3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Shari'a, errancies, miracles and science
yeezevee
Posts: 6547
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:17 pm

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Post by yeezevee »

AhmedBahgat wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:this is not about the revelation, it is about credited people in history who confirmed the existance of Kabba before even the Christian era, and guess what, girl, king Abraha was a christian promoting Christianity
yeezevee wrote:ya right., blah lah I am a stupid arselicking girl.
Girl, you are:
Gooooood now read these things dear AhmedBahgat

Arabia before Islam..
http://richardfrye.org/files/Arabia_before_Islam.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Archaeological research at the oasis of Tayma, Saudi Arabia
http://www.dainst.org/index_38ebc39cbb1 ... 11_en.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

on the eve of Islam., Archeological evidence from Eastern Arabia
http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/archaeology/P ... Kennet.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mecca-Makkah in History..
http://www.historyofmecca.com/m29.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You got to learn to read dear "Ahmed., Translation of silly Arabic words like Ummi-dummy is not enough to dig through history of Islam..

User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Post by The Cat »

AhmedBahgat wrote:you can shove Ibn Isahaq up your arse 'Diodorus Siculus was years before him and even before your christian king abraha and his magical rock
Again, where was the ''temple set up there''? Where does it specify Mecca? And how does it help to situate the temple?

And King Abraha's inscription stands as an archeological evidence against nowadays Mecca. It wasn't there but way up North.
Then again, the inscription opens with a line describing Rahmana as the Christian Father, how come he got into the Koran?

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/isl ... EEFLVV12OU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
There is no evidence of Islam at all until 8th centry Bagdad. None. Scholars Smith, Crone, Humphreys, Schacht, and Wansbrough from Cambridge universtity spent over 10,000 hours each in research of the origions of islam and actualy history of its accounts and they all found nothing. The Qur'an which we read today is not that which was in existence in the mid-seventh century, but is a product of the eighth and ninth centuries. It was not conceived in Mecca or Medina, but in Baghdad. It was then and there that Islam took on its identity and became a religion. Consequently, the formative stage of Islam was not within the lifetime of Muhammad but evolved over a period of 300 years.

What's interesting here is that apart from the Islamic Hadith, nothing, i repeat nothing is known about the formation of Islam and the creation of the Qur'an. No evidence of it exists. The scholars agree: "Source material for this period is nonexistant. The only manuscripts available to historians are Muslim sources and those sources all were written centuries after the death of the prophet. What is more, outside the Qur'an, the sources are all late. Prior to 750 A.D., and Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, we have no verifiable Muslim documents which can provide a window into Islam’s formative period. Even then, his manuscript has been lost so we are dependent upon those who wrote fifty to one hundred years thereafter. And no independent secular document exists with which to corroborate any Hadith," says Smith on behalf of Crone, Humphreys, Schacht, and Wansbrough.
See how -everything- in the Islamic historiography has been an Abbasid build-up, from 750 and on.

So where was 'Mecca'? According to the compelling evidences gathered it was in the wadi al-Qura:
Image

Research carried out by J.van Ess, in both the first and second civil wars, notes accounts of people proceeding from Medina to Iraq via Mecca. Yet Mecca is southwest of Medina, and Iraq is northeast. Thus the sanctuary for Islam, according to these traditions was at one time north of Medina, which is the opposite direction from where Mecca is today!(van Ess 1971:16; see also Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Dhahabi 1369:343).

It was north, and not south of Medina, as per all former testimonies. So the Abraha inscription was right: It was further North.
The Islamic tradition, from all the chronological inceptions of it, brings Muhammad's lifetime into a historical vacuum. A mess.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Post by The Cat »

The word makkata in 48.24 is NOT written Al-Makkata indicating a nominative, furthermore it is not written fi-Makkata, the proper Arabic way of indicating a town. Going back to the root form for MKK we've learned, from the Classical Arabic dictionaries, that its main meanings were 'sucked' or ''desolate' which fits the context of the harsh (sucked) negociations and the climate of hostility whereas the Hudaibayyah Treaty emerged...

Thus I've proposed the following reading for 48.24:
Wa Huwa Al-Ladhī Kaffa 'Aydiyahum `Ankum Wa 'Aydiyakum `Anhum -bibaţni makkata-

Bi is simply the preposition and 'batni' is better translated 'midst' than 'valley'.
To indicate a city it would have to be rendered... fi-makkata or Al-Makkata !

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 SWINDLES, after He had made you victors over them. Allah is Seer of what ye do.


Context of surah 48:
We were clearly in the context of enmity, but then 48.24 turns the tide... and tranquility as 'Victory' is rather instilled !

48.26: When those who disbelieve had set up in their hearts zealotry, the zealotry of the Age of Ignorance, then Allah sent down His peace of reassurance upon His messenger and upon the believers and imposed on them the word of self-restraint for they were worthy of it and meet for it...

