Page 1 of 4

3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 2:25 am
by The Cat
A thread inviting AB to refute the following:
viewtopic.php?p=132612#p132612" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


The term 'makkata' in 48.24 must be questioned as meaning Mecca/Becca (3.96) like Muslims ascertain....

For, historically, Mecca was unknown until around 710 and the oldest qiblas weren't pointing there but way up North.
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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (A Koraner site)
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).

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.

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.

Lisan Al-Arab lists it under MK and the meaning of MK(t) is given as "destruction" and TMK as "destroy".

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.

Al-Ghani lists it under MKK, the meanings given are: sucking, insisting with demands on an adversary.

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.


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.

Based on the context from the great reading/"quran", linguistic evidence from Arabic dictionaries, 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".
Sticking to makkata as a location named Mecca is thus -chronologically- devastating for Muslims.
The proofs of its nonexistence, up to the 6th century at the very least, are simply overwhelming.
Thus the hadiths making the equation Abraham-Ishmael-Mecca (with Buraq!) are mythological !


AhmedBahgat answer:
viewtopic.php?p=132626#p132626" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
AhmedBahgat wrote:
The Cat wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:Hello mes

The crap you just heard from the cat was refuted 4 years ago, I will actually copy and paste it in here to shut his ignorant mouth off, u don't need to bother just leave his arse to me

Cheers
Let us say that you do, and I doubt it, then the Koran is in plain conflict with archeology, that is with FACTS.
U may shove ur archeolgy crap up ur arse or up layth's or ayman's

When I go home inshaallah I will write something especially for u in which I will let the dectionries, the quran
the bible and all encycolpedias to slam dunk u and ur free mind gang in filthiest rubbish bin labelled Manipulators
Yep, archeolgy, dectionries and encycolpedias will all slam dunk me.

Go for it, Ahmed... And may the great Buraq inspires you...
Image

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 6:31 am
by AhmedBahgat
Hello the Cat

Are you serious in debate or you are going to act like a clown?

I reject your go at sense of humour at the end of your comment, it sucks, it only means one thing, that you are shaking currently, and I know for certain that you are not sure about what you copied from the confused web site of the freak minders who are only another man made sect along with a man made feel good religion that they invented.

Now, what i said in the other thread was not really a reply, my serious replies are going to be on this thread and by the end of it I will prove to everyone that you and your freak minders pals are nothing but a bunch of manipulated manipulators

This debate is also about the Arabic word Ummi.not just the Arabic word Mecca, did you forgot or something?

Any way, my next reply by latest end of day tomorrow will be the first serious reply to the above allegation you parroted from the freak minder web site. I.e. hold on to your donkeys, the next reply should be mine

Cheers

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 9:35 pm
by yeezevee
The Cat wrote:A thread inviting AB to refute the following:
viewtopic.php?p=132612#p132612" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


The term 'makkata' in 48.24 must be questioned as meaning Mecca/Becca (3.96) like Muslims ascertain....

For, historically, Mecca was unknown until around 710 and the oldest qiblas weren't pointing there but way up North.
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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (A Koraner site)
That Mecca versus Bacca is an interesting point dear The Cat., Anyways let us put those verses here ..
003.096
YUSUFALI: The first House (of worship) appointed for men was that at Bakka: Full of blessing and of guidance for all kinds of beings:

PICKTHAL: Lo! the first Sanctuary appointed for mankind was that at Becca, a blessed place, a guidance to the peoples;

SHAKIR: Most surely the first house appointed for men is the one at Bekka, blessed and a guidance for the nations.
إِنَّ أَوَّلَ بَيْتٍ وُضِعَ لِلنَّاسِ لَلَّذِي بِبَكَّةَ مُبَارَكًا وَهُدًى لِّلْعَالَمِينَ )

Indeed, the first house put for the people is that which at Bekka, blessed and a guidance for the worlds.
AhmedBahgat's Al Quran ; 3:96
So that is only the one verse Quran uses as becca .

And the word "Mecca was use in these verses
033.006
YUSUFALI: The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers. Blood-relations among each other have closer personal ties, in the Decree of Allah. Than (the Brotherhood of) Believers and Muhajirs: nevertheless do ye what is just to your closest friends: such is the writing in the Decree (of Allah).

PICKTHAL: The Prophet is closer to the believers than their selves, and his wives are (as) their mothers. And the owners of kinship are closer one to another in the ordinance of Allah than (other) believers and the fugitives (who fled from Mecca), except that ye should do kindness to your friends. This is written in the Book (of nature).

