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.
Hello
I still have more. But let me see what you have to say
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.
But the word you have is a proper noun. It seems you are eager to take a very complicated lesson in the Arabic grammar. Are you ready for it?
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.
What the hell was that exactly?
The word Makkata is Ism already, i.e. proper noun. i.e Ism of a place. When I walk you through the very tough Arabic grammar lesson later, you should know how ignorant you are. But you should be excused because you know no Arabic, the ones who should never be excused are the con-artists of freak minds Layth and Ayman who know Arabic but yet continue to deceive the ignorant like you.
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.
So far, you are talking pure rubbish, again, the name Makka is a proper Ism, i.e. a proper noun, and I showed you 3 dictionaries stating so, that it is a proper noun of a place, and they even explained through different opinions why it is called so. Now, what you need to do is prove those 3 dictionaries wrong, but you cannot because you are using the same dictionaries to prove your deluded case.
The Cat wrote: This goes with the Koran's habit not to mention locations, except a few exceptions of which 'makkata' isn't.
How stupid again, firstly there is no such thing called Quran habit, this is just pure stupidity. However I have to corner you in here waiting to upper cut you, you need to bring all those exceptions where the Quran mentioned places (numerous places), then explain why Mecca is not one of them
Stating such dull and dumb statements is not going to work with me, pal.
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'
Are you that manipulated manipulator?
Destruction was only one of the meanings of the roots, the last one to be precise
How about the main meaning which is SUCKING, like sucking brains, sucking milk, sucking bones, for which the dictionaries said Mecca got its name from because the people used to suck water from the ground with difficulty.
Yet, even if we take destruction to be the meaning, then as I said numerous time in my irrefutable reply, it was the destruction of:
1- Sins
2- The bad people
It was never the destruction of believers, you lying fool.
The Cat wrote: Since this is a ROOT form,
Again you blind fool, it is not the root, it is one of the meanings of the root, and I showed you that all dictionaries said that it means SUCKING, while not all of them said that it means Destroy, consequently the main meaning of the root should be SUCKING and not DESTROYING. This fits Makka well because it has no water and they used to suck it with difficulty from the ground.
Your manipulated and wishful thinking crap holds no water. Just dust in thin air.
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,
Total BS
The two words ‘Batn Makka’, constitute what is called Genitive Construction, genitive means that the last letter in the second word must end with a KASRAH vowel, so let me put a big image of the two words and see if it Makka ends with a KASRAH under the last letter in it:
Source of Image
The image above shows three words:
1- The Preposition Bi:
بِ,
Bi, i.e.
In
2- The first word in the Genitive Construction:
بَطْنِ ,
Batni, i.e.
the midst of
3- The second word in the Genitive Construction:
مَكَّةَ ,
Makkata, i.e.
Mecca
Now, listen carefully, pal:
Genitive Construction in the Arabic grammar has very restrict rules, one of its rules is this:
- The second word MUST be genitive, hence its name 'Genitive Construction'. This means that the second word in the genitive construction MUST have a KASRAH under the last letter.
- Now, look at the image above from Quran verse 48:24, I highlighted the last letter of the second word of the Genitive Construction in red. However, it does not have a KASRAH under it, i.e. it is not genitive which violates the rule of the Genitive Construction that the last letter in the second word must be genitive. Well, the rest of the rule is as follow:
- The last letter of the second word in the Genitive Construction must be genitive with a KASRAH under it, unless the second word is
ممنوع من الصرف ,
Mamnoo Mn Al-Sarf. I don’t know how to translate this exactly to English, but in simple terms:
Prohibited for Noonation and must be genitive with a FATHA above the last letter in lieu of a KASRAH under the last letter.
- Now, look at the word
Makka again in the Quran photo above, we have that
FATHA (Accusative) above the last letter, seen in red. i.e. the word Makka is
ممنوع من الصرف ,
Mamnoo Mn Al-Sarf; see below from An Arabic grammar web site:
Source of Image
What they are saying above in simple terms:
أن مكة ممنوعة من الصرف , i.e.