Now we have also seen that, before around 710, the former qiblas were pointing to the area of al-Qura, North of Medina,
to a place known throughout antiquity as Al-Ula (Dedan) and al-Hijr (Hegra) which perfectly fit Muhammad's own Hegira
and are closer to many other events (Tabouk, Pledges of Aqaba, etc), not to mention verses like 37.137-138.

So, in Phoenician (the mother alphabet for all later Semitic's) MAKAK means RUINS, desolation (in this context: sacred ruins) !
Thus: in the MIDST (or valley) of DESOLATION, after He had made you victors over them. Allah is Seer of what ye do.

Who made the change by 710? No doubt... Al-Hajjaj, a ''tough, cruel, draconian or even savage ruler'' !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Hajjaj_ibn_Yusuf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
He sent a courier to ask ‘Abdu l-Malik for reinforcements and also for permission to take the city by force. Al-Ḥajjāj received both. Angered at being prevented by Ibn al-Zubayr from performing Hajj, al-Ḥajjāj bombarded Mecca (ie. al-Hijr), going so far as to target the Ka’bah and its pilgrims during the Hajj. After the siege had lasted seven months and 10,000 men (among them two of ibn az-Zubayr's sons) had gone over to al-Ḥajjāj, Ibn al-Zubayr and loyal followers, including his youngest son, were killed in the fighting around the Ka’bah on October 692 AD. Al-Ḥajjāj's siege of the Hijaz (ie. wadi al-Qura) resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent inhabitants....

(Later) He then killed all their Zoroastrian priests and burned and wasted their books, until gradually the illiterate only remained, who knew nothing of writing, and hence their history was mostly forgotten.

It is written that Al-Ḥajjāj ibn Yūsuf once entered a city. There was an elder cleric whose prayers were widely believed to bring blessings. He asked the cleric to recite a prayer for him. The cleric prayed: "O God, take his life away!" Al-Ḥajjāj, startled, burst out: "Old man, what kind of prayer is this that you recite for me?!" The old man replied: "It is for your own good and the benefit of the people."
Simply obvious: It was the dreadful al-Hajjaj (661-714) who destroyed the former al-Hijr (as Mecca) and replace it with nowadays location!
Al-Hajjaj also collected all existing copies of the Koran, edited them at will with an army of scribes, and burned all previous copies ! :evil2:

Next, we'll have a look at -bibakkata- (3.96), itself very bad Arabic, translated 'Becca'.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

User avatar
AhmedBahgat
Posts: 3094
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:38 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Post by AhmedBahgat »

The Cat wrote:The word makkata in 48.24 is NOT written Al-Makkata indicating a nominative, furthermore it is not written fi-Makkata, the proper Arabic way of indicating a town. Going back to the root form for MKK we've learned, from the Classical Arabic dictionaries, that its main meanings were 'sucked' or ''desolate' which fits the context of the harsh (sucked) negociations and the climate of hostility whereas the Hudaibayyah Treaty emerged...
You stupid and molested piece of trailer trash

I already showed you the grammar that Mecca can never have the article 'Al'. This is becuase it is a PROPER FEMININE NAME. Which you could not refute nor your master and native Arabic speakers con-artists Layth and his clown Ayman.

Based on your severe and stubborn ignorance, you have been:

Image

User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Post by The Cat »

AhmedBahgat wrote:
The Cat wrote:The word makkata in 48.24 is NOT written Al-Makkata indicating a nominative, furthermore it is not written fi-Makkata, the proper Arabic way of indicating a town. Going back to the root form for MKK we've learned, from the Classical Arabic dictionaries, that its main meanings were 'sucked' or ''desolate' which fits the context of the harsh (sucked) negociations and the climate of hostility whereas the Hudaibayyah Treaty emerged...
You stupid and molested piece of trailer trash

I already showed you the grammar that Mecca can never have the article 'Al'. This is becuase it is a PROPER FEMININE NAME.
Disproven mere assumption since it's not a proper name at all, having failed to prove that:
1) Mecca was in existence by the 6th century.
2) That it was at the same location as of now.

You have dismissed yourself, eloquently! :wacko: :roflmao:
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

User avatar
AhmedBahgat
Posts: 3094
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:38 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Post by AhmedBahgat »

The Cat wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
The Cat wrote:The word makkata in 48.24 is NOT written Al-Makkata indicating a nominative, furthermore it is not written fi-Makkata, the proper Arabic way of indicating a town. Going back to the root form for MKK we've learned, from the Classical Arabic dictionaries, that its main meanings were 'sucked' or ''desolate' which fits the context of the harsh (sucked) negociations and the climate of hostility whereas the Hudaibayyah Treaty emerged...
You stupid and molested piece of trailer trash

I already showed you the grammar that Mecca can never have the article 'Al'. This is becuase it is a PROPER FEMININE NAME.
Disproven mere assumption since it's not a proper name at all, having failed to prove that:
1) Mecca was in existence by the 6th century.
2) That it was at the same location as of now.

