King conquering Mecca would most likely have made mention of it if the hadith were true.  Not only that he would most likely build his church in the Hijaz he conquered.  But in contrary we find Abraha built his church at Sanaa (Yemen) not the Hejaz.  All indicators point towards Mecca being non-existing or insignificant to Abraha, wouldn't you agree?"


Lets both do some reading ... you can read about the the hadith story of abraha (year of the elephant) and how he died before getting back to yemen. Hence no church in Hijaz. His church in saana as per the hadith was built before he came to conquer Mecca.

"Are you saying the southern arabs at the time of Qurans revelation used the aramaic alphabet?  Please provide evidence of it we can show to the world.  As far as I know the only scripture using Aramaic alphabet are the Qurans they kept at eg Sanaa.  Using a northern arab alphabet.  None of which can be dated to the Qurans time of revelation but post-quranic revelation."

Yes not only the Quran but the actual emergence of Islam, brought a mostly vocal society into the realms of written literature pretty quickly. Whether they established it based on aramaic, or hindi or martian. Fact remains that when they created it they became its custodians. You may not like what they say, but you cannot deny their authority for saying it.

Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 12, 2015, 03:54:58 PM

Lets both do some reading ... you can read about the the hadith story of abraha (year of the elephant) and how he died before getting back to yemen. Hence no church in Hijaz. His church in saana as per the hadith was built before he came to conquer Mecca.

This perfectly sums up the authority you attribute to hadith even if it contradicts historical facts.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on August 12, 2015, 04:01:51 PM
This perfectly sums up the authority you attribute to hadith even if it contradicts historical facts.

Peace

Lol .. you assume that abraha only ever conducted one military expedition in his life and this rock inscription is actually relating the story of his attack on Mecca.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 12, 2015, 04:06:03 PM
I'm not assuming any such thing.  How could I be assuming such thing when I'm clearly saying Mecca wasn't on the map in that era.  Nor did the hijaz region use the aramaic alphabet at that time.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 12, 2015, 04:10:35 PM
All this quibbling about the qibla...  one might start to think the Quran was right saying not one of you is agreeing on the qibla.  I'm outside all this quibbling about the qibla a really nice person according to most.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on August 14, 2015, 11:33:26 AM
I'm not assuming any such thing.  How could I be assuming such thing when I'm clearly saying Mecca wasn't on the map in that era.  Nor did the hijaz region use the aramaic alphabet at that time.

Did you not say ... and I quote:

"A King conquering Mecca would most likely have made mention of it if the hadith were true."

You then obviously ARE assuming that this rock inscription has something to do with that expedition.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on August 14, 2015, 11:35:16 AM
All this quibbling about the qibla...  one might start to think the Quran was right saying not one of you is agreeing on the qibla.  I'm outside all this quibbling about the qibla a really nice person according to most.

Peace

I'm sure you are a nice person. I don't recall ever saying anything related to you not being a nice person. Our debate is not personal in any way.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 14, 2015, 12:16:01 PM
Did you not say ... and I quote:

"A King conquering Mecca would most likely have made mention of it if the hadith were true."

You then obviously ARE assuming that this rock inscription has something to do with that expedition.

The rock inscription literally mentions Abraha, why would anyone doubt that inscription is referring to Abraha?

I'm not assuming anything, but showing you a piece of historical evidence of a King conquering the Hejaz to whom Mecca was either non-existing or so insignificant that it wasn't worth mentioning fitting into that time period.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on August 14, 2015, 12:33:47 PM
The rock inscription literally mentions Abraha, why would anyone doubt that inscription is referring to Abraha?

I'm not assuming anything, but showing you a piece of historical evidence of a King conquering the Hejaz to whom Mecca was either non-existing or so insignificant that it wasn't worth mentioning fitting into that time period.

"The rock inscription literally mentions Abraha, why would anyone doubt that inscription is referring to Abraha?"

Did I say at any point that this inscription is not mentioning Abraha?

"I'm not assuming anything, but showing you a piece of historical evidence of a King conquering the Hejaz to whom Mecca was either non-existing or so insignificant that it wasn't worth mentioning fitting into that time period."

No .. what you are doing is making reference to a rock inscription which is mentioning ONE specific expedition of Abraha. If that expedition was not directed towards Mecca, then it would naturally not mention it. You are continuously assuming that this rock inscription is referencing the very same expedition being referenced by the Hadith. Kindly think over it a little over a second and you might understand what I am talking about.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 14, 2015, 12:36:47 PM
"The rock inscription literally mentions Abraha, why would anyone doubt that inscription is referring to Abraha?"

Did I say at any point that this inscription is not mentioning Abraha?

"I'm not assuming anything, but showing you a piece of historical evidence of a King conquering the Hejaz to whom Mecca was either non-existing or so insignificant that it wasn't worth mentioning fitting into that time period."

No .. what you are doing is making reference to a rock inscription which is mentioning ONE specific expedition of Abraha. If that expedition was not directed towards Mecca, then it would naturally not mention it. You are continuously assuming that this rock inscription is referencing the very same expedition being referenced by the Hadith. Kindly think over it a little over a second and you might understand what I am talking about.

Nope Nope Nope...

I'm not assuming it is referencing to the hadith.  I don't need to assume such thing.  Abraha conquered the Hejaz as historically documented (nothing to do with the hadith).  A king conquering Hejaz not making mention of the infamous Mecca???

Please try to read what I'm stating, not what you think I am stating.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on August 14, 2015, 12:39:09 PM
Nope Nope Nope...

I'm not assuming it is referencing to the hadith.  I don't need to assume such thing.  Abraha conquered the Hejaz as historically documented (nothing to do with the hadith).  A king conquering Hejaz not making mention of the infamous Mecca???

Please try to read what I'm stating, not what you think I am stating.

Peace

"Abraha conquered the Hejaz as historically documented (nothing to do with the hadith). "

Where in this rock inscription does it say that he conquered the Hejaz?

Lets start from there.

Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 14, 2015, 12:40:32 PM
"Abraha conquered the Hejaz as historically documented (nothing to do with the hadith). "

Where in this rock inscription does it say that he conquered the Hejaz?

Lets start from there.

 The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity; edited by Scott Fitzgerald Johnson; p. 287
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on August 14, 2015, 12:43:43 PM
The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity; edited by Scott Fitzgerald Johnson; p. 287

We'll tackle the "oxford book of late antiquity" later. You and I both have the translations of the inscription provided by the website you linked. Where in that translation do you get the idea that the tribes or places mentioned are in the Hejaz?
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 14, 2015, 12:57:22 PM
We'll tackle the "oxford book of late antiquity" later. You and I both have the translations of the inscription provided by the website you linked. Where in that translation do you get the idea that the tribes or places mentioned are in the Hejaz?

The Ma?add tribal confederacy was controlling the Hejaz at that time.  Next to that Turban is identified by some as a place in the Hejaz.
Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on August 14, 2015, 01:00:46 PM
The Ma?add tribal confederacy was controlling the Hejaz at that time.  Next to that Turban is identified by some as a place in the Hejaz.

