life wrote: |
Salam Bro, |
life wrote: |
My first question bro, these couple of so called quran alone, god alone people, are they new ? |
life wrote: |
If Im not wrong founder of bahai religion belonged to muslim family, then in last centry ahmedi from india. I see a commoness in them, thats these people have distanced themselves from their culture and from fellow muslims. What is your view on this that these sort of people have exisited throughout the history. |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
Quote: |
Petra also happens to be situated in a 'Valley' (89:9) and is well described by all archeologists as being a 'Military Complex' (85:17-18). |
Quote: |
Also, an 'advanced' hydraulic water system was in place with the walls of the narrow entrance 'Siq' lined with channels (originally fitted with chamfered clay pipes of efficient design) to carry drinking water to the city, while a dam to the right of the entrance diverted an adjoining stream through a tunnel to prevent it flooding the Siq (26:147-149). |
Quote: |
Petra has only recently been attracting archeological excavations; however, excavations have only been done on less than 2% of the ancient city. According to some archeological research, Petra dates back to 3,500 BC: |
Quote: |
"In Abraham's time, Petra was known as Salah. It is located in the mountains of Seir, the land of the Edomites. Petra is the Greek name for Sela, or Selah, a city of ancient Edom. The Hebrew word sela means "lofty, craggy rock, fortress, stronghold, cliff." |
Quote: |
The site of Petra seems to indicate the presence of multiple civilizations, the last of which were the Nabateans (Arabs) and the Romans (Byzantines) upto the 6th century A.D. when it was struck by a devastating earthquake in 551 A.D. and the city fell out of disuse (http://nabataea.net/lhistory.html). |
Quote: |
Thus, in conclusion to this part of the research, |
Quote: |
it can be said with some certainty that the ancient city of Petra is indeed the location where the civilizations ofAad and Thamud once lived and flourished. |
Quote: |
4. Abraham.
Now that we have seen the development of nations after Noah, |
Quote: |
we will move on to the story of Abraham in which many developments take place. |
Quote: |
Abraham leaves the town he lived in due to his people idolatry;
And he (Abraham) said: You have taken idols besides God in order to preserve some friendship among you in this worldly life. But then, on the Day of Resurrection, you will disown one another, and curse one another. Your destiny is Hell, and you will have no victors. (The Message 29:25) |
Quote: |
Abraham is shown the location of the 'Shrine/Sanctuary';
And We have appointed to Abraham the location of the Sanctuary: Do not set up anyone with Me, and purify My Sanctuary for those who will partake, and those who will enforce, and those who kneel and prostrate. (The Message 22:26) |
Quote: |
The Sanctuary is in ablessed land' also called 'Bakka';
The first Sanctuary established for the people is the one in Bakk'a, blessed, and a guidance for the worlds. (The Message 3:96) |
Quote: |
Abraham with Ismail raise the foundations of the Sanctuary;
And as Abraham raised the foundations for the Sanctuary with Ishmael: Our Lord accept this from us, You are the Hearer, the Knowledgeable. (The Message 2:127) |
Quote: |
The Sanctuary is declared for Pilgrimage;
The Safa and Marwa are amongst God's symbols. So whosoever makes Pilgrimage to the Sanctuary, or is merely passing through, commits no error that he should traverse them. And whoever donates for goodness, then God is Appreciative, Knowledgeable. (The Message 2:158) |
Quote: |
One of Abraham's progeny resides in an area near the Sanctuary: |
Quote: |
Our Lord, I have resided part of my progeny (Zuriya) in an uncultivated valley near your Restricted Sanctuary. My Lord, so that they may uphold the contact-method. So let the hearts of the people incline towards them and give provisions to them of the fruits that they may give thanks. (The Message 14:37) |
Quote: |
5. Lot.
The story of Lot is given certain clues in the Scripture that we can piece together to draw our findings. |
Quote: |
Lot emigrates with Abraham;
Thus, Lot believed with him and said: I am emigrating to my Lord. He is the Noble, the Wise. (The Message 29:26) |
Quote: |
Lot settles around a community which turns wicked:
And Lot, when he said to his people:You commit a lewdness that no others in the world have done before! You sexually approach men, and you commit highway robbery, And you bring all vice to your society.' But the only response from his people was to Say: Bring us God's retribution, if you are being truthful! (The Message 29:28-30) |
Quote: |
Lot's people/story comes in succession after that of Noah,Aad, and Thamud.