SHAKIR: The Prophet has a greater claim on the faithful than they have on themselves, and his wives are (as) their mothers; and the possessors of relationship have the better claim in the ordinance of Allah to inheritance, one with respect to another, than (other) believers, and (than) those who have fled (their homes), except that you do some good to your friends; this is written in the Book.
النَّبِيُّ أَوْلَىٰ بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ مِنْ أَنْفُسِهِمْ ۖ وَأَزْوَاجُهُ أُمَّهَاتُهُمْ ۗ وَأُولُو الْأَرْحَامِ بَعْضُهُمْ أَوْلَىٰ بِبَعْضٍ فِي كِتَابِ اللَّهِ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَالْمُهَاجِرِينَ إِلَّا أَنْ تَفْعَلُوا إِلَىٰ أَوْلِيَائِكُمْ مَعْرُوفًا ۚ كَانَ ذَٰلِكَ فِي الْكِتَابِ مَسْطُورًا

The Prophet is more worthy of the believers than themselves, and his wives are their mothers. And those of relationships, some of them with respect to others are more worthy (for inheritance) in the book of Allah than the (other) believers and the emigrants, except that you may do an act of kindness to your guardians. That is in the book inscribed.
AhmedBahgat's Al Quran: 33:6]
Here only that converted PICKTHAL uses that word " Mecca" in the brackets. It means that is No a real one to one translation..
048.024
YUSUFALI: And it is He Who has restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of Makka, after that He gave you the victory over them. And Allah sees well all that ye do.

PICKTHAL: And He it is Who hath withheld men's hands from you, and hath withheld your hands from them, in the valley of Mecca, after He had made you victors over them. Allah is Seer of what ye do.

SHAKIR: And He it is Who held back their hands from you and your hands from them in the valley of Mecca after He had given you victory over them; and Allah is Seeing what you do.
وَهُوَ الَّذِي كَفَّ أَيْدِيَهُمْ عَنْكُمْ وَأَيْدِيَكُمْ عَنْهُمْ بِبَطْنِ مَكَّةَ مِنْ بَعْدِ أَنْ أَظْفَرَكُمْ عَلَيْهِمْ ۚ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ بَصِيرًا (24)

And it is He Who withheld their hands from you and your hands from them in the valley of Mecca after He made you victorious over them. And ever is Allah over what you do, Seeing.
AhmedBahgat's Al Quran: 48:24
Well that is good all of them use the word Mecca..

The other verse is 62002
062.002
YUSUFALI: It is He Who has sent amongst the Unlettered a messenger from among themselves, to rehearse to them His Signs, to sanctify them, and to instruct them in Scripture and Wisdom,- although they had been, before, in manifest error;-
PICKTHAL: He it is Who hath sent among the unlettered ones a messenger of their own, to recite unto them His revelations and to make them grow, and to teach them the Scripture and wisdom, though heretofore they were indeed in error manifest,
SHAKIR: He it is Who raised among the inhabitants of Mecca an Messenger from among themselves, who recites to them His communications and purifies them, and teaches them the Book and the Wisdom, although they were before certainly in clear error,
هُوَ الَّذِي بَعَثَ فِي الْأُمِّيِّينَ رَسُولًا مِنْهُمْ يَتْلُو عَلَيْهِمْ آيَاتِهِ وَيُزَكِّيهِمْ وَيُعَلِّمُهُمُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَةَ وَإِنْ كَانُوا مِنْ قَبْلُ لَفِي ضَلَالٍ مُبِينٍ )

It is He Who sent among the unlettered a messenger from among themselves reciting to them His signs and purifying them and teaching them the book and wisdom, although they were before in obvious misguidance.
AhmedBahgat's Al Quran:: 62:2
Here that is an interesting translation ., only the Shakir puts out as Mecca, other two guys who are NOT really students Classical Arabic language puts it out as "UMMI" the unlettered .. uneducated foolish prophet as our Egyptian robot points out..

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 11:00 pm
by The Cat
Thanks for the study, dear yeezevee. Many times is the word 'Maccah' so written in added brackets.

But we're about to uncover the biggest blunder of all-time: MECCA.



