Author Topic: Bakka/Mecca  (Read 50971 times)

OnlyOneGod

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • Karma +0/-0
Re: Bakka/Mecca
« Reply #380 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.

runninglikezebras

  • Advanced Truth Seeker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1501
  • Karma +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bakka/Mecca
« Reply #381 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

runninglikezebras

  • Advanced Truth Seeker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1501
  • Karma +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bakka/Mecca
« Reply #382 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

runninglikezebras

  • Advanced Truth Seeker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1501
  • Karma +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bakka/Mecca
« Reply #383 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

runninglikezebras

  • Advanced Truth Seeker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1501
  • Karma +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bakka/Mecca
« Reply #384 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.



As you can see we both consider ourselves to be muslim but other than that we have nothing in common.

Peace

runninglikezebras

  • Advanced Truth Seeker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1501
  • Karma +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bakka/Mecca
« Reply #385 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

Man of Faith

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 7976
  • Karma +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bakka/Mecca
« Reply #386 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
Website reference: http://iamthatiam.boards.net

runninglikezebras

  • Advanced Truth Seeker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1501
  • Karma +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bakka/Mecca
« Reply #387 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

OnlyOneGod

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • Karma +0/-0
Re: Bakka/Mecca
« Reply #388 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.








huruf

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 6487
  • Karma +1/-0
Re: Bakka/Mecca
« Reply #389 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