And my people, let not your hatred towards me incriminate you that you suffer the fate of what afflicted the people of Noah, or the people of Hud, or the people of Saleh; and the people of Lot were not far off from you. (The Message 11:89) |
Quote: |
The town of Lot is near/on an established path:
And it (town of Lot) was on an established path. In that is a sign for the believers. (The Message 15:76-77) |
Quote: |
The people of Lot rebel and are destroyed:
He said: Here are my daughters if it is your intention. By your life, they are in their drunkenness, blundering. So the scream took them at sunrise. Thus We turned it upside down, and rained upon them with fiery projectiles. (The Message 15:71-74) |
Quote: |
They said: O Lot, we are your Lord's messengers; they will not be able to harm you, so travel with your family during the cover of the night and let not any of you look back except for your wife, she will be afflicted with what they will be afflicted. Their appointed time will be the morning. Is the morning not near? (The Message 11:81) |
Quote: |
Lot's town is left partially standing as a 'Sign':
And We left remains of it as a clear sign for a people who understand. (The Message 29:35) And We have left in it a sign for those who fear the painful retribution. (The Message 51:37) |
Quote: |
Where Was Lot's Town? |
Quote: |
With regards to the location of the town of Lot (Sodom & Gomorrah), it is generally viewed that the area around theDead Sea' in Jordan/Palestine is where the historic events took place. In-fact, if we use the marker that we have establishedPetra' and then measure using the information we are given in the Scripture, we can draw our own similar conclusions as follows: |
Quote: |
'§ Lot's story, as well as that ofAad and Thamud, were known in the town of Medain - located east of the Sinai area, in which Moses sought refuge during his initial flee from Egypt http://www.wyattmuseum.com/images/wpe97.jpg |
Quote: |
'§ The town of Lot was on an established path (15:76-77); |
Quote: |
'§ Signs are left from the town for all to see (51:37, 29:35); |
Quote: |
The key information from the points above that will help is the one about theestablished path'. If we look at the current evidence of ancient highways/paths that used to intersect the region, then we find that there is indeed theKing's Highway' that dates back to before the time of Moses and is still in existence today. |
Quote: |
The King's Highway crossed half the Fertile Crescent, from Egypt to Syria, spreading goods and culture throughout the Middle East. It has been a favored trail since before history was recorded and today is paved for the most part. (http://www.ancientroute.com/HeadrFtr/tkingshwy.htm) |
Quote: |
Taking ourselves back to the 6th century A.D. in order to recreate the time-line of the revelation |
Quote: |
we find that the path known as the King's Highway was still in use with a number of towns established on its path as shown in the Madaba map below dating back to that period: |
Quote: |
As such, and in staying within some proximity of the town of Petra, |
Quote: |
we find that the towns around the Dead Sea (Zoara, Karak and Madaba) are potential candidates. Further research would indicate that both towns are inhabited by the Moabites who have their origin traced to the messenger Lot. (http://198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/mad/legends/legends029.html) |
Quote: |
For reasons which will be relevant later on in this article, we will settle on this path east of the Dead Sea as the place where the messenger Lot was situated and where the remains of the people of Lot should be found. |
Quote: |
Lot is from Abraham's Progeny; |
Quote: |
It is mistakenly assumed that whenever the 'Progeny/Zuria' of Abraham was mentioned, it only referred to Ismail or Isaac or their descendants. However, this is not the case: |
Quote: |
And We granted him (Abraham) Isaac and Jacob, both of whom We guided; and Noah We guided from before; and from his progeny is David, and Solomon, and Job, and Joseph, and Moses, and Aaron. It is such that We reward the good doers. And Zachariah and John, and Jesus, and Elias; all were from the upright. And Ishmael and Elisha and Jonah and Lot; and each We have preferred over the worlds. (The Message 6:84-86) |
Quote: |
This is the part that most Muslim scholars totally missed, although in Christian and Jewish scriptures Lot is recognized as Abraham's nephew. |
Quote: |
End of part 1 |
Quote: |
where was mohammed? (Part 2) |
Quote: |
Part II - Mohammed
Now that we have looked at the sequences and clues with regards to the previous messengers, |
Quote: |
it is time to move on to the seal of the prophets, Mohammed:
And if Our revelations are recited to them, they Say: We have listened, and if we wish, we could have said the same thing. This is nothing but tales of the ancients! And they said: Our god, if this is the truth (this Quran) from You, then send down upon us a rain of stones from the sky or bring on us a painful retribution. But God was not to punish them while you (Mohammed) are with them, nor will God punish them while they continue to seek forgiveness. And why should God not punish them when they are turning others away from the Restricted Temple, and they were never its protectors! Its protectors are the righteous; but most of them do not know. And their contact-method at the Sanctuary was nothing but noise and aversion. Taste the retribution for what you have rejected. (The Message 8:31-35) |
Quote: |
Here we have a number of conclusive points which need to be looked at: |
Quote: |
Revelations are newly being revealed through Mohammed (8:31); |
Quote: |
The Restricted Temple/Sanctuary is at this location/place (8:34-35); |
Quote: |
Mohammed is living amongst these people (8:33); |
Quote: |
Taking all the previous information into account, |
Quote: |
this would mean that Mohammed began his mission in Baca where Abraham originally with Ismail established God's Restricted Temple/Sanctuary. |
Quote: |
Now, according to the Sunnis and Shia, we are told that this location is Mecca (Arabia) where the great Kabaa (cube) is located and where millions of pilgrims have made their way for centuries to visit this shrine while performing the rituals/rites of pilgrimage. |
Quote: |
However, we must pause here for a moment and ask some vital questions: |
Quote: |
1. Since the pilgrimage was first called to by Abraham and was known by the prophets who came after him (e.g. Moses making an oath '¬' measured by the years of pilgrimage), |
Quote: |
then why are the so-called followers of Moses and Jesus (Jews & Nazarenes) unaware of the significance of Mecca or the need to visit the Temple there? |