Or to have it in a different window
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWCiNKxVsrE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And I suggest to AhmedBahgat to google: archaeology + mecca (= desert)
See if Mecca is among the ancient cities of Saudi Arabia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_To ... udi_Arabia" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 11:10 pm
by AhmedBahgat
Salam the Cat

As I told you in the other thread, you can shove your archeological evidences up your arse or up Layth's or up Ayman's or even up yekee's

Archeological evidences will not be admissable because of two reasons

1 no one in the world have considered your crap archeological evidences

2 archeological evidences may have been contaminated

The evidences that will be admissable will be any or a combination of the followings:

1 Quran
2 Google translate
3 Ensyclopedias
4 Bible
5 Arabic grammar

Anything else will be dismissed

Now, shut the fuk. up and let me finish my refute

Cheers

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 11:21 pm
by AhmedBahgat
Salam the Cat

As for Saudi Arabia crap, this shows hiw desperate you are, Saudi Arabia did not exist as a country 1400 years ago

Now stfu and let me finish my refute

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 11:24 pm
by The Cat
AhmedBahgat wrote: Archeological evidences will not be admissable because of two reasons

1 no one in the world have considered your crap archeological evidences

2 archeological evidences may have been contaminated

The evidences that will be admissable will be any or a combination of the followings:

1 Quran
2 Google translate
3 Ensyclopedias
4 Bible
5 Arabic grammar

Anything else will be dismissed

Now, shut the fuk. up and let me finish my refute

Cheers
I do not abide by your rules, mister. You can't dismiss EVIDENCE except by scorching your own credibility. You're on your way for that! :prop:
As for Saudi Arabia crap, this shows hiw desperate you are, Saudi Arabia did not exist as a country 1400 years ago
Now we have it: Abraham not only founded Mecca but the whole Saudi Arabia. That's a Tour de force alright... :roflmao:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Islamic_Arabia" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 11:46 pm
by yeezevee
Brainless bum says "Salam The Cat and Shove up your arse"
AhmedBahgat wrote:Salam the Cat

As I told you in the other thread, you can shove your archeological evidences up your arse or up Layth's or up Ayman's or even up yekee's
Who cares about what you tell and what bullshitt you talk dear AhmedBahgat?
Archeological evidences will not be admissable because of two reasons

1 no one in the world have considered your crap archeological evidences

2 archeological evidences may have been contaminated
contaminated?? what contaminated?? you bum., Do you realize that there are archeological evidences that are 1000 year older than your imaginary doll "Muhammad" the criminal.. and that imaginary Islam of your brains(if you have any)?? The Cat is doing terrific Job.. let him continue on that.
The evidences that will be admissable will be any or a combination of the followings:

1 Quran
2 Google translate
3 Ensyclopedias
4 Bible
5 Arabic grammar

Anything else will be dismissed
Look at this guy., that is a Joke Google translate, Ensyclopedias will be admissable., and the stories of Quran is Allah word.. Buu..bum...
Now, shut the fuk. up and let me finish my refute

Cheers
You shut up... go fly a donkey.. and screw yourself with Google translate, Ensyclopedias ....
The Cat : Thanks for the study, dear yeezevee. Many times is the word 'Maccah' so written in added brackets.
Well added in brackets is different from Translation., So could you pick up verses that uses the word 'Maccah' by an arabic guy??(NOT ENGLISH, JEWISH, CHRISTIAN converted translators ) but an Arabic guy like Shakir...

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 5:20 am
by The Cat
yeezevee wrote:
The Cat : Thanks for the study, dear yeezevee. Many times is the word 'Maccah' so written in added brackets.
Well added in brackets is different from Translation., So could you pick up verses that uses the word 'Maccah' by an arabic guy??(NOT ENGLISH, JEWISH, CHRISTIAN converted translators ) but an Arabic guy like Shakir...
Well it was Shakir who made the wrong translation of 62.2, while the other two had it correctly.

There are some other verses using 'Makka' in added brackets like:
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).
---Now there's a lot of brackets here!

2:196 Perform the pilgrimage and the visit (to Makka) for Allah.

They were added for the purpose of redirecting the Hajj and to underline that Abraham and Ishmael must be linked to Mecca. THE LIE!
As we shall see whenever AB starts rolling his 'refutation', by which he'll most probably end up refuting himself. Let's wait... :wink:

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:06 am
by AhmedBahgat
The Cat wrote:A thread inviting AB to refute the following:
viewtopic.php?p=132612#p132612" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Hello the Cat

This was refuted 4 years ago on the freak minders web site http//free-minds.org; let me tell you briefly how it happened, I joined the freak minders web site possibly in 2003/2004; firstly, I liked their stance and supported most of what they said, however when I digged deep into their writings, I realized quickly that these people cannot be right, they simply invented a totally new religion attracting many young Muslims who never had a chance to understand their religion but were excited, as I was, seeing them throwing all the hadith in the rubbish bin.