Peace

Can I have some references to this? And by references I mean actual old inscriptions that validate such a view point.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 14, 2015, 01:11:55 PM
Can I have some references to this? And by references I mean actual old inscriptions that validate such a view point.

There is historical evidence of at least one attack made by Abraha in the Hejaz.   I can't link you to any source you will have to consult specialized literature to find out.   But it's quite besides the point.  There is no discussion Abraha tried establishing a hegemony in Arabia.  It would be highly improbable Hejaz was excluded from that agenda.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 14, 2015, 01:25:04 PM
https://www.google.be/maps/place/Turbah+Saudi-Arabi%C3%AB/@21.2070422,41.6377544,13z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x15ec3dd18aacb697:0x4288a5e162b4856c
https://www.google.be/maps/place/Turbah,+Asharqiyyah,+Taif+26523,+Saudi-Arabi%C3%AB/@21.2787275,40.4168821,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x15e9893a08f77bad:0x8de4c1f9f2c6c901
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on August 14, 2015, 01:27:47 PM
There is historical evidence of at least one attack made by Abraha in the Hejaz.   I can't link you to any source you will have to consult specialized literature to find out.   But it's quite besides the point.  There is no discussion Abraha tried establishing a hegemony in Arabia.  It would be highly improbable Hejaz was excluded from that agenda.

Peace

"There is historical evidence of at least one attack made by Abraha in the Hejaz.   I can't link you to any source you will have to consult specialized literature to find out."

He might have attacked the Hijaz at some time and then died doing it. But you referenced these rock inscriptions to prove that they were referencing his attack on the Hejaz. I have yet to see any proof.

Although to help you with the rock inscriptions .... some of the references we get from this rock inscription include names like "kinda" and "Qahtani".

The kindom of Kindah was located in the Nejad Rejion who later converted to Islam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kindah

Qahtani reference

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Islamic_Arabia

This rock inscription is not talking about the Hejaz region.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on August 14, 2015, 01:29:38 PM
https://www.google.be/maps/place/Turbah+Saudi-Arabi%C3%AB/@21.2070422,41.6377544,13z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x15ec3dd18aacb697:0x4288a5e162b4856c
https://www.google.be/maps/place/Turbah,+Asharqiyyah,+Taif+26523,+Saudi-Arabi%C3%AB/@21.2787275,40.4168821,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x15e9893a08f77bad:0x8de4c1f9f2c6c901

I don't understand what this is supposed to mean. Please clarify.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 14, 2015, 01:30:00 PM
Of course those identifications are only assumptions.

But I don't understand your logic OnlyOneGod.

Which of these facts do you dispute?

1) Abraha trying to establish a hegemony in Arabia
2) Abraha's epigraphy nowhere mentioning Mecca
3) South-arabian places being mentioned that according to the hadith based Meccan qibla theory are inferior to Mecca in significance.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 14, 2015, 01:31:57 PM
I don't understand what this is supposed to mean. Please clarify.

They are possible candidates of Turban as mentioned in the inscriptions.  One is very close to Mecca.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 14, 2015, 01:35:32 PM
Modern day Halban is in between Mecca and Riyadh.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on August 14, 2015, 01:35:54 PM
Of course those identifications are only assumptions.

But I don't understand your logic OnlyOneGod.

Which of these facts do you dispute?

1) Abraha trying to establish a hegemony in Arabia
2) Abraha's epigraphy nowhere mentioning Mecca
3) South-arabian places being mentioned that according to the hadith based Meccan qibla theory are inferior to Mecca in significance.

Peace

"1) Abraha trying to establish a hegemony in Arabia"

I have nothing to prove or disprove that

"2) Abraha's epigraphy nowhere mentioning Mecca"

According to what? Your reference to the rock inscription? They are talking of places in the Nejad and hence no mention of Mecca.

"3) South-arabian places being mentioned that according to the hadith based Meccan qibla theory are inferior to Mecca in significance."

Please elaborate. Which south arabian places being mentioned and where are they mentioned that defy Mecca as the Qibla?



Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 14, 2015, 01:37:13 PM
"1) Abraha trying to establish a hegemony in Arabia"

I have nothing to prove or disprove that

"2) Abraha's epigraphy nowhere mentioning Mecca"

According to what? Your reference to the rock inscription? They are talking of places in the Nejad and hence no mention of Mecca.

"3) South-arabian places being mentioned that according to the hadith based Meccan qibla theory are inferior to Mecca in significance."

Please elaborate. Which south arabian places being mentioned and where are they mentioned that defy Mecca as the Qibla?

2) That's the academic (non-Islamic) consensus.  But you will have to consult specialized literature to find out.  I dont have any online links for them.
3) See my previous posts.  Halban, Turban.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on August 14, 2015, 01:41:20 PM
They are possible candidates of Turban as mentioned in the inscriptions.  One is very close to Mecca.

So now a public hospital called turbah is the site of Abrahas attack? What about kinda? Like he says in the inscription and which is historically verified?
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on August 14, 2015, 01:42:34 PM
Modern day Halban is in between Mecca and Riyadh.

How does that prove the non-existence of mecca?
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on August 14, 2015, 01:47:55 PM
2) That's the academic (non-Islamic) consensus.  But you will have to consult specialized literature to find out.  I dont have any online links for them.
3) See my previous posts.  Halban, Turban.

2) Lets look at actual academic work and not fantasies.

3) You quoting me halban and Turban and not talking about Kinda. Where the actual battle as per the inscriptions took place?

If you just intend to dance around the issue then I'm not interested in wasting further time.

You do not want to accept the fact that the inscription you posted had nothing to do with Abrahas attack or rule over the Hejaz. You do not want to tackle the issue of Bacca mentioned in the Quran and bible, where the bible says that its the name of a bush found around Mecca.

If you have nothing solid to add to this argument then I will end it right here.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 14, 2015, 01:54:22 PM
You don't even manage to focus out on google maps, but you rather stay zoomed in to find some strawman you can punch....

Figure it out by yourself OnlyOneGod.

Halban and Turban are examples of how far north the expedition must have gone.  You have a tendency to dance around issues.  Not me.

Some of use are made deaf dumb and blind.  I can't change that.  If you are refusing to see how the historical record of Abraha and South-Arabia contradicts the hadith stories about Mecca then that's just stubbornness. 

Ask any historian.  They will all agree Abraha most likely had interest in the Hejaz region as a documented attack on a southwestern place proves.  All of them will agree Mecca was not mentioned nor important to Abraha at all. 

The placenames Turban and Halban are all situated pretty far north into southern arabia.  It's very unlikely Abraha would have known those places but NOT Mecca - if it existed as a place of pilgrimage at all.  Kinda is irrelevant as a placename, as you aren't disputing Abraha conquered Yemen but you seem to ignore, against all historians, he didnt rule Hijaz as well.

Most (non muslim) historians will agree Mecca is non-existing before the 4th century AD.