Quote: |
2. If Mecca was the place where Abraham first raised the Shrine, then why do the Sunnis and Shia claim in their history that the prophet and his followers were facing Jerusalem in their daily Salat before switching to Mecca a few years later? |
Quote: |
3. If the Sunnis and Shia are fabricating the history of the Jerusalem qibla (focal point), |
Quote: |
then why is there physical evidence found in the form of a mosque with two qiblas located in Medina and dating back to the prophet's time? |
Quote: |
4. What benefit do the Sunnis and Shia have in promoting (to this day) that Jerusalem was the 1st qibla? |
Quote: |
The reason for the above questions and the obvious doubt that is being placed on Mecca's authenticity is not due to any secret conspiracy or hidden agenda, but is due to the existence of evidence in the Scripture which has been totally ignored by the masses. |
Quote: |
Mohammed is situated near Lot's town (Soddom); |
Quote: |
And you pass by their ruins (Sodom) in the morning; And in the night. Do you not understand? (The Message 37:137-138) |
Quote: |
And they have come upon the town (Sodom) that was showered with a miserable shower. Did they not see it? No, they do not expect any resurrection. (The Message 25:40) |
Quote: |
How can someone pass-by the remains of another people EVERY MORNING & EVERY EVENING? |
Quote: |
The only way you can achieve that, is if you LIVED NEAR THERE! |
Quote: |
Thus, we can determine, with certainty, that Mohammed was indeed within the vicinity (possibly with a day's journey) of the ancient town of Lot. |
The wrote: |
# i remember asking the guy about his claim that quran tells us to seek archeological "proof" (of what, i dunno)!
...anyway, he had posted some verses and claimed that those verses ask us to seek archeological proof... ...i asked him what exactly in those verses tell him to seek archeological "proofs", and he never answered my q...he hemmed and hawed and tried hard to evade the q...but attempted to answer it he did not! : lolz : |
Quote: |
ahmedbahgat wrote:
I think they are stretching it bro The Quran only said walk in the land to witness what happened to previous generations, Let's just call it "evidences |
Quote: |
Part III - Mohammed Emigrates. |
Quote: |
This is where the Sunnis and Shia begin to agree with the narration taken from the Scripture. |
Quote: |
After preaching the message of God to his own community of Baca; |
Quote: |
and after finding much resistance and oppression... |
Quote: |
Mohammed Emigrates from his home after all attempts to establish a 'God Alone Community' are met with failure and defeat. |
Quote: |
And many a town was stronger than your own town, which drove you out. We destroyed them, and there was none who could help them. (The Message 47:3) |
Quote: |
-> The Migration/Hijra:
O prophet, We have made lawful for you the wives to whom you have already given their dowry, and the one who is committed to you by oath, as granted to you by God, and the daughters of your father's brothers, and the daughters of your father's sisters, and the daughters of your mother's brothers, and the daughters of your mother's sisters, of whom they have emigrated with you. Also, the believing woman who had decreed herself to the prophet, the prophet may marry her if he wishes, as a privilege given only to you and not to the believers. We have already decreed their rights in regard to their spouses and those who are still dependant. This is to spare you any hardship. God is Forgiver, Merciful. (The Message 33:50) |
Quote: |
God has pardoned the prophet and the emigrants and the supporters that followed him in the darkest hour, even though the hearts of some of them nearly deviated, but then He pardoned them. He is towards them Compassionate, Merciful. (The Message 9:7) |
Quote: |
We can clearly read that Mohammed (and his followers/supporters & family members) all emigrated from their town of Baca |
Quote: |
-> Medina/Yathrib:
This place of Emigration was known as 'Yathrib':' |
Quote: |
And a group of them said: O people of Yathrib, you cannot make a stand; therefore, retreat. And a small party of them sought permission from the prophet, saying: Our homes are exposed, while they were not exposed. They just wanted to flee. (The Message 33:3) |
Quote: |
There is nothing in the Scripture to contradict the current city of Medina (Western Saudi Arabia) from being the historic ????????Iatribu/Yathrib' that Mohammed immigrated to as per the archeological remains (graves, homes, mosques, etc..). |
Quote: |
Jurisdiction of Rome around the period 600 A.D. |
Quote: |
In-fact, looking at the map of Rome's jurisdiction at the time, it would make perfect sense that Mohammed would migrate south away from Rome's influence towards a place where they had no jurisdiction. |
Quote: |
The first sanctuary established for the people is the one in Bakk'a, blessed, and a guidance for the worlds. (The Message 3:96) |
Quote: |
Although Mohammed has been evicted, he is still upholding the focal point of the Temple in Jerusalem????????????????????????????¦ |
Quote: |
This would explain why the Sunnis and Shia record until today that the prophet did indeed face Jerusalem for the first part of his stay in Medina (as evidenced by the mosque with two qiblas) and why they still call Jerusalem the ????????st qibla'. |
Quote: |
But the question still remains: ????????how was the qibla changed?' |
Quote: |
-> God Establishes a new Focal Point (Qibla):
The foolish from amongst the people will Say: What has turned them away from the focal point that they were on? Say: To God is the east and the west, He guides whomsoever He wishes to a straight path. (The Message 2:42) |
Quote: |
Here is a clear 'turning' away from the existing focal point to newer one. |
Quote: |
In-fact, this is where traditions and archeology meet with the Scripture as they relate that when the prophet came to Medina, he set the focal point towards the North East (in this case they claim Jerusalem), and that after a period of time he set it in the opposite direction. |
Quote: |
What is an interesting point to note is that if we drew a straight line from Medina to Jerusalem (in-line with the original qibla as per the Scripture), and then we extend the same line completely in the opposite direction (in-line with the turning away from the qibla as per the Scripture), we see that the alleged temple of Mecca, contrary to what the Sunnis and Shia claimed, does not come onto this path. |
Quote: |
An imaginary line drawn from Medina to Jerusalem and opposite. |
Quote: |
-> Why Change to a New Focal Point?