Later on, when I read them inventing a new place for Hajj and different numbers of Salat and different ways of Fasting (three of the basics of Islam), I concluded that those freak minders are yet another enemy of Islam that should be fought and exposed with no mercy, so I went on the attack and for two years replied harshly to most of their crap which was mostly by Layth (the web site owner) and his clown Ayman. So they banned me for good, and that is why I launched free-islam.com in 2006. This means what I am going to talk about was talked about already 4 years ago. But this time is no like 4 years ago. So let the show begins:
The Cat wrote:The term 'makkata' in 48.24 must be questioned as meaning Mecca/Becca (3.96) like Muslims ascertain....
Sure let’s question the word

The word is a name of a place; being a place name means it has no meaning but to refer to that place. Like the human names for example, a person may be named مؤمن , Mu’min, which means Believer , but that person may be an unbeliever. Therefore, applying the meaning of the word on proper names cannot be a valid action or argument. This means when this human name is written in English, it has to be Mu’min and not Believer.

Another example is the capital of Egypt, its name is قاهرة , Qahira, which means Compelling or Prevailing, yet that does not mean that this city is compelling or prevailing over something, in fact 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.

We don’t you see the English speaking people calling Cairo, Prevailing. Google Translate confirms that; let me put the image to build on it an irrefutable argument afterward:

Image

Now, the same word is also a feminine adjective to mean Prevailing, an example goes like this:

Susan is Qahira the problems, i.e. Susan is prevailing over the problems. But Google translate used the proper name in English Cairo as the translation instead of common name, so let me trick Google Translate and remove the last letter from the word قاهرة , Qahira to be قاهر , Qahir, this will make the word masculine, so let’s see how Google Translate will translate it:

Image

And that is exactly what I am talking about, the word Qahira means prevailing, but when used as a proper name of a place or a person, then its meaning must be ignored and will have absolutely no effect upon what the word refer to. That is why Qahira is written in English as Cairo, which I believe is wrong, it should be written in English as it is pronounced in Arabic because it is a proper name, i.e. Qahira and not Prevailing or Compelling or even Cairo. I believe they used the English meaningless word Cairo to just make it easy to pronounce the name instead of Qahira. See how Google Translate translates Mecca:

Image

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? They are doing so to serve their main objective of supporting with deception the new man made religion they invented.
The Cat wrote:For, historically, Mecca was unknown until around 710
As I said, wishful thinking is not admissible, now I will show you two sources of information about how far Mecca was traced, the first source is from the book The Life of Mahomet by a very known Christian author William Muir who only attacks Islam, this is what He said in his book, (I am happy to consider this evidence inadmissible):

History of Mecca already traced to 570 A.D

In the Introduction, I have traced the history of History of Mecca and the ancestors of Mahomet, from the earliest times of which we have any account, down to the famous Year of the Elephant, which marks the deliverance of the sacred city from the invading army of Abraha the Abyssinian viceroy of Yemen. Before proceeding farther, I propose briefly to describe Mecca, and the country immediately surrounding it.


Source The first words in the first chapter.

There will be no chance in hell that this Christian author enemy of Islam and Google are working with the Muslims along that alleged conspiracy theory invented by some freaks.

The second source of information is your favourite one, Wiki:

The early Arabian population consisted primarily of warring nomadic tribes. When they did converge peacefully, it was usually under the protection of religious practices.[16] Writing in the Encyclopedia of Islam, Wensinck identifies Mecca with a place called Macoraba mentioned by Ptolemy. His text is believed to date from the second century AD, before the foundation of Islam,[17] and described it as a foundation in southern Arabia, built around a sanctuary. The area probably did not start becoming an area of religious pilgrimage until around the year AD 500. It was around then that the Quraysh tribe (into which Muhammad was later born) took control of it, and made an agreement with the local Kinana Bedouins for control.[18] The sanctuary itself, located in a barren valley surrounded by mountains, was probably built at the location of the water source today known as the Zamzam Well, an area of considerable religious significance.


Source

See, Wiki even traces Mecca to the second century AD. Are all these people conspiring with the Muslims for 1400 years but only those two con-artists Layth and Ayman came 1400 years later to expose them? It cannot be. Those two freaks are only using the ignornace of many Muslims with the Arabic langauage to fool them into the flawed root method to understand the Arabic words, for which I proved with no doubt that proper names (like human names, or places) cannot be translated.

