Author Topic: Bakka/Mecca  (Read 45379 times)

runninglikezebras

  • Advanced Truth Seeker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1501
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bakka/Mecca
« Reply #150 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

runninglikezebras

  • Advanced Truth Seeker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1501
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bakka/Mecca
« Reply #151 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

OnlyOneGod

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 215
Re: Bakka/Mecca
« Reply #152 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.

runninglikezebras

  • Advanced Truth Seeker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1501
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bakka/Mecca
« Reply #153 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

runninglikezebras

  • Advanced Truth Seeker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1501
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bakka/Mecca
« Reply #154 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

Hizbullah

  • Truth Seeker
  • ***
  • Posts: 681
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bakka/Mecca
« Reply #155 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%
My knowledge of the Quran has been updated

OnlyOneGod

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 215
Re: Bakka/Mecca
« Reply #156 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?

runninglikezebras

  • Advanced Truth Seeker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1501
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bakka/Mecca
« Reply #157 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

Hizbullah

  • Truth Seeker
  • ***
  • Posts: 681
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bakka/Mecca
« Reply #158 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
My knowledge of the Quran has been updated

runninglikezebras

  • Advanced Truth Seeker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1501
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bakka/Mecca
« Reply #159 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