Establishing a new 'Focal Point' (or Qibla) has precedence in the Quran and was done during the time of the Exodus when Moses and his companions were on the run from Pharaoh and needed to face towards the direction where their enemy would come from during their Salat. |
Quote: |
And We inspired to Moses and his brother: Let your people leave their homes in Egypt, and let these homes be your focal point (Qibla) and uphold the contact-method. And give good news to the believers. (The Message 0:87) |
Quote: |
As for Mohammed's people...it was a 'test' of sorts: |
Quote: |
And as such, We have made you a balanced nation so that you may be witness over the people, and that the messenger may be witness over you. And We did not make the focal point that you became on except to distinguish who follows the messenger from those who will turn on their heels. It was a great thing indeed except for those whom God had guided; God was not to waste your belief. God is Merciful and Compassionate over the people. (The Message 2:43) |
Quote: |
-> The Medina/Yathrib Expansion:
During his time in Yathrib, Mohammed and his followers were forced into a number of conflicts which gave them governance over lands/areas they had previously not been involved with. |
Quote: |
And He inherited you their land, their homes, their money, and lands you had never stepped on. God is able to do all things. (The Message 33:27) |
Quote: |
And recall when you were but a few who were weak in the land, you were fearful that men might capture you. But He sheltered you, and He supported you with His victory, and He provided you with good provisions, so that you may be thankful. (The Message 8:26) |
Quote: |
-> Financial Growth & Development:
You should know: Of anything you gain, that one-fifth shall go to God and the messenger, and the relatives, and the orphans, and the poor, and the wayfarer. You will do this if you believe in God and in what We revealed to Our servant on the day of the Criterion, the day the two armies clashed. God is able to do all things. (The Message 8:4) -> Military Strategy & Experience: It was during this ????????Yathrib Campaign' that it would seem most of the warfare' verses were revealed (4:77, 47:20, 2:27). And prepare for them all that you can of might, and from the steeds of war, that you may instil fear with it towards God's enemy and your enemy, and others beside them whom you do not know but God knows them. And whatever you spend in the cause of God will be returned to you, and you will not be wronged. (The Message 8:60) -> Rome was to be fought! This was a prediction of the inevitable battle against an organized and well trained army...The results as we shall see were quite disastrous. Say to those Nomads who lagged behind: You will be called on to fight a people who are very powerful in warfare, unless they surrender. Then if you obey, God will grant you a good reward, but if you turn away as you turned away before, He will punish you with a painful retribution. (The Message 48:6) -------------------------- End of part 3 |
The Cat wrote: |
A thread inviting AB to refute the following:
http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtopic.php?p=132612#p132612 |
The Cat wrote: |
The term 'makkata' in 48.24 must be questioned as meaning Mecca/Becca (3.96) like Muslims ascertain.... |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
The Cat wrote: |
For, historically, Mecca was unknown until around 710 |
The Freak Minders wrote: |
MAKKA(T)
It is not surprising that the inscription of Abraha doesn't mention or even allude to a town called Maka(t). There is zero evidence for a town named Maka(t) prior to the revelation of the great reading and all sides of the debate on the historicity of Maka(t) agree that the name Maka(t) doesn't occur in any "pre-quranic" inscriptions. Those promoting the historicity of Makka are forced to bring the only one reference by Ptolmey to an insignificant town by the name of Macoraba and not Maka(t) for the simple reason that they know very well that there are absolutely no references to the supposedly important town of Maka(t). This despite the fact that there are many references, including the above Abraha's inscription, to far less important towns in Arabia than this alleged Makka(t). |
The Cat wrote: |
and the oldest qiblas weren't pointing there but way up North. |
The Cat wrote: |
The explanation for Mkk(t) in 48.24 as meaning 'destruction' comes from the Classical Arabic dictionaries, as per:
http://www.free-minds.org/language (A Koraner site) |
The Cat wrote: |
According to classical Arabic dictionaries, the word "maka(t)" mainly means "destruction/wearing down", among other meanings. It is listed in classical Arabic dictionaries under either MKK or MK. |
The Cat wrote: |
Al-Mohit lists it under MKK, the meaning given is destruction and wearing down which is consistent with the context of standoff in 48:24. It also lists the meaning of TMKK as an adversary's insistence on something, which is also consistent with the standoff in 48:24. |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