You have dismissed yourself, eloquently! :wacko: :roflmao:
Well, based on your stubborn ignorance and stupidity, epecially that you dont speak Arabic at all, I decided to life dismiss you. Now keep barking, confused dog:

http://www.free-islam.com/modules.php?n ... =3646#3646" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Welcome to my jail, inmate

User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Post by The Cat »

AhmedBahgat wrote:based on your stubborn ignorance and stupidity, epecially that you dont speak Arabic at all, I decided to life dismiss you.
Now keep barking, confused dog:

Welcome to my jail, inmate
Yep, I guess I ''dont epecially'' speak Arabic. But you should work out your English!

Since you may be the only one -not- in that jail (except those :worthy: you) whose jail is it?... :roflmao:

Now, let's go on with bibakketa (3.96). As I've said it's poor Arabic, now do you agree?
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

User avatar
AhmedBahgat
Posts: 3094
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:38 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Post by AhmedBahgat »

Ahmed chose to reply to inmate pussy cat
The Cat wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:based on your stubborn ignorance and stupidity, epecially that you dont speak Arabic at all, I decided to life dismiss you.
Now keep barking, confused dog:

Welcome to my jail, inmate
Yep, I guess I ''dont epecially'' speak Arabic. But you should work out your English!

Since you may be the only one -not- in that jail (except those :worthy: you) whose jail is it?... :roflmao:

Now, let's go on with bibakketa (3.96). As I've said it's poor Arabic, now do you agree?
Dont you understand, you stupid esteemed friend that you have been life dismissed

Again, keep barking, pussy dog

User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Post by The Cat »

AhmedBahgat wrote: :x
Does it means that you have nothing serious to say,

like about the poor Arabic of bibakkata in 3.96?

Or that Mecca existed elsewhere than it is now?

In both the first and second civil wars, notes accounts of people proceeding from Medina to Iraq via Mecca.
Yet Mecca is southwest of Medina, and Iraq is northeast. Thus the sanctuary for Islam, according to these
traditions was at one time north of Medina, which is the opposite direction from where Mecca is today!

(van Ess 1971:p.16; see also Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Dhahabi 1369: p.343).

It was North, not South of Medina, as per all former testimonies. So the Abraha inscription was right since it wasn't there at all...
Image
Picture from the Smithsonian Institute: http://www.mnh.si.edu/EPIGRAPHY/e_pre-i ... an_img.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now, about the REAL location of Mecca: Al-Hijr (Hegra, nowdays Mada'in Saleh) ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mada%27in_Saleh" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1293" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.bible.ca/islam/library/islam ... awting.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
al-Hijr is sometimes used apparently interchangeably with al-bayt or al-Ka'ba..... Al-Hijr is also named in some traditions as the place where Muhammad was sleeping when he was miraculously taken on his Night Journey.... it would not be impossible to see al-Hijr as the area adjacent to the Ka'ba.... The inclusion of al-Hijr inside the bayt is the most striking feature of the sanctuary constructed by Ibn al-Zubayr and, similarly, the exclusion of al-Hijr appears to be the chief alteration made by al-Hajjaj when he destroyed and rebuilt the sanctuary after his defeat of Ibn al-Zubayr.....

A tradition given by Azraql, apparently citing non-Qur'anic divine revelation, says that al-Hijr is a gate of Paradise, but Maqdisi cites a prohibition of the use of al-Hijr as a gibla. From material of this sort, then, it seems that al-Hijr sometimes designates an entity rather different from that which is so called at the Muslim sanctuary at Mecca, and again it is difficult to see how such material could have originated after the term had become established in its application to the sanctuary at Mecca.
The Glory that was Mada'in Saleh, the forgotten Mecca
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whoa0Xh4Rs0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Only the title is French, by Emmanuel Guyeland, 2002
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzjN4tjCLGI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Last edited by The Cat on Sat Nov 27, 2010 1:40 am, edited 2 times in total.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Post by The Cat »

That makkata refers to a proper name or not is but a secondary topic. Mecca wasn't where the Islamic Pharisees made it !

Excerpts, emphases mine...
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/art ... 2943.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The evidence for this (Muhammad in Mecca) is "the earliest and most famous biography of Mohammed, the "Sirat Rasul Allah" (The Life of the Prophet of God) of Ibn Ishaq). The dates given for Mohammed's life are 570-632 AD. Ibn Ishaq was born about 717 and died in 767. He thus wrote his biography well over 100 years after Mohammed lived, precluding his gaining any information from eyewitnesses to the Sira, as they would have all died themselves in the intervening years, (Note: we have nothing from Ibn Ishaq himself but through Ibn Hisham, d.833)......