Bacca is not a bush.  It's a proper placename.  Still used for that neighbourhood in Jerusalem today.

I'm done discussing with you OnlyOneGod.  You have bias that only accepts evidence that is compatible with a Mecca-thesis.  Anything contradicting it you ignore.  In that sense you are like the majority of muslims taking the words of hadith writers more seriously than those of modern historians.

Please continue your pagan tradition of praying in the direction of a stone and a pagan shrine that has no abrahamic roots whatsoever.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 14, 2015, 02:04:58 PM
This stubbornness of yours also shows when dealing with linguistic evidence.  You totally ignore the Quran was never written originally in any Hijaz known script.

Moreover the placename of Mecca itself is ENTIRELY non-arabic but an aramaic word.

This only leaves two options:

1) Mecca was populated by Canaanites
2) Mecca is a pretty late placename that borrowed its name from the aramaic placenames in the Quran and Torah

Everyone knows there never were Canaanites in Mecca.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 14, 2015, 02:15:18 PM
If you have nothing solid to add to this argument then I will end it right here.

There seems to be nothing solid you'd accept outside some meteorite stone that you can worship in the fashion of the ancient arab pagans.  The only thing you'd accept from me is saying: "yeah bukhari tabari and all those other liars were actually right concerning mecca".

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 14, 2015, 02:18:03 PM
The qiblah/bacca is only the tip of the iceberg.  You have no idea how many lies you have been taking for granted as truths.

Another one of them is the very origins of islam.   I do not locate those to be in the Hijaz. The earliest versions of proto-Islam can be found in the Qumran scrolls.

(http://rootsofislamtruehistory.com/subpages/Genealogy-Islam.PNG)

As you can see we both consider ourselves to be muslim but other than that we have nothing in common.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 14, 2015, 02:35:17 PM
Even the word muslim itself is Christian in origin:

The Aramaic Gospel of Matthew (of which Syriacs and Chaldeans possess an accurate text originating from the Aramaic Peshitta written in the original language of the New Testament) is more enlightening than a grammar. The root slm appears under a variety of forms therein (58 times in total), taking on multiple meanings, beginning with the most evident of all, peace:
                  ?And when you enter into a house, greet the household. And if the household is worthy, let your peace (?lama) come upon it.
                     But if the household is not worthy, let your peace return to you.? (Mt 10:12-13)
The notion of perfection or completion follows from it, as in:
                  ?Again you have heard that it was said to those before you: ?You shall not swear falsely, but you shall bring to completion (t?alem) your oaths to the Lord.?? (Mt 5:33)
                    ?[parall.]? And so it was, when Jesus had completed (?alem) these sayings, that the crowds were astonished at His teaching [4] (Mt 7:28) ?[parall.]?
                   Jesus answered and said to them: Elijah is coming first to bring to completion all things.? (Mt 17:11)
Or again that of transmitted perfection:
                   ?Why do your disciples transgress the tradition (ma?lmanouta?) of the elders and do not wash their hands when they eat bread?? (Mt 15:2)
Next, a semantic variation appears with the sense of delivering. What is perfect, completed, is so made to be transmitted (this meaning of handing down or passing over to, is unknown in Hebrew [5]):
  ?And it came to pass that when Jesus had completed (me?tlem or delivered in the sense of handed down) all these sayings, He said to His disciples:
  ?You know that after two days is the Passover, and the Son of Man is to be delivered up to be crucified.? (Mt 26:1-2) [?]
  And he [Judas] said to them: ?What are you willing to give me if I deliver Him to you?? And they promised him thirty (pieces) of silver.
  And from that time, he sought opportunity to deliver Him. (Mt 26:15-16) [?]
 Judas the ? deliverer ? (ma?lmana?) answered and said: ?Rabbi, is it I? Jesus said to him: ?You have said so.? (Mt 26:25)
 ?Then they will deliver (= submit) you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for my Name?s sake.
  And then many will be offended, and they will hate one another, and will deliver each other up.? (Mt 24:9-10)
We thus end up with the equivalent of the 4th Arabic form against which emerges the religious connotation of to commit or hand oneself over (or again to submit) to God, which Jesus uses in reference to Himself:
                  ?Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man is handing Himself over to the chief priest and to the scribes.
                   And they will condemn Him to death, and deliver (hand over) Him up to the Gentiles.? (Mt 20:18-19a)
This form has systematically been rendered in Greek by use of the verb paradidomi. The same connotation of to commit or hand oneself over to, is found occurring in that section of the First Epistle of Peter which precisely refers to the Passion of Jesus: 
                  ?He committed no sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth; reviled, He did not revile in return;
                    when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself (entrusted or again handed Himself over) to the righteous Judge.? (1P 2:22-23)

I'm sure for most of the readers this will be easier to ignore than to suffer an identity crisis that requires them to completely review their own spiritual identity.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Man of Faith on August 14, 2015, 08:58:53 PM
Salam more than likely has an origin much older than that spanning thousands of years back.

It means "(a) spirit such thereof" implying that your Spirit resembles that of God's and means in practice that you are sound and have a clarity of mind rather than "lifeless" sheep.

It is not possible to see Quranic words as loan words. It is a special language this A - Rabbic language, together with Aramaic. People have twisted it, made some paranormal creature called Jinn, a devil called Shaytaan and also Ebless while the truth is not so. Satan is yourself, if you fare that way, giving in to the impulses of your body (jannateh) rather than finding the spirit (naas).

Be well
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 15, 2015, 08:59:03 AM
Salam more than likely has an origin much older than that spanning thousands of years back.

It means "(a) spirit such thereof" implying that your Spirit resembles that of God's and means in practice that you are sound and have a clarity of mind rather than "lifeless" sheep.

It is not possible to see Quranic words as loan words. It is a special language this A - Rabbic language, together with Aramaic. People have twisted it, made some paranormal creature called Jinn, a devil called Shaytaan and also Ebless while the truth is not so. Satan is yourself, if you fare that way, giving in to the impulses of your body (jannateh) rather than finding the spirit (naas).

Be well

Is that even proper English "(a) spirit such thereof"?

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: OnlyOneGod on August 16, 2015, 11:21:02 AM
You don't even manage to focus out on google maps, but you rather stay zoomed in to find some strawman you can punch....

Figure it out by yourself OnlyOneGod.

Halban and Turban are examples of how far north the expedition must have gone.  You have a tendency to dance around issues.  Not me.

Some of use are made deaf dumb and blind.  I can't change that.  If you are refusing to see how the historical record of Abraha and South-Arabia contradicts the hadith stories about Mecca then that's just stubbornness. 

Ask any historian.  They will all agree Abraha most likely had interest in the Hejaz region as a documented attack on a southwestern place proves.  All of them will agree Mecca was not mentioned nor important to Abraha at all. 

The placenames Turban and Halban are all situated pretty far north into southern arabia.  It's very unlikely Abraha would have known those places but NOT Mecca - if it existed as a place of pilgrimage at all.  Kinda is irrelevant as a placename, as you aren't disputing Abraha conquered Yemen but you seem to ignore, against all historians, he didnt rule Hijaz as well.