The Cat wrote: |
Lisan Al-Arab lists it under MK and the meaning of MK(t) is given as "destruction" and TMK as "destroy". |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
The Cat wrote: |
Al-Wasit lists it under MK, the meanings given are: sucking everything out, insisting on revenge from an adversary, and the thing, which is worn down or destroyed. |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
The Cat wrote: |
Al-Ghani lists it under MKK, the meanings given are: sucking, insisting with demands on an adversary. |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
The Cat wrote: |
Here is a translation of 48:24 using Classical Arabic dictionaries and the context of war from the verses to translate the common description "maka(t)":
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. |
The Cat wrote: |
I used Yusuf Ali's translation but while he left "maka(t)" un-translated I didn't. As one can see, the clear classical Arabic meaning fits perfectly in the context of the military standoff in verse 48:24. |
The Cat wrote: |
Based on the context from the great reading/"quran", |
The Cat wrote: |
linguistic evidence from Arabic dictionaries, |
The Cat wrote: |
and the lack of any evidence supporting that there was a "pre-quranic" town by the name of Maka(t), the only logical unbiased conclusion is that "maka(t)" is not the name of "pre-quranic" town but is simply a mundane common noun like thousands of others in the great reading/"quran". |
The Cat wrote: |
Sticking to makkata as a location named Mecca is thus -chronologically- devastating for Muslims. |
The Cat wrote: |
The proofs of its nonexistence, up to the 6th century at the very least, are simply overwhelming. |
The Cat wrote: |
Thus the hadiths making the equation Abraham-Ishmael-Mecca (with Buraq!) are mythological ! |
The Cat wrote: |
Yep, archeolgy, dectionries and encycolpedias will all slam dunk me. |
The Cat wrote: |
Go for it, Ahmed. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Hello the Cat |
The Cat wrote: |
Hi AB! Thanks for the well researched post, the time and trouble you took for it is duly appreciated. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Qahira is translated in English to Cairo, why is that , Cat? What Cairo means in English, pal? It means the city of Qahira in Egypt, it does not mean Compelling or Prevailing. |
The Cat wrote: |
A word can have different meanings when use as a noun, a proper noun, an adjective or a verb. |
The Cat wrote: |
It is thus the case for makkata in 48.24. A proper noun in Arabic is usually indicated by -ism- and we do not find it there. |
The Cat wrote: |
So it must be considered as a noun of which meaning we'll look at and NOT as a proper name indicating a location. |
The Cat wrote: |
This goes with the Koran's habit not to mention locations, except a few exceptions of which 'makkata' isn't. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
So based on these, why the confused and manipulative freak minders want to translate the name of a city to the meaning of its root? |
The Cat wrote: |
Thanks for acknowledging that 'destruction' is a ROOT form of 'makkata' |
The Cat wrote: |
Since this is a ROOT form, |
The Cat wrote: |
one must prove that it differs like by showing the -ism- indicating a proper name. So here we face a conjecture stemming out from the wishful desire of the translators, |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
The Cat wrote: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Makkata is nowhere else written, not even in 2.125 and 2.196 where it would have been plainly stated according to self-logic.
Yet, it wasn't there so HAD to be added in man-made ADDED brackets: 2:196 Perform the pilgrimage and the visit (to Makka) for Allah. No 'makkata': Wa 'Atimmū Al-Ĥajja Wa Al-`Umrata Lillāhi. 2:125 And when We made the House (at Makka) a resort for mankind and sanctuary, (saying): Take as your place of worship the place where Abraham stood (to pray). And We imposed a duty upon Abraham and Ishmael, (saying): Purify My house for those who go around and those who meditate therein and those who bow down and prostrate themselves (in worship). No 'makkata' either: Wa 'Idh Ja`alnā Al-Bayta Mathābatan Lilnnāsi Wa 'Amnāan Wa Attakhidhū Min Maqāmi 'Ibrāhīma This HUGE silence, the total absence of -makkata- where it's badly needed is a Koranic prove that it can't be a location!
Everything! Before around 710, they weren't pointing toward nowadays Mecca ! http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/FredericDecat50722.htm
So, where were they pointing? We now have some computerized truly amazing result. LOOK!
They point to the al-Ula (Dedan)-Hijr (Hegra) area, best explaining Muhammad's own Hijr (Hegira).
Surah 48 (Conquest/Victory, al-Fath) is clearly in the context of a battle to be as per 48.20-22. But, generally speaking, surah 48 talks about the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, in 628, as a 'victory'. As per the treaty enacted bloodshed was spared, thus the Sakina mentioned, i.e. Tranquility !