Mecca is located in the Hejaz region of what is today Saudi Arabia. It is portrayed by traditional belief as a wealthy trading center, full of merchants trading goods by caravan from Yemen in the south and Syria and the Byzantium empire in the north. Crone shows that Mecca was in fact way off the incense route from Yemen to Syria, which bypassed where Mecca is today by over 100 miles. Further, there is no mention whatever of Mecca in contemporary non-Moslem sources:

''It is obvious that if the Meccans had been middlemen in a long-distance trade of the kind described in (traditional Islamic) literature, there ought to have been some mention of it in the writings of their customers who wrote extensively about the south Arabians who supplied them with aromatics. (Despite) the considerable attention paid to Arabian affairs there is no mention at all of Quraysh (the tribe of Mohammed) and their trading center (Mecca), be it in the Greek, Latin, Syraic, Aramaic, Coptic, or other literature composed outside Arabia'' (Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam p. 134).

An exhaustive examination of all available evidence and sources leads Crone to conclude that Mohammed's career took place not in Mecca and Medina or in southwest Arabia at all, but in northwest Arabia.
And, again, this is -exactly- where the former qiblahs were pointing to: Al-Hijr (Hegra), Al-Ula (Dedan) and possibly nearby Tayma !
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Post by The Cat »

http://www.therefinersfire.org/mecca.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
According to Islamic beliefs and tradition, the area between Assafa and Almarwa is the very place where Genesis 21:15-20 took place. Hagar (Allah's chosen wife for Abraham), was the first one who performed that ritual and was supposed to have made a wish to Allah to provide water for her son. Meanwhile, her little boy, who was sitting on the ground and crying, dug a hole in the sand and, miraculously, the water came out as a result of Allah's answer to Hagar's wish. Then, according to Islam, she called the well "Zamzam" (which means hush baby, don't cry anymore!) The story goes on to say that it was at that time Hagar realized why Allah sent her and her son to that desert place. It was supposedly the site where Allah's shrine had rested before. Later, it is said that Allah showed Ishmael and his father the black stone and commanded them to rebuild the shrine and call people to worship Allah there.

The Sira fabulation, like I've said, is but a magnified version of Gen.21.17-24:
And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is. Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation.

And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink. And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer. And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran....


It added a thousand miles of torching desert, thus the need to insert Buraq in ! Abraham, Haggar, Ishmael on board.
That's the kind of lies Muhammadanism is based on, yet they do believe that! Yep, the biggest the lie is, the more...
Image

http://brotherpete.com/index.php?topic=1483.0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (excerpts)
In order to resolve the preposterous suggestion that Abraham or Ishmael were ever at the place where Mecca was eventually built - 1200 kilometers from where Abraham actually lived - the most quoted 8th century Islamic "tradition" creators originated the idea that Abraham commuted back and forth to visit Ishmael in Mecca, on the winged camel, or Baraq (Tarikh al-Tabari, I, page 165).

He also invoked this mythical animal to explain how Ishmael was able to attend Abraham's funeral, 1200 kilometers from Mecca.
Genesis 25.9: And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah,
in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite, which [is] before Mamre
(Hebron).

The al-Hajjaj idolatrous site of al-Hijr in his blasphemous Mecca layout...
Image
Image

Or the real Mecca: Mada'in Saleh, Al-HIJR, Hegra, thus Muhammad's own Hegira !
Image
Image
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

User avatar
Ibn Rushd
Posts: 2126
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 8:46 pm
Location: Calgary, Canada
Contact:

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Post by Ibn Rushd »

Might I ask who is Brother Pete?
There is no Master but the Master, and QT-1 is his Prophet.

Asimov's robot story "Reason"

User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Post by The Cat »

Is full name is Peter Waldo and he's a lot after the fable of Ishmael as the founder of 'Mecca'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4ZAH6r8vHg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Muhammadans should check their sources: they have no ground whatsoever!
Abraham & Ishmael NEVER possibly could have built the Kaaba in Mecca!!!

The Truth Behind Mecca & the Black Stone (bad sound but great insights)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFTc46b6h-c" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


God never spoke to Ishmael, but to his mother (Hagar). As per the Koran 29.27, he can't be the son of the Promise.
And We bestowed on him Isaac and Jacob, and We established the prophethood and the Scripture among his seed,
and We gave him his reward in the world, and lo! in the Hereafter he verily is among the righteous.


The Koran only recognizes Abraham (2.124), Isaac and Jacob (21.72-73) as leaders of mankind for all time: IMAMS. No one else!

If Ishmael is the rightful prophet sent to the Arabs, as per the fable of Mecca, Muhammad can't fit as their own messenger!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1iFq5mCT8A" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


See how The Cat found out about it... :D
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

Post Reply