Most (non muslim) historians will agree Mecca is non-existing before the 4th century AD.

Bacca is not a bush.  It's a proper placename.  Still used for that neighbourhood in Jerusalem today.

I'm done discussing with you OnlyOneGod.  You have bias that only accepts evidence that is compatible with a Mecca-thesis.  Anything contradicting it you ignore.  In that sense you are like the majority of muslims taking the words of hadith writers more seriously than those of modern historians.

Please continue your pagan tradition of praying in the direction of a stone and a pagan shrine that has no abrahamic roots whatsoever.

Peace

"Halban and Turban are examples of how far north the expedition must have gone.  "

If they did not pass through Mecca to get there then they would not mention it. You want them to reference Mecca (or Becca) no matter what. Well those inscriptions were not written to meet your personal whims and desires.

"Some of use are made deaf dumb and blind.  I can't change that. "

I quote you christian text saying that Becca is actually a bush and mostly found around Mecca. You just ignore it like it never happened. So who then is the deaf and the blind?

"Ask any historian.  They will all agree Abraha most likely had interest in the Hejaz region "

Ask which historian? And having an "interest" in the Hejaz is totally different to rulling over the Hejaz as you hyave been so far claiming. So now Abraha only hand an interest in the Hejaz?

"All of them will agree Mecca was not mentioned nor important to Abraha at all. "

So if the Abraha was attacking a place in the north, nothing in the south could have existed just because he did not mention it in this four line inscription? You will judge this mans whole life and expeditions and aims based on that one inscription? And then you will claim that Mecca does not exist in the Hejaz. You are a special case, including those who agree with you.

"The placenames Turban and Halban are all situated pretty far north into southern arabia.  It's very unlikely Abraha would have known those places but NOT Mecca"

What in the world makes you believe that he did NOT know Mecca? He was not attacking Mecca and hence he did not mention it. You claimed earlier that this inscriptio proves that he ruled over the Hejaz, until I made you understand that this attack was not  in the Hejaz but in the area of Nejad. Now you want to create an issue out of nothing by asking, why he didn't mention Mecca in this inscrition. Well logic dictates, that if that man was not attacking Mecca then he would not mention Mecca. How hard is that to understand? As they say ... common sense is not that common.

"Most (non muslim) historians will agree Mecca is non-existing before the 4th century AD."

Which non-muslims historians and based on what proof?

"Bacca is not a bush.  It's a proper placename.  Still used for that neighbourhood in Jerusalem today."

Bacca has never been a historical place, and you have accepted as much because you could never bring any proof for it. So don't try and twist the facts already discussed earlier in this discussion. As far as Bacca being a bush ... I gave you ample proof from christian records to show it without a doubt. You did not challenge it then, but now, after 5-6 more pages of discussion have passed you casually deny it as if I never posted you references to biblical translations of Bacca (i.e the biblical passages you yourself mentioned). I ask you one thing ... if nothing else, be honest.

"Please continue your pagan tradition of praying in the direction of a stone and a pagan shrine that has no abrahamic roots whatsoever."

Yes thank you ... I will.







Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: huruf on August 16, 2015, 11:38:53 AM
Is that even proper English "(a) spirit such thereof"?

Peace


????To the gallows with Man of Faith!!! He great sinner, he unEnglished.

Salaam
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: runninglikezebras on August 16, 2015, 01:10:27 PM
"Halban and Turban are examples of how far north the expedition must have gone.  "

If they did not pass through Mecca to get there then they would not mention it. You want them to reference Mecca (or Becca) no matter what. Well those inscriptions were not written to meet your personal whims and desires.

If they didn't pass through Mecca it was of no importance in the Hejaz to Abraha.  Perfectly fitting historical evidence showing Mecca didn't even exist in that period or so insignificant it isn't mention anywhere.

"Some of use are made deaf dumb and blind.  I can't change that. "

I quote you christian text saying that Becca is actually a bush and mostly found around Mecca. You just ignore it like it never happened. So who then is the deaf and the blind?

"Ask any historian.  They will all agree Abraha most likely had interest in the Hejaz region "

Ask which historian? And having an "interest" in the Hejaz is totally different to rulling over the Hejaz as you hyave been so far claiming. So now Abraha only hand an interest in the Hejaz?

Well most historians agree Abraha ruled the Hejaz.  Take your pick.  He ruled entire south arabia.  Including Yemen, Hejaz and central Arabia.

"All of them will agree Mecca was not mentioned nor important to Abraha at all. "

So if the Abraha was attacking a place in the north, nothing in the south could have existed just because he did not mention it in this four line inscription? You will judge this mans whole life and expeditions and aims based on that one inscription? And then you will claim that Mecca does not exist in the Hejaz. You are a special case, including those who agree with you.

I'm not judging based on one inscription.  It's merely one example.  If you would be able to open your eyes you would find out many more historical indicators Mecca started being referred to starting in the 4th century.  Even for early caliphs the place was insignificant until after the 7th century.

"The placenames Turban and Halban are all situated pretty far north into southern arabia.  It's very unlikely Abraha would have known those places but NOT Mecca"

What in the world makes you believe that he did NOT know Mecca? He was not attacking Mecca and hence he did not mention it. You claimed earlier that this inscriptio proves that he ruled over the Hejaz, until I made you understand that this attack was not  in the Hejaz but in the area of Nejad. Now you want to create an issue out of nothing by asking, why he didn't mention Mecca in this inscrition. Well logic dictates, that if that man was not attacking Mecca then he would not mention Mecca. How hard is that to understand? As they say ... common sense is not that common.

If he didn't attack Mecca.  There was nothing of importance in Mecca.  Since he ruled and conquered most of South-Arabia.

"Most (non muslim) historians will agree Mecca is non-existing before the 4th century AD."

Which non-muslims historians and based on what proof?

Do your own research.  It's clear to me you aren't accepting mine.

"Bacca is not a bush.  It's a proper placename.  Still used for that neighbourhood in Jerusalem today."

Bacca has never been a historical place, and you have accepted as much because you could never bring any proof for it. So don't try and twist the facts already discussed earlier in this discussion. As far as Bacca being a bush ... I gave you ample proof from christian records to show it without a doubt. You did not challenge it then, but now, after 5-6 more pages of discussion have passed you casually deny it as if I never posted you references to biblical translations of Bacca (i.e the biblical passages you yourself mentioned). I ask you one thing ... if nothing else, be honest.

Jewish writings predating the Quran mention Bacca many times as a proper placename near Jerusalem.  You cherrypicked one biblical translation that used "bushes" and stick to that definition.  Well that's biased research.

"Please continue your pagan tradition of praying in the direction of a stone and a pagan shrine that has no abrahamic roots whatsoever."

Yes thank you ... I will.

Good luck with that.

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Man of Faith on August 18, 2015, 10:17:37 PM
runninglikezebras,

It was the Arabic morphology. I tried to make it sensible by inserting words in parenthesis.

I think it should be comprehensible though. "A Spirit that is such kind of" any more easy to comprehend?

I could also ignore the letter order and literal meaning and paraphrase "whose Spirit is as such". The such means God, i.e. that when you are salam your Spirit is like God, sound/flawless. It could also be referred to as sanity or clarity of mind if you so wish.

'Alem علم has similar word structure with an Ayn instead of Siin. It means 'Gain Such Thereof' implying that you are aware in something rather than not. God is 'alem in everything, i.e. omnipresent. If you have not gained information about something means you lack 'alem. For most cases in Quran, 'alem refers to awareness, i.e. being conscious of the world's real nature. Obviously as the word says morphologically, it does have to do with the strength of one's link to God, "the gain".

Both words are full-blooded Arabic/Semitic words. And it appears it is not just any language but the one who invented it must have been thinking of God.

Where do I get the knowledge from? Well, that you can always ponder upon.

Be well
Emanuel
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: IGotQuestions on May 07, 2019, 12:10:36 PM
Salaam all,
This was a very informative thread to peruse. Based off the first post by Layth, does this mean that the true Pilgrimage is to Jerusalem and not the current day Mecca?
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Novice on May 07, 2019, 12:43:37 PM
Salaam all,
This was a very informative thread to peruse. Based off the first post by Layth, does this mean that the true Pilgrimage is to Jerusalem and not the current day Mecca?

What is pilgrimage? Where this terminology come from in Quran's translations?
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Wakas on May 07, 2019, 01:09:21 PM
peace,

Salaam all,
This was a very informative thread to peruse. Based off the first post by Layth, does this mean that the true Pilgrimage is to Jerusalem and not the current day Mecca?

You may find this article helpful:
http://mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-hajj-Quran.html
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Layth on May 07, 2019, 11:02:24 PM
Salaam all,
This was a very informative thread to peruse. Based off the first post by Layth, does this mean that the true Pilgrimage is to Jerusalem and not the current day Mecca?

Indeed, all my years of studying this topic have only added to reinforce the finding that Jerusalem is Bakka and it is the center of Pilgrimage for all mankind...
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: huruf on May 08, 2019, 12:56:46 AM
What is pilgrimage? Where this terminology come from in Quran's translations?

That would be indeed de first question to be answered.

I guess it has been dealt with many times in the forum, but it might be difficult to get a straight answer from it.

I am rather reluctant to mass events, so the whole thing to me is suspect, but I am interested if there is something cogent in the whole thing to get some understanding.

As to the place for such a thin, I have heard to many times in my life of places which are holy everywhere and generally I am put off by such kind of considerations which are always tainted by tribal, nationalistic, ehtnic or historical pride.

Holy is every place, holy is everything, since ev erything is God's creation. What makes a place holier than other? Is not there another issue of the wellknown prejudice of God choosing something and not choosing otherthing? Is it not a reflection of the human penchant to pick some above others and stablish "holy" hyerarchy  whereas we know that nobody is above any other except by taqwa?

I think the basics of this question should be dealt with.

Salaam
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Jafar on May 08, 2019, 01:41:40 AM
As to the place for such a thin, I have heard to many times in my life of places which are holy everywhere and generally I am put off by such kind of considerations which are always tainted by tribal, nationalistic, ehtnic or historical pride.

Holy is every place, holy is everything, since ev erything is God's creation. What makes a place holier than other? Is not there another issue of the wellknown prejudice of God choosing something and not choosing otherthing? Is it not a reflection of the human penchant to pick some above others and stablish "holy" hyerarchy  whereas we know that nobody is above any other except by taqwa?

Couldn't agree more...

Any places can be holy (or damned)..
Jerusalem, Mecca, Yemen, Rome, Constantinople/Istanbul, Mt Fuji, Red Rock, Ganggas River, Nile River, Eufrat, Tigris, Yucatan, Borobudur, Shaolin Temple,  Pipestone, etc.. etc.. etc..

There is no such thing as "one and only truest holy place chosen by God" which makes the other places as false, unholy or unchosen...
And any holy places should be open for all humankind..
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: imrankhawaja on May 08, 2019, 04:25:13 AM

And any holy places should be open for all humankind..


That is why makka is not HOLY at all.

Reason one (only sunnis are allowed to enter).
Visa policy for non arabs.
Cost reached almost 10000$(depend on country to country).
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: IGotQuestions on May 08, 2019, 07:09:10 AM
Salaam All,
Thank you for your comments and reply on this topic. I went for Umrah about 4 years ago, and when I entered Mecca, I did not feel any sense of spiritual upliftment. There was even a point I was in close proximity to the Kaaba and I felt a sense of indifference and apathy.

I have been researching Dan Gibson's theory about Petra and Mecca. Could it be possible that the Mecca of today is not the Mecca of the Prophet (S) and the Mecca mentioned in the Qur'an? If Mecca was such a important and significant city, how come it doesn't appear on any maps until the 7th or 8th centuries respectively?
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: huruf on May 08, 2019, 07:50:42 AM
This brings me back to the gist of names. There is a very hard to break inertia to see proper names in the Qur'an evrywhere, proper names that have no significance in themselves acept to name a place or a person with a name, but not because that name means something.

Makka, bakka, mean something, regardless of whether they are a place or not.

Salaam
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Jafar on May 08, 2019, 11:15:53 AM
Salaam All,
Thank you for your comments and reply on this topic. I went for Umrah about 4 years ago, and when I entered Mecca, I did not feel any sense of spiritual upliftment. There was even a point I was in close proximity to the Kaaba and I felt a sense of indifference and apathy.

If anyone is looking for a specific place / location on earth that can give them a spiritual upliftment then don't bother to look and no need to go anywhere. Your specific place that you're sitting on now can also give you a spiritual upliftment.

Yet I also observe that the majority of people who went to Mecca doesn't actually looking and hoping for spiritual enlightenment or upliftment, the major driving factors are:
- To attain social status (as being those who has performed hajj shall gives them higher social standing within their own community, the status will be boosted higher if they manage to kiss the black stone)
- To attain a kind of compensation / reward (whether in this life or in the hereafter)
- just because they believe that God told them to go there.

Quote
I have been researching Dan Gibson's theory about Petra and Mecca. Could it be possible that the Mecca of today is not the Mecca of the Prophet (S) and the Mecca mentioned in the Qur'an? If Mecca was such a important and significant city, how come it doesn't appear on any maps until the 7th or 8th centuries respectively?

It could be.. but nonetheless it really doesn't matter...

That is why makka is not HOLY at all.

Reason one (only sunnis are allowed to enter).
Visa policy for non arabs.
Cost reached almost 10000$(depend on country to country).

If that's the case then just make your own place 'holy'....
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: woke on May 08, 2019, 04:51:03 PM
mecca is not a proper noun and neither is bacca, the root words are ba-kaf-ya and it means to weep- look it up in quran corpus, and for mecca its meem-kaf-nun -  that means  established   
peace and salaams
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: IGotQuestions on May 09, 2019, 09:43:59 AM
Indeed, all my years of studying this topic have only added to reinforce the finding that Jerusalem is Bakka and it is the center of Pilgrimage for all mankind...