On this you've made a fairly good point :up: for at Hudaybiyyah there was negotiations, thus: Al-Qamus Al-Muheet Used with an opponent to mean others insisting on requests from him Lisan Al-Arab & Al-Wasit: 4- تمكَّك , TAMAKKAK: Insisted on requests from an opponent Al-Ghani مَكَّكَ , MKK: Sucking; used with an opponent to mean others insisting on requests from him. For 'what is sucked' should be understood as what is obtained/lost in such a negotiation. It can refers to destruction (or enmity) avoided, still NOT as the proper name of a place. If harsh negotiation 48:24 And He it is Who hath withheld men's hands from you, and hath withheld your hands from them, in the midst of negotiations, after He had made you victors over them. Allah is Seer of what ye do. If enmity avoided 48:24 And He it is Who hath withheld men's hands from you, and hath withheld your hands from them, in the midst of enmity, after He had made you victors over them. Allah is Seer of what ye do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Hudaybiyyah The treaty that took place between the state of Medina and the Quraishi tribe of Mecca in March 628CE. There was no Quraishi tribe affected to a big pilgrimage center named Mecca. Such an important place would have been known from external sources. Ta'if was so known, Yathrib and even Khaybar, but NOT MECCA. So it is all an obvious apologetic fabrication mainly from the man-made Sira of Ibn Ishaq (that is rather from Ibn Hisham) and from the Hadiths. Do we trust them? NO.
free-minds.org is a Koraner site, thus they reject the hadiths. But since you admit that the hadiths are corrupted, I ask you to extand this to the LIE of Mecca. Basically, they were first concocted by the Abbasid to legitimate their usurpation through a forged al-Muttalib/Muhammad/Abbas blood lineage... The forged genealogy at the base of the (political) hadiths: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaiba_ibn_Hashim http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbas_ibn_Abd_al-Muttalib http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbasid_Caliphate The Abbasid caliphate was founded by the descendants of the Islamic prophet Muhammad's youngest uncle, Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As-Saffah As-Saffah the head of one branch of the Banu Hashim, who traced their lineage to Hashim, a great-grandfather of Muhammad, via al-Abbas. All this fabulation (Ishmael/al-Muttalib/Muhammad/Mecca) has been debunked by the inscription of king Abraha
The inscription dated 552CE reads: "With the power of the Almighty and His Messiah, King Abraha Zeebman, the King of Saba'a, Zuridan, and Hadrmaut and Yemen and the tribes (on) the mountains and the coast wrote these lines on his battle against the tribe of Ma'ad (in) the battle of al-Rabiya in the month of "Dhu al Thabithan" and fought all of Bani A'amir and appointed the King Abi Jabar with Kinda and Al, Bishar bin Hasan with Sa'ad, Murad, and Hadarmaut in front of the army against Bani Amir of Kinda. and Al in Zu Markh valley and Murad and Sa'ad in Manha valley on the way to Turban and killed and captured and took the booty in large quantities and the King and fought at Halban and reached Ma'ad and took booty and prisoners, and after that, conquered Omro bin al-Munzir. (Abraha) appointed the son (of Omro) as the ruler and returned from Hal Ban (halban) with the power of the Almighty in the month of Zu A'allan in the year sixty-two and six hundred." -- Abraha won. -- No mention of Mecca whatsoever, while the province of Kinda is... -- No mention of elephants (they would have needed a ton of water supply). -- No mention of al-Muttalib nor of the Quraysh tribe. --The inscription is ascertained 552AD, destroying the whole hadiths fabrications. |
The Cat wrote: |
Thanks again for the time and trouble you took in your researched presentation. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: | ||
|
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |
AhmedBahgat wrote: | ||
Hello the Cat
I will look at this one for now, then I will look at the other one later inshaallah: The Cat of FFI said to Ahmed: All this fabulation (Ishmael/al-Muttalib/Muhammad/Mecca) has been debunked by the inscription of king Abraha
The inscription dated 552CE reads: "With the power of the Almighty and His Messiah, King Abraha Zeebman, the King of Saba'a, Zuridan, and Hadrmaut and Yemen and the tribes (on) the mountains and the coast wrote these lines on his battle against the tribe of Ma'ad (in) the battle of al-Rabiya in the month of "Dhu al Thabithan" and fought all of Bani A'amir and appointed the King Abi Jabar with Kinda and Al, Bishar bin Hasan with Sa'ad, Murad, and Hadarmaut in front of the army against Bani Amir of Kinda. and Al in Zu Markh valley and Murad and Sa'ad in Manha valley on the way to Turban and killed and captured and took the booty in large quantities and the King and fought at Halban and reached Ma'ad and took booty and prisoners, and after that, conquered Omro bin al-Munzir. (Abraha) appointed the son (of Omro) as the ruler and returned from Hal Ban (halban) with the power of the Almighty in the month of Zu A'allan in the year sixty-two and six hundred." -- Abraha won. -- No mention of Mecca whatsoever, while the province of Kinda is... -- No mention of elephants (they would have needed a ton of water supply). -- No mention of al-Muttalib nor of the Quraysh tribe. --The inscription is ascertained 552AD, destroying the whole hadiths fabrications. Thanks again for the time and trouble you took in your researched presentation. ------------------- Ahmed says Apparently you do not see the flaw in your logic above concerning your so called archaeological evidence of the inscription of King Abraha. King Abraha was living in Sanaa Tamen, therefore he was an Arabic speaker. Your Barbie scripture is written in a language that you did not even