What Does The Word Makkah Mean?

[herbman]

Peace Herbman,

This post might help prove why the vocalization marks, specifically vocalization case endings, are a later addition by grammarians:

http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9598276.msg201108#msg201108

Peace,

Ayman

Thank you Ayman, it was of a great help.  May God reward you and give us strength to continue.

Peace

[Mazhar]

48:24. And it is He Who has restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of destruction after that He gave you the victory over them. And Allah sees well all that ye do.

After the victory of one of the two conflicting parties the phenomenon of destruction is already over. After the victory of one group which means crushing defeat of the other party, "restraining of hands in the midst of destruction" is quite a funny statement. The advancing army on a city keeps following the enemy troops who retreat to the inner of the city and the swords can come to a halt inside the city only when the retreating army/remaining soldiers surrender the weapons. On surrender/dropping of the arms by the remaining defeated army the victorious army also hold back their hand.

[Ahmad Bilal]

The passage (i.e. Q. 48:24) is in the past tense. Therefore, it would have to be translated as, based on Ayman's translation of "makka":

And it is He Who restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst/valley of destruction after He had given you victory over them. And Allah is Seer of what you do. (Q. 48:24)

Translating "makka" as destruction would be illogical, since it points out that it was AFTER Allah had given the people victory. Therefore, they weren't facing destruction, they were already victorious... Also, the passage says that the people were restrained from eachother (i.e. "restrained their hands from you and your hands from them..."), and this wouldn't make sense in translating it as "in the midst of destruction", since it applies to both parties. How were BOTH of them in the midst of destruction? In a battle, there is a victor and there's a loser; there can't be two losers. Therefore, one of them had to have been facing destruction while the other wasn't. But this is not what the passage says. Rather, it implies that they were both in the same place (or in this sense, facing the same end). In order for this to make sense, "makka" has to be a proper noun, referring to the name of a place, not a common noun, especially not meaning "destruction"...

If it's being translated as a common noun, it still has to be referring to a place or location. So, where is "babatni makkata"?

[Q_student]

The passage (i.e. Q. 48:24) is in the past tense. Therefore, it would have to be translated as, based on Ayman's translation of "makka":

And it is He Who restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst/valley of destruction after He had given you victory over them. And Allah is Seer of what you do. (Q. 48:24)

Translating "makka" as destruction would be illogical, since it points out that it was AFTER Allah had given the people victory. Therefore, they weren't facing destruction, they were already victorious... Also, the passage says that the people were restrained from eachother (i.e. "restrained their hands from you and your hands from them..."), and this wouldn't make sense in translating it as "in the midst of destruction", since it applies to both parties. How were BOTH of them in the midst of destruction? In a battle, there is a victor and there's a loser; there can't be two losers. Therefore, one of them had to have been facing destruction while the other wasn't. But this is not what the passage says. Rather, it implies that they were both in the same place (or in this sense, facing the same end). In order for this to make sense, "makka" has to be a proper noun, referring to the name of a place, not a common noun, especially not meaning "destruction"...

If it's being translated as a common noun, it still has to be referring to a place or location. So, where is "babatni makkata"?

Peace :
Brother you are right.
Makkah never means destruction. Because it is not "ismul masdar of the verb Makka".
Anyone who claims that it means "destruction" he will have to prove first that it is "Verbal noun" of the verb MaKKa.
المعجم الوسيط - (ج 2 / ص 682)
( مك )
العظم مكا مص جميع ما فيه وغريمه ألح عليه في الاقتضاء والشيء نقصه أو أهلكه

Its verbal noun is only one i.e Makkun not Makkatu

Secondly a verbal noun is never used as a "diptote" while the word Makkatu is used as a Diptote (Proper Noun) in the Quran.
Regards

[herbman]

The passage (i.e. Q. 48:24) is in the past tense. Therefore, it would have to be translated as, based on Ayman's translation of "makka":

And it is He Who restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst/valley of destruction after He had given you victory over them. And Allah is Seer of what you do. (Q. 48:24)

Translating "makka" as destruction would be illogical, since it points out that it was AFTER Allah had given the people victory. Therefore, they weren't facing destruction, they were already victorious... Also, the passage says that the people were restrained from eachother (i.e. "restrained their hands from you and your hands from them..."), and this wouldn't make sense in translating it as "in the midst of destruction", since it applies to both parties. How were BOTH of them in the midst of destruction? In a battle, there is a victor and there's a loser; there can't be two losers. Therefore, one of them had to have been facing destruction while the other wasn't. But this is not what the passage says. Rather, it implies that they were both in the same place (or in this sense, facing the same end). In order for this to make sense, "makka" has to be a proper noun, referring to the name of a place, not a common noun, especially not meaning "destruction"...

If it's being translated as a common noun, it still has to be referring to a place or location. So, where is "babatni makkata"?

read the verse following 48:24, and you will see it makes sense.

peace

[afridi220]

read the verse following 48:24, and you will see it makes sense.

peace

Read all the verses togather.