Salaam brother Layth. Thank you for responding. Does this also mean that Jerusalem is the Qibla for Muslims?

Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Novice on May 09, 2019, 03:16:52 PM
That would be indeed de first question to be answered.

I guess it has been dealt with many times in the forum, but it might be difficult to get a straight answer from it.

I am rather reluctant to mass events, so the whole thing to me is suspect, but I am interested if there is something cogent in the whole thing to get some understanding.

As to the place for such a thin, I have heard to many times in my life of places which are holy everywhere and generally I am put off by such kind of considerations which are always tainted by tribal, nationalistic, ehtnic or historical pride.

Holy is every place, holy is everything, since ev erything is God's creation. What makes a place holier than other? Is not there another issue of the wellknown prejudice of God choosing something and not choosing otherthing? Is it not a reflection of the human penchant to pick some above others and stablish "holy" hyerarchy  whereas we know that nobody is above any other except by taqwa?

I think the basics of this question should be dealt with.

Salaam

Thank you huruf. It was not a question but a thought to reflect upon that where this ritual come from.

Do you know which word in Quraan means "holly"?
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Novice on May 09, 2019, 03:28:12 PM
mecca is not a proper noun and neither is bacca, the root words are ba-kaf-ya and it means to weep- look it up in quran corpus, and for mecca its meem-kaf-nun -  that means  established   
peace and salaams

Where do you get these roots? Bacca and mecca come from root ba-kaf-kaf and mim-kaf-kaf respectively.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: woke on May 09, 2019, 08:01:15 PM
I had to search for them.  Quran corpus is not 100% accurate. Especially with proper nouns they do not link with the other ones their root category. It is correct check it. And Bacca and Mecca are not real places mentioned in the Quran. They are to weep with understanding or realization and establish.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Layth on May 10, 2019, 01:50:32 AM
Salaam brother Layth. Thank you for responding. Does this also mean that Jerusalem is the Qibla for Muslims?

Indeed - it is.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Mazhar on May 10, 2019, 09:01:58 AM
Indeed - it is.

 Jerusalem is Qiblata for none.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: imrankhawaja on May 10, 2019, 10:06:24 AM
to be honest thats the hardest/difficult ever topic i ever encounter..

i start studying about it 7 years ago and i m still not sure about one decision or one finding what i can use.

i havnt find any absolute evidence in claims and also i did not find any evidence against those claims..

HISTORY is the only answer and i m in highly doubt if we have any (ORIGINAL) history availaible with us..

by (original) i mean let say bukhari claimed that omer said XYZ,
for authenticating it we need something from the OMAR(sign/stamp). and need to put it on radio carbon testing..

oiginal work is either lost or its a plan of big conspricy to make it lost.

funny thing is first official biography of key figure(muhammad) comes in market after 170 years from the date of his death. (why) ?
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Mazhar on May 10, 2019, 12:34:48 PM
to be honest thats the hardest/difficult ever topic i ever encounter..

i start studying about it 7 years ago and i m still not sure about one decision or one finding what i can use.

i havnt find any absolute evidence in claims and also i did not find any evidence against those claims..

HISTORY is the only answer and i m in highly doubt if we have any (ORIGINAL) history availaible with us..

by (original) i mean let say bukhari claimed that omer said XYZ,
for authenticating it we need something from the OMAR(sign/stamp). and need to put it on radio carbon testing..

oiginal work is either lost or its a plan of big conspricy to make it lost.

funny thing is first official biography of key figure(muhammad) comes in market after 170 years from the date of his death. (why) ?

We forget that what renders a book to earn title of a great book. It is that it should take us to original setting.

Controversy about Becca and Mecca

 

It seems strange that some people thought that the House built by Iebra'heim [alai'his'slaam] and Iesma'eile [alai'his'slaam] is not the one which exists in Mecca but it was another one. They opine that it was a different House by referring to the use of Proper Noun Becca, in Qur?ān, which seems to them a site located somewhere in the blessed plains of the holy lands possibly near or at the location where subsequent temples were built and maintained by "Hebrew Prophets".

3:96-97 (http://haqeeqat.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.%20Individual%20Ayaat/003.%20Ale%20Imran/03/03.96-97.htm)
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: IGotQuestions on May 10, 2019, 12:48:12 PM
The historical, geographical, and archaeological facts all seem to weigh against Mecca and heavily favor Jerusaelm/Bacca. To reiterate, if Mecca was identified as Umm al-Qurā, "Mother of All Cities/Settlements," how come it is not shown on any map until roughly the 7th century?

This link provides a exhaustive and comprehensive view on historicity of Mecca from classical writers:
STUDIES BY CLASSICAL WRITERS SHOW THAT MECCA COULD NOT HAVE BEEN BUILT BEFORE THE 4TH CENTURY A.D.
By Dr. Rafat Amari

http://rrimedia.org/Worldviews/Islam/History-of-Islam/studies-by-classical-writers-show-that-mecca-could-not-have-been-built-before-the-4th-century-ad
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Jafar on May 10, 2019, 01:50:19 PM
funny thing is first official biography of key figure(muhammad) comes in market after 170 years from the date of his death. (why) ?

Because by that time the Abbasid Empire need to invent a religion to unite and control it's populace.

It seems strange that some people thought that the House built by Iebra'heim [alai'his'slaam] and Iesma'eile [alai'his'slaam] is not the one which exists in Mecca but it was another one.

It seems strange that people could believe Abraham built a structure in Mecca and mandated everyone within his clan to annually go there.
That is if it's the same Abraham as Abraham whose remain supposedly being buried in Hebron.

The (straight line) distance from Hebron to Mecca is 1250 KM.
The terrain is unforgivable, passing through the arid desert, thus one need to carry their own logistics from home, no chance of resupplying at rest area or nearest 7 eleven.

Given there were no airplane, fast train or car, the only viable means of transportation is by walking leveraging mule or camel to carry burden of baggage of logistics. At maximum speed it's 5 KM / hour.
By assuming 8 hours per day of walking, per day it's 40 KM of distance.
Thus it need around at least 31 days of dangerous travel to go one way and another 31 days of dangerous travel back home.
If the entire clan need to go there every year, they lost at least 2 months a year just for pilgrimage.
Not to mention the perils of raid and robber invading their home while they're away for 2 months..

This annual 'ritual' of pilgrimage will be suicidal for the entire clan..

Plus there aren't any record of such massive travel happened anyway...

Choosing another location nearby for annual meetup is much smarter and realistic decision...

Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: IGotQuestions on May 10, 2019, 02:11:56 PM
Because by that time the Abbasid Empire need to invent a religion to unite and control it's populace.

It seems strange that people could believe Abraham built a structure in Mecca and mandated everyone within his clan to annually go there.
That is if it's the same Abraham as Abraham whose remain supposedly being buried in Hebron.