tell us about, but certainly not Arabic, it is not like someone will come with some chicken shit or rubbish and claim this is the inscription of Abraha and so it is a fact. The above so called inscription looks to me a forgery, a photo shop job, you can see how the letters are so bright which makes no sense especially with the two different directions of the rows which are overlapping each other in the middle, as seen with the three arrows I added to this forged photo shop image. Now, Abraha lived for some time and conquered many villages as told in this funny inscription, therefore it is not like these only 10 lines or so are telling us all his history and what he did or heard about, just thinking this way is totally insane and ridiculous. It is not like we should have read in this unknown language of a few words that Abraha heard of Kabba and he is going to destroy it. The un-mentioning of Kabba in this funny so called archaeological evidence does not really mean that Abraha did not know about it. And certainly he could have never added it after after he was killed in the battle of Mecca as the Quran told us. One guy whom I know responded to one of the deluded idiots like Cat concerning the same archaeological Abraha crap. So I would like to copy it but direct it at the Cat instead: Here is the Cat believing in wild stories about Abraha?????????????????????¢??s army advancing on Arab tribes that was written on some alleged rock that was discovered some years before Muhammad's time. And the fact that he leaves out who and when this archaeological discovery was found, or proof that such a discovery was made probably has the audience on the edge of their seats in suspense of his magical rock. I mean what Arabs would agree to make up a story of their people being flogged to death?. You see, Cat thinks that a picture of a rock with clearly made up writing (as no old rock would be dug up with clear, bright, white writing on it) and no proof of who and when this rock was discovered, and whether it is actually authentic and that any other historically backed up evidence. The Cat has fallen for the old adage that If a lie is told over a long period of time it becomes fact. But this cannot change the fact that it is still a lie. The Cat thinks that because the alleged archaeological find predates Islam by nearly 50 years somehow disproves the fact that Muhammad received revelation around 610 in Mecca. Yet we should note that he himself stated that the rock does not mention Mecca or the Kabba. Then it's absolutely absurd to say that the mentioning of Abraha trying to attack the Kabba is an invention of Muslims. For since it's two different stories, then there's a possibility of two different events being spoken of. See the idiocy in his posts. It's the same kind of foolish logic we find in all the freak minder arguments. Back to Abraha?????????????????????¢??s conquest; according to his make-believe archaeological find. Abraha was victorious and the carved stone has been confirmed and date confirmed. So where does this leave us? Well, we can rely on an alleged archaeological find supported by no proof of who or when or how it was discovered or whether the inscription is true. It isn?????????????????????¢??t possible that some rock discovery can disprove or overrule the fact that Abraha was alive in 570 to conduct his quest upon Mecca. The inscription on the alleged rock which mentioned some prominent areas and peoples of Arabia but not Mecca, the Kabba and Quraysh proves nothing, because of the simple fact that the possibility that of it not being mentioned can be due to the fact that it relates to a different event. One should also take note that Mecca, the Kabba and Quraysh are all in Arabia and Cat even states that Abraha led a military expedition on Arab tribes. So a claim that Abraha intended to attack the Kabba is not far-fetched, unlike his claim through the freak minders about Mecca. I?????????????????????¢??m really glad you are having a go at this conspiracy theory about Islam and Mecca because after what you copied from the freak minders and their likes, I am confident the absurdity in your logic is crystal clear to any reasonable person. You are pretty much admitting how flawed your logic is with such so called Abraha?????????????????????¢??s Inscription which is plagiarism of the freak minders argument. But now, you will not be able to debunk my argument, because by doing so, you will be debunking yours, as my argument regarding the so called Abraha?????????????????????¢??s Inscription is the same as yours. All wishful thinking, what I warned you about earlier regarding the always doubtful so called archaeological evidences. So let me now make it clear, the Cat, just because you or else claim that an archaeological discovery is found, is not proof that it was found. Just because you refer to the freak minders which states your evidence is not proof that it is true. You have proven nothing as the freak minders and others proved nothing before you. You are simply copying and pasting links and articles claiming that they are true, but you don't have proof. There are websites stating that Big Foot is real, and Tupac and Elvis are still alive, but it doesn't make it true. The point is that I'm not even stating that the archaeological find was not discovered, but that your logic behind stating that something is true is severely flawed. I've been demonstrating that in my plagiarism of your argument concering Abraha?????????????????????¢??s Inscription, in effect debunking me would be debunking yourself. Even if the find was actually discovered, it is not proof that the inscription is true. Nor can you prove that the inscription is true. And even if the inscription is true, it still does not prove your point. For as you stated, the rock is dated 552 A.D., while Muhammad was born 570 A.D. Then since there are two different dates and the inscription states an event different from the year of the elephant in Islamic sources, then the logical conclusion is that the discovery refers to a DIFFERENT event. How do we know? Because you just told us that the date of the inscription and events are different. Thus your argument that the year of the elephant is made up in Islamic records is bogus. To even further debunk your absurdity, those who were first to accept Islam were Arabs themselves. The simple fact that they accepted Islam is further evidence which supports the fact that the story is true. For the Arabs of that time would know their history and would have easily criticized and rejected Islam for such a false interpolation of their history of their own people. Yet there is no such case or document in which the Arabs questioned that the year of the elephant is wrong explained in Islamic. So as demonstrated and as usual, your argument fails. I suggest you pick up a book on how to use logical thinking and proof, for your habit of copying and pasting and then stating it is true with no proof is truly an embarrassment. An archaeological discovery mentioning a different year and instances is proof of a different event, not that another story is made up. Such a conclusion is absurd. By that logic, that means that all history which is not mentioned in the archaeological fins is false. That is simply ridiculous. Secondly, the fact that the Arabs accepted and embraced Islam is very strong evidence to support the fact that the incident concerning the year of the elephant mentioned in Islamic records is true. Otherwise, the Arabs would have rejected Islam, not embrace it. Your logic is utterly flawed Cat. Get over it. Thanks to my friend, and thank you Cat Cheers |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Salam bro BMZ
I know man, the Game was Over using Muir and Arabic grammar, and I know their tactics of diversions, however I am not going to leave the playground empty for them, my previous comment was a reply to their diversion, the important point is this, I do not divert the debate as they always do Cheers |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Well, I can also copy and paste a lot of things which will expose you and your master who molested you from the Frak Minders, however I am tired now, but will do later |
The Cat wrote: |
Do so! See how you lose either may... |
The Cat wrote: |
1) You lose the argument concerning 48.24, but save the Koran in regards of history. |
The Cat wrote: |
2) You 'win' but then the Koran is proven faulty for there was no Mecca in existence. |
The Cat wrote: |
You MUST prove this important city was even existing, that is apart from the fabulations of Ibn Ishaq and the unreliable hadiths... |
The Cat wrote: |
And no... evading through the 'ummi'. We've already discussed the topic, you and I, in the old forum!
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=54337 http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1089048#1089048 |
AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Hey pussy Cat
Do you know Diodorus Siculus? I am sure an ignorant bum know nothing about him, here he is from your favorite Wiki: Diodorus Siculus (Greek: Διόδωρος Σικελιώτης), was a Greek historian who lived in the 1st century BC. According to Diodorus' own work, he was born at Agyrium in Sicily (now called Agira). With one exception, antiquity affords no further information about Diodorus' life and doings beyond what is to be found in his own work, Bibliotheca historica. Only Jerome, in his Chronicon (49 BC), writes, "Diodorus of Sicily, a writer of Greek history, became illustrious". His English translator, Charles Henry Oldfather, remarks on the "striking coincidence" that one of only two known Greek inscriptions from Agyrium (I.G. XIV, 588) is the tombstone of one "Diodorus, the son of Apollonius". Work: Diodorus' universal history, which he named Bibliotheca historica ("Historical Library"), consisted of 40 books, of which 1?????????????????????¢??5 and 11?????????????????????¢??20 survive, and were divided into three sections. The first six books treat the mythic history of the non-Hellenic and Hellenic tribes to the destruction of Troy and are geographical in theme, and describe the history and culture of Ancient Egypt (book I), of Mesopotamia, India, Scythia, and Arabia (II), of North Africa (III), and of Greece and Europe (IV?????????????????????¢??VI). His account of gold mining in Egypt is one of the earliest extant texts on the topic, and describes in vivid detail the use of slave labour in terrible conditions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diodorus_Siculus In his book, he wrote: BOOK III. 44. 1-4 shut in as it is by crags which are of wondrous size, its mouth is winding and hard to get out of; for a rock which extends into the sea obstructs its entrance and so it is impossible for a ship either to sail into or out of the gulf. Furthermore, at times when the current rushes in and there are frequent shiftings of the winds, the surf, beating upon the rocky beach, roars and rages all about the projecting rock. The inhabitants of the land about the gulf, who are known as Banizo-menes, find their food by hunting the land animals and eating their meat. And a temple has been set up there, which is very holy and exceedingly revered by all Arabians. See, freak, And a temple has been set up there, which is very holy and exceedingly revered by all Arabians You can read the the book online: http://www.archive.org/stream/diodorusofsicily02dioduoft/diodorusofsicily02dioduoft_djvu.txt Or download from: http://free-islam.com/downloads/mecca/diodorusofsicily/DiodorusOfSicily.htm You have been slam dunked again, pussy Cat. Imay have time to slam dunk you one more before I head 800 km away from Sydney for the next 5 days Cheers |
Thumbnail, click to enlarge. |