48:24] He is the One who withheld their hands of aggression against you, and withheld your hands of aggression against them in the valley of Mecca, after He had granted you victory over them. GOD is Seer of everything you do.

[48:25] It is they who disbelieved and barred you from the Sacred Masjid, and even prevented your offerings from reaching their destination. There were believing men and women (within the enemy camp) whom you did not know, and you were about to hurt them, unknowingly. GOD thus admits into His mercy whomever He wills. If they persist, He will requite those among them who disbelieve with a painful retribution.

[48:26] While those who disbelieved were enraged, and their hearts were filled with the pride of the days of ignorance, GOD blessed His messenger and the believers with peaceful contentment, and directed them to uphold the word of righteousness. This is what they well deserved. GOD is fully aware of all things.

[48:27] GOD has fulfilled His messenger's truthful vision: "You will enter the Sacred Masjid, GOD willing, perfectly secure, and you will cut your hair or shorten it (as you fulfill the pilgrimage rituals) there. You will not have any fear. Since He knew what you did not know, He has coupled this with an immediate victory

[ayman]

Peace Mazhar,

48:24. And it is He Who has restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of destruction after that He gave you the victory over them. And Allah sees well all that ye do.
After the victory of one of the two conflicting parties the phenomenon of destruction is already over. After the victory of one group which means crushing defeat of the other party, "restraining of hands in the midst of destruction" is quite a funny statement. The advancing army on a city keeps following the enemy troops who retreat to the inner of the city and the swords can come to a halt inside the city only when the retreating army/remaining soldiers surrender the weapons. On surrender/dropping of the arms by the remaining defeated army the victorious army also hold back their hand.

So you know that it is a city. This is also confirmed by 48:25 which clearly indicates the presence of civilian non combatants. In ancient times almost all cities had walls and fortifications to protect them from attackers. Since 48:24 indicates the imminency of hand to hand combat then we can deduce that the walls and fortifications that protect the city were destroyed and breached and nothing kept the two armies from engaging in hand to hand combat in the midst of this destruction. Also, once the city walls are destroyed, then the invaders have the upper hand and pretty much victory of the invading army is almost certainly guaranteed. Notice the use of the word "athfarakum" (gave you the upper hand) not "nasarakum" (gave you victory) in 48:24.

MKKH مكة means "destruction" in the same way that the same form NKBH   نكبة means "disaster" (same exact form F3LH). This is a mundane form and a well known fact in Arabic that only the most ignorant can deny.

Peace,

Ayman

[Mazhar]

Peace Mazhar,

So you know that it is a city. This is also confirmed by 48:25 which clearly indicates the presence of civilian non combatants. In ancient times almost all cities had walls and fortifications to protect them from attackers. Since 48:24 indicates the imminency of hand to hand combat then we can deduce that the walls and fortifications that protect the city were destroyed and breached and nothing kept the two armies from engaging in hand to hand combat in the midst of this destruction. Also, once the city walls are destroyed, then the invaders have the upper hand and pretty much victory of the invading army is almost certainly guaranteed. Notice the use of the word "athfarakum" (gave you the upper hand) not "nasarakum" (gave you victory) in 48:24.
MKKH مكة means "destruction" in the same way that the same form NKBH   نكبة means "disaster" (same exact form F3LH). This is a mundane form and a well known fact in Arabic that only the most ignorant can deny.

Peace,

Ayman

"athfarakum"  is more close to convey the perception of victory, dominance as compared to "nasarakum", helped you. Mecca never had fortification wall. It has always been an open city in the history and in the Qur'aan.

[ayman]

Peace Mazhar,

"athfarakum"  is more close to convey the perception of victory, dominance as compared to "nasarakum", helped you. Mecca never had fortification wall. It has always been an open city in the history and in the Qur'aan.

Saying that Mecca never had fortification walls while this discussion is about the meaning of "mecca" is a circular argument. You have already baselessly assumed that "mecca" is the name of some town. Please read the title of this thread. What you are saying is like saying "in ancient times vampires never slept during the day". First you have to prove that there was such as thing as "vampires".

Peace,

Ayman

[Ahmad Bilal]

Peace Ayman,

Can you explain how the context of the passage implies that "makka" means destruction? You quoted from Yusuf Ali's translation, but that's not even a proper translation, since it conveys the incident in a present tense. Since the actual reading of this passage is referring to something that happened in the past (from the time of that revelation), it changes the idea of the message. It implies that BOTH parties/armies were in "babatni makkata" (i.e. midst of destruction, valley/borders of Makka). How is it possible that they were all in the "midst of destruction" if Allah gave the believers the victory? How could BOTH groups be facing impending destruction from the other?

Also, if "makka" was being described as a common noun (i.e. destruction) which was impending upon the people, and Allah was giving a description of the events, wouldn't it make more sense to clearly identify the event with "the" (i.e. babatni al makkati), instead of leaving it separate in the form of an adjective or a proper name? I could be wrong, though... What's your take on this?

Peace,

Ahmad