The (straight line) distance from Hebron to Mecca is 1250 KM.
The terrain is unforgivable, passing through the arid desert, thus one need to carry their own logistics from home, no chance of resupplying at rest area or nearest 7 eleven.

Given there were no airplane, fast train or car, the only viable means of transportation is by walking leveraging mule or camel to carry burden of baggage of logistics. At maximum speed it's 5 KM / hour.
By assuming 8 hours per day of walking, per day it's 40 KM of distance.
Thus it need around at least 31 days of dangerous travel to go one way and another 31 days of dangerous travel back home.
If the entire clan need to go there every year, they lost at least 2 months a year just for pilgrimage.
Not to mention the perils of raid and robber invading their home while they're away for 2 months..

This annual 'ritual' of pilgrimage will be suicidal for the entire clan..

Plus there aren't any record of such massive travel happened anyway...

Choosing another location nearby for annual meetup is much smarter and realistic decision...

All valid points brother. In addition, if Abraham (as) created the first temple at Mecca, how come there is no mention of any succeeding Prophets performing pilgrimage to there? David (as), Moses (as), Jesus (as), etc.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: imrankhawaja on May 10, 2019, 08:22:42 PM
The Black stone has never been analysed with modern scientific techniques and its origins remain the subject of speculation.

MYSTERY upon mystery.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: imrankhawaja on May 10, 2019, 08:30:52 PM

Because by that time the Abbasid Empire need to invent a religion to unite and control it's populace.


what had been happening before ABBASID empire was more shocking started from(first fitna) and then so on.
history is filled with BLOOD and myths.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: huruf on May 10, 2019, 11:41:13 PM
All valid points brother. In addition, if Abraham (as) created the first temple at Mecca, how come there is no mention of any succeeding Prophets performing pilgrimage to there? David (as), Moses (as), Jesus (as), etc.

There is no mention "of any succeeding Prophets performing pilgrimage to there? David (as), Moses (as), Jesus (as), etc.". 

There is no mention of them either performing any such pilgrimage anywhere else.

Salaam
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Iyyaka on May 10, 2019, 11:57:47 PM
Salam,

For the definition of Bekka here is my answer :
https://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9609584.msg424242#msg424242 (https://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9609584.msg424242#msg424242)

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Jafar on May 11, 2019, 02:09:04 AM
All valid points brother. In addition, if Abraham (as) created the first temple at Mecca, how come there is no mention of any succeeding Prophets performing pilgrimage to there? David (as), Moses (as), Jesus (as), etc.

Abraham Could Not Built The First Temple

Abraham lived around 1600-2000 BC. If he built a temple then definitely it is not the first or oldest temple that mankind around the globe has built. There's G?bekli Tepe in Anatolia which was built around 8000 BC (Stone Age) and nearby Hebron there's Baalbek complex in Beqa valley with first megalitic foundation built around 4000 BC. And given Abe was natively a Mesopotamian he has witnessed many other temple during his lifetime spread around Tigris and Eufrat river.

So Abraham built the first temple is definitely a myth..
If he indeed built a temple it will not be the oldest temple / first temple.

David, Jesus, Moses

There are records which indicate David and Jesus attended festivity / gathering events in Jerusalem.
While for Moses probably he attended festivity / gathering events in Egypt during his youth, while the legend of Exodus told stories he built a mobile makeshift temple during  the wandering. I clearly state that the stories of exodus is still a legend as there isn't any archaeological artifacts / evidence to support that such massive events ever took place. Thus cannot be proven yet cannot be disproven also.

Holy Places Around The World

But if one observe the human culture / tradition around the world, each tribe / clan / group usually have their own designated place for gathering / festival / meetup events. And all need to fit mandatory criteria of accessibility it should be nearby their dwelling place, maximum 2-3 days of travel.

Native american, for example each clan / tribe have their own designated place for meetup.. thus in USA alone there are more than 100 of such holy places. It doesn't make sense for Apache clan to gather at Hudson river 2000 Km away or at Yucatan 1600 Km away. Yucatan is holy place for the Mayan as they live nearby but nor for the Apachians...

The same thing consistently applied around the globe; The greeks gathered up at Mount Olympus, the Japanese at Mount Fuji, the Javans at Borobudur (This specific case is interesting, but more on that later), The mesopotamian at Tigris Eufrat river and so on and so on....

Summary

Thus there isn't any place defined as 'one and truest holy place' and all humankind *must* go there or else God will be angry.

Could Mekka be holy place of the nearby tribes? Yes it could be..
Could Ghamadan or Dhul Khalasa in Yemen be holy place of the of the nearby tribes? Yes it could be..
As such there are similar structure of Ghamadan and Dhul Khalasa in Yemen with Kaba in Mecca

But.. Why?

An intriguing questions is actually:
Why they need to make a claim that the cube structure in Mecca was built by Abraham?
And they even expand the claim to include that such place was actually designated by Adam???
What is their motivation? what is their objective?
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: TellMeTheTruth on May 12, 2019, 02:37:14 AM
Salam!

Here is what I think:
The First House بیت for human beings was constructed by Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala, which is the Earth where all enjoyment متاع and provisions رزق are created for rhem. Its ceiling  السمآء is constructed without pillars and the Lord رب is established upon its Roof/Throne عرش. This is your Qibla and this is the Truth. Although He, the god, is near than our life vessels still He is established on العرش. Turn your faces towards His throne. Iblis is to attack humans from their front, back, left and right so they need to protect themselves by calling upon God who is the Best Protector. (there is no need of a physical walled house/city to avoid evil). Reflect upon his signs and make sure that He is the only one who can save you from evil. Be obedient to Him and don't do wrong to have His mercy. If you think that you have done something wrong then weep and seek forgiveness and weep/cry as much as you can in order to get His attention وجھہ and mercy رحمتہ. He will accept your repentence توبہ. He will guide you through His messages regarding the right and straight path of living this temporary worldly life حیوۃ الدنیا. Everyone who calls upon Him only، is your brother/sister and member of the House/Family اھل البیت. Ibrahim AS accepted these rules of the House and preached the same.
Note 1: If you are looking for a physical House/بیت then be sure that the first inhabited walled city was in Jericho in order to protect inhabitants and travellers to be safe from physical dangers like wild animals, lootees, enemies, etc. The second walled city buult by Jews was probably at Jerusalem. Letter ب means a boundary wall with an entrance/gate.
Note 2: If you are looking for a physical garden where Adam and Eve lived then look for it in Florida. A lot of links point towards Florida/North America.