Because Makka is Mamnoo Mn Al-Sarf
- This should take us to the next question, when is a noun will be
ممنوع من الصرف ,
Mamnoo Mn Al-Sarf? The answer is as follow from the same grammar web site, :
Source of Image
What they are saying, it happens when it is :
العلم المؤنث المختوم بتاء التأنيث , i.e.
A proper feminine name that is ending with the feminine Ta.
Guess what, pal, Makka is an Arabic word that is:
1- Proper name
2- Feminine
3- Ending with the feminine Ta, the highlighted letter in red seen in the first Quran image.
In fact they even listed the word
مكة circled in blue as an example.
Here you have it, pal, I just showed you that Makka is a proper feminine name. This should shut your ignorant mouth for good along with your deceitful con-teachers Layth and his clown Ayman.
It also means that the Grandmother of all slams have been executed. i.e. Game Over.
I.e. this is my final serious session in this debate. You may reply afterward but as for me, Game is Over.
And I am sorry to tell you that it became evident to me that I have to dismiss the rest of your crap without even reading it, and I am really serious here, I have not read it. But if you feel that there is in it a strong point that you made, please copy that point only in a new comment and I will reply to it inshaallah. Salam
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!
AhmedBahgat wrote:The Cat wrote:and the oldest qiblas weren't pointing there but way up North.
What the Qiblas have to do with it?
Everything! Before around 710, they weren't pointing toward nowadays Mecca !
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/FredericDecat50722.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
If it was such an important place, certainly those to whom the trade was going would have noted its existence. Yet, WE FIND NOTHING, though the Greeks refer to the towns of Ta’if and Yathrib (later Medina ), as well as Khaybar in the north. The unmentioned of Mecca is indeed troubling for the historicity of a city whose importance lies at the center of the nascent Islam....
According to the Islamic tradition, the prayer’s direction was finalized towards Mecca for all Muslims in or around 624. But the archaeological evidence, which has been and is continuing to be uncovered from the first mosques built in the 7th century, by archaeologists Creswell and Fehervari concerning two Umayyad mosques in Iraq and one near Baghdad, had Qiblas not facing Mecca but oriented too far north. The Wasit mosque is off by 33 degrees, and the Baghdad mosque by 30 degrees.
This agrees with Balahhuri’s testimony (called the Futuh) that the Qibla of the first mosque in Kufa, Iraq, supposedly constructed in 670 lay to the west, while it should have pointed almost directly south. The Amr b. al As mosque outside Cairo in Egypt shows also that the Qibla again pointed too far north and had to be corrected by the governor Qurra b. Sharik. All above instance position the Qibla not towards Mecca but much further north, possibly to the vicinity of Jerusalem .
We find further corroboration for this direction of prayer by the Christian writer and traveler Jacob of Edessa, who, writing as late as 705 was a contemporary eye-witness in Egypt . He maintained that the Mahgraye (Greek name for Saracens) in Egypt prayed facing east and not south or south-east. His letter (still found in the British Museum ) is indeed revealing.
Therefore, as late as 705, the direction of prayer towards Mecca had not yet been canonized.
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).
AhmedBahgat wrote:AGAIN WHERE IS THAT BLOODY DESTRUCTION THAT THEY WERE IN ITS MIDST?
The answer is simple: There was no destruction, rather there was Sakina, i.e. Tranquillity
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 !
AhmedBahgat wrote:according to them, all the above variations of the root MK should mean ’destruction’.
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.
AhmedBahgat wrote: The Cat wrote:Sticking to makkata as a location named Mecca is thus -chronologically- devastating for Muslims.
What is devastating should be all the compelling evidences presented above
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Hudaybiyyah" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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.
AhmedBahgat wrote:The Cat wrote:Thus the hadiths making the equation Abraham-Ishmael-Mecca (with Buraq!) are mythological !
Oh, come on, you may shove the hadith up your arse along with the lies and crap of the freak minders.
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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbas_ibn_Abd_al-Muttalib" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbasid_Caliphate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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.
No worries. Take care
for at Hudaybiyyah there was negotiations, thus:
