And now with your first batch of silliness...
You are not wrong (booktalker) but I really didnt bother to bring proofs.
Its so obvious that every single arabic speaker translates the verse 48:24 to include mecca in it
See booktalker how I was right SNB keeps on his argumentum ad populum fallacy.
If Mecca was mentioned several times I wouldn't bother, but ONLY in 48.24? I do...
Especially since 22.26 refers to an exact location:
22.26:
And (remember)We prepared for Abraham the place (Ibrāhīma Makāna Al-Bayti) of the House.
Now this Makana has the same root as Makna... nearby Mount al-Lawz, topped with non-volcanic black stones!
AND... Makna is close to Madiana (Maghair Shoaib, n.b. Jethro=Yathrib; nowadays al-Bad), & the Hajj road...
Most probably 'Makkah' is just another wording for 'Maccam' (as Isidore's) and Maqam Ibrahim, Abraham's holy ground.
Can the patriach traveled back and forth a thousand miles south of uncharted, torching desert, except through Buraq?
http://www.brotherpete.com/hagar_ishmael.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Genesis 21.21:
And he (Ishmael) dwelt in the wilderness of Paran...
http://www.biblemysteries.com/lectures/mosesinyemen.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Medieval Arab geographer Yaqut al-Hamawi (d. 1229).
Faaraan (Paran): An Arabicized Hebrew word. It is one of the names for Mekkah mentioned in the Torah. It has been said that it is a name for the mountains of Mekkah. Ibn Makulan Abu Bakr Nasr Ibn al-Qaasim Ibn Qudaa`ah al-Qudaa`i al-Faaraani al-Iskandari said "I have heard it is a reference to the mountains of Faaraan, that is to say, the mountains of the Hijaaz. In the Torah God came from Sinaa' [Sinai] and dawned from Saa`iir [Seir] and became known [or brought to light, revealed] from Faaraan"; they are the mountains of Filastiin [Philistine], and it is His sending down of the Injiil upon Isa, peace be upon him, and His revealing from Mount Faaraan the fact of His sending down the Qur'an upon Muhammad, peace be upon him.
--Al-Iskandari equated the mountains of Paran (The Seir Range) with the mountains of the Hijaz.
--Al-Hamawi ascertains that Paran was another name for the mountains of Mekkah.
So the former Mecca (ie. Abraham's ground) was never out of the Paran/Midian area. EVERYTHING is pointing to such former location!
http://www.answering-christianity.com/paran.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Then again the Koranic al-Masjid al-Haram must refers to where divine laws were provided.
According to the Islamic tradition, Muhammad made it to the al-Masjid al-Aqsa on Buraq !
http://www.historyofmecca.com/00cbc530.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Finally, giving as much references as they can (ie copy/paste) is what scholars do. So do I.
___________________
He then goes on: ''
If the location of MECCA was changed then it doesnt mean the concept of MEcca ,
the hajj and other things have been corrupted.'' Giving a church displacement as an example!
As if the two were so comparable!
Mecca could only be comparable to Jerusalem in Judeo-Christianity or to Benares (Varanasi) for the Hindus.
Yet to SNB their displacements would be nothing that unusual !!!! Go figure...
Again, his wishful thinking over my logic only to back fire at him...
____________________
Concerning my tafsirs, sira and hadiths argument, SNB states:
skynightblaze wrote:you assume here quran is complete and answers all the questions. You cant answer questions on the context of the quran without the hadiths so quran's claim that no other hadith should be taken other than itself is completely false.... Secondly quran does make a mention of following muhammad and it alludes to hadiths which I have shown you plenty of times but because you are a troll you are never going to accept them.
I don't assume that the Koran is complete, the Koran says so itself explicitly (5.3; 6. 114-115, etc)!
To simply state, as he does, that the Koran isn't complete is a Sunnite blasphemy which SNB shamelessly endorse!
This implies that he upholds the moral duty for Muslims to carry on female mutilation, childbride marriage, stoning, etc.
He doesn't dare to give references for they would show that each one of his stand were utterly refuted.
viewtopic.php?p=148804#p148804" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8185" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
___________________
Then he refers to A MENTION of following Muhammad (33.21):
33.21:
Verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him
who looketh unto Allah and the Last Day, and remembereth Allah much.
In his crippled Sunnite mind...
looking unto Allah and remembering Him much becomes:
follow the Prophet so look for... the sira, tafsirs, hadiths and his sunna! That's twisted alright.
Again, on my 2.282 argument, he states
skynightblaze wrote:If you had read that verse carefully you would have understood that its talking about future transactions between 2 parties so how in the world can this verse be applicable here??
This verse is STILL prevailing in ALL Islamic Court cases!
It applies to testimonies to have an Islamic juristic value,
so all the ahaad hadiths' Shariah crumbles down.
''That is more equitable in the sight of Allah and more sure for
testimony, and the best way of avoiding doubt between you...''
''... More sure for TESTIMONY and the best way of avoiding doubt''
Imam Bukhari, Muslim and al trespassed this formal injunction! According to the Koran itself the
ahaad type which they massively adopted, cannot be accepted in any legal Islamic jurisprudence!
If to be truthful to their holy book, Islamic societies MUST erase about 90% of all their legalistic
sanctions ever, including female mutilation and stoning. Do Muslims abide by the Koran or not?
______________
Finally answering my call for some archaeological evidences, SND construct a red herring upon smilies!
The only thing true he ever came out with here is:
From:
viewtopic.php?p=149089#p149089" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
We have archaeological proofs and hence we don’t need any historian to confirm it.
Later:
viewtopic.php?p=149177#p149177" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
There must be proof . Its only that I aint finding it.
And 6 pages later... he STILL hasn't brought any such proof, just a ton of red herring,
ad hominem, post hoc, wrong premise, false dilemma & hasty generalization fallacies.
Until he does bring forth such proof... we can sleep confidently over his case.

Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.