Peace!
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: IGotQuestions on May 13, 2019, 06:13:19 AM
Salaam All,
Here is another possible rendering of 2:158:

إِنَّ الصَّفَا وَالْمَرْوَةَ مِنْ شَعَائِرِ اللَّهِ فَمَنْ حَجَّ الْبَيْتَ أَوْ اعْتَمَرَ فَلاَ جُنَاحَ عَلَيْهِ أَنْ يَطَّوَّفَ بِهِمَا وَمَنْ تَطَوَّعَ خَيْرا ً فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ شَاكِرٌ عَلِيم ٌ
'Inna Aş-Şafā Wa Al-Marwata Min Sha`ā'iri Allāhi Faman Ĥajja Al-Bayta 'Aw A`tamara Falā Junāĥa `Alayhi 'An Yaţţawwafa Bihimā Wa Man Taţawwa`a Khayrāan Fa'inna Allāha Shākirun `Alīmun

Indeed, the stone and the rock outcropping are among the symbols of God. So whoever makes Pilgrimage to the Sanctuary, or is merely passing through, commits no error should he traverse them. And whoever donates for goodness, then God is Thankful, Knowledgeable.

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/roots/Sad-Fa-Waw.html?fbclid=IwAR2LRRQWS1lTZA4waBvFTz2iF9bJnzvMqCnuemjVdPDRkH68o6qutuuEgsk

This seems to fit more in line with Jerusalem. Any thoughts?


Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Wakas on May 13, 2019, 10:21:00 AM
Re:  2:158
See http://mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-hajj-Quran.html
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Jane on June 30, 2019, 12:19:47 PM
I have been researching Dan Gibson's theory about Petra and Mecca. Could it be possible that the Mecca of today is not the Mecca of the Prophet (S) and the Mecca mentioned in the Qur'an? If Mecca was such a important and significant city, how come it doesn't appear on any maps until the 7th or 8th centuries respectively?

I just came across Dan Gibson's YouTube channel yesterday and have watched 2/3 of his videos already. I am practically speechless I am so shocked at what he's revealed. I went from thinking Sam Gerrans was crazy for making a video saying Muhammad was not from Mecca to watching Dan's work to 100% believing the Petra is the real Bacca theory in less than 24hrs. I'm still kind of in shock actually. Just how much have we been lied to???
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: quincy on June 30, 2019, 12:22:56 PM
Religion is the worst thing. Dogmas need to be destroyed completely.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Iyyaka on June 30, 2019, 10:32:00 PM
I just came across Dan Gibson's YouTube channel yesterday and have watched 2/3 of his videos already. I am practically speechless I am so shocked at what he's revealed. I went from thinking Sam Gerrans was crazy for making a video saying Muhammad was not from Mecca to watching Dan's work to 100% believing the Petra is the real Bacca theory in less than 24hrs. I'm still kind of in shock actually. Just how much have we been lied to???
Salam Jane,

ISLAM at the time of the prophet was not a term to designate a religion and also to be a proper name BUT to express a RELATIONSHIP between man and god and so between man..
This transformation "ISLAM-RELATION" into "ISLAM-RELIGION" involved a number of changes starting with a distortion of the meaning of important words from the Quran.
Try this exercice : make a board and try to compare these 3 cities to see which one best fit the Qur'anic criterias : "Modern Mecca", "Jérusalem" and "Petra". You will be surprise..After you have archeological facts or textual facts to make your opinion.
- Why people had adopted, after the death of Muhammad (peace be upon him), very quickly (Following the tradition) the changing from a luni-solar calendar to a lunar calendar ?
- Why the term RIBA means for the big majority of the "Muslims" "interest rate" unlike in the quran ? etc..These answers are in the quran himself.

NB : It permits us to better understand the passage of surah Al-Kahf from ayats 18:92 to 18:96..

Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: huruf on June 30, 2019, 11:34:20 PM
¿why restrict it to those three? The research of kamal Salibi en others who have continued his path shows it would rather be in southeast Arabia. There is more than a lot speaking for it.

Are we again being sold into The Holy Land brand?



Salaam
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Jane on July 02, 2019, 06:04:39 AM
Salam

I agree Islam is The Faith and what is taught is not.

I've already been comparing the different possible Meccas.

I'm 99% convinced Valley Of Bacca is modern day Petra. Jerusalem is as nonsensical as Mecca, S.A. IMO.

Abraham was never hanging around in the vast Arabian desert never mind further than that. I think the southeast Arabia is the real Holy Land theory is just wishful thinking IMO. The Irish used to believe they were the lost tribes of Israel. The Holy Land is the Fertile Crescent. Plus maybe Medina.

Mecca cannot be Jerusalem though. Abraham was in Sumer then in Canaan and sent Ishmael to Bacca (Petra). The Qur'an says Ishmael's descendants grew up in an uncultivated valley so Muhammad can't have come from Jerusalem or anywhere near it.

Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Wakas on July 02, 2019, 12:36:27 PM
peace all,

Over the years my studies have led me to think the specific/original location is not relevant anymore and that is why we struggle to pinpoint its location with certainty. This is deliberate and part of God's plan. Having a specific/set location would make people automatically assign sacredness to that location (and its relics) which would go against the message of Quran (i.e. against object worship, holy locations etc). I briefly discuss this here (http://mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-hajj-Quran.html) with references.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Sarah on July 04, 2019, 05:17:43 AM
peace all,

Over the years my studies have led me to think the specific/original location is not relevant anymore and that is why we struggle to pinpoint its location with certainty. This is deliberate and part of God's plan. Having a specific/set location would make people automatically assign sacredness to that location (and its relics) which would go against the message of Quran (i.e. against object worship, holy locations etc). I briefly discuss this here (http://mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-hajj-Quran.html) with references.

Peace Wakas,

I went on your link- haven't read it yet but it says 'Not secure'...why's that?
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Wakas on July 05, 2019, 03:56:21 AM
Peace Wakas,

I went on your link- haven't read it yet but it says 'Not secure'...why's that?

Google Chrome recently updated the way its browser identifies/displays website security status (I think last year). It just means the website does not have its own security certificate to verify it is the genuine/correct website and secure the data you input in it. For static pages where you dont input any data it's no big deal. You can even disable this setting in chrome if you want. In reality the chances of a website domain being spoofed/hacked is very low. I've personally never encountered it and usually only happens if one visits unknown links found in spam emails etc.
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: almarh0m on July 05, 2019, 09:07:51 PM
Salam All

If the search for a "holy land" or Bacca, must continue, should you not start with the place where Nabi Musa was speaking to Allah and told to take off his footwear because he was standing on Wadi Al Quds ? To me, every inch of Allah's earth is holy and sacred. Just imagine the 2nd class believers who could not afford to travel to the so called holy land, there must be billions of them in the pasts and present.


Peace
Title: Re: Bakka/Mecca
Post by: Sarah on July 15, 2019, 07:09:30 PM
Google Chrome recently updated the way its browser identifies/displays website security status (I think last year). It just means the website does not have its own security certificate to verify it is the genuine/correct website and secure the data you input in it. For static pages where you dont input any data it's no big deal. You can even disable this setting in chrome if you want. In reality the chances of a website domain being spoofed/hacked is very low. I've personally never encountered it and usually only happens if one visits unknown links found in spam emails etc.

Thanks for replying. So hopefully it will be secure then (not that I think you're a hacker but you know, just making sure why it said not secure).