The freak minders replied to the above known fact through their FFI sidekick CAT with nothing but wishful thinking; see:
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).
Well, how about the enemy of Islam William Muir who traced Mecca back to year 570? Yeh he too conspired with the Muslims?

Well, let me just consider all the above evidences inadmissible, including your favourite Wiki. (I am just saving you the long time to refute everything I said, as later on you will be hit with the irrefutable)
The Cat wrote:and the oldest qiblas weren't pointing there but way up North.


What the Qiblas have to do with it? This is the nature of the freak minders, they always confuse the subject with nothing but irrelevant crap, I guess to confuse the listeners away from exposing their irrational thinking. Well, what they are saying above makes no sense, it is not like those early Qiblas were always north from any place on earth, I am sure they were also east to those living in the west side. I will just dismiss this crap of an argument.
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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (A Koraner site)
You mean the manipulation by the freak minders who translated it this way to confuse by deception; let me bring the verse in here and walk you through my translation bit by bit:

وَهُوَ الَّذِي كَفَّ أَيْدِيَهُمْ عَنْكُمْ وَأَيْدِيَكُمْ عَنْهُمْ بِبَطْنِ مَكَّةَ مِنْ بَعْدِ أَنْ أَظْفَرَكُمْ عَلَيْهِمْ ۚ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ بَصِيرًا (24)
And it is He Who withheld their hands from you and your hands from them in the valley of Mecca after He made you victorious over them. And ever is Allah over what you do, Seeing.
[Al Quran ; 48:24]

- وَهُوَ الَّذِي كَفَّ أَيْدِيَهُمْ عَنكُمْ, i.e. And it is He Who withheld their hands from you , very clear that Allah made the kafirs to stop fighting the Muslims; sounds like a peace treaty. It is not like the kafirs will all of a sudden fall in love with the Muslims so they stopped fighting them.

- وَأَيْدِيَكُمْ عَنْهُم , and your hands from them, this confirms the assumed peace treaty above, because Allah also made the Muslims to stop fighting the kafirs. This peace treaty is very well documented in history and is called: Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. See what your favourite source Wiki says about it:

In 628 AD, a group of 1,400 Muslims marched towards Mecca, in an attempt to perform Hajj (pilgrimage). They were forced to perform an Umrah (small pilgrimage). The group was prepared with animals of sacrifice, as they hoped that the Quraish made them honor the Arabian custom of allowing converts to enter the city. According to Lewis, Muhammad felt strong enough to attempt an attack on Mecca; but on the way, it became clear that the attempt was premature and the expedition was converted into a peaceful pilgrimage.[2] Andrae disagrees, writing that the Muslim state of ihram (which restricted their freedom of action) and the paucity of arms carried indicated that the pilgrimage was always intended to be pacific.[3] The Quraish intercepted the Muslim party well outside Mecca. By this time, all of Arabia was aware of the military strength of the Muslims.[citation needed] Muhammad wanted to avoid bloodshed in or near the holiest city of worship.

The two parties decided to resolve the matter through diplomacy rather than warfare. Hence the Quranic reference to the Sakina (tranquillity).


Source

The Quran also referenced this treaty in the same sura 48; the sura that starts by telling us about the conquest of Mecca (Makka):
إِنَّا فَتَحْنَا لَكَ فَتْحًا مُبِينًا (1)
Indeed, We have given for you an obvious conquest.
[Al Quran ; 48:1]

لِيَغْفِرَ لَكَ اللَّهُ مَا تَقَدَّمَ مِنْ ذَنْبِكَ وَمَا تَأَخَّرَ وَيُتِمَّ نِعْمَتَهُ عَلَيْكَ وَيَهْدِيَكَ صِرَاطًا مُسْتَقِيمًا (2)
That Allah may forgive for you what preceded of your sin and what will follow and complete His favour upon you and guide you to a straight path.
[Al Quran ; 48:2]

وَيَنْصُرَكَ اللَّهُ نَصْرًا عَزِيزًا (3)
And that He may help you with a mighty help.
[Al Quran ; 48:3]

هُوَ الَّذِي أَنْزَلَ السَّكِينَةَ فِي قُلُوبِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ لِيَزْدَادُوا إِيمَانًا مَعَ إِيمَانِهِمْ ۗ وَلِلَّهِ جُنُودُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ ۚ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ عَلِيمًا حَكِيمًا (4)
It is He Who sent down tranquillity into the hearts of the believers that they would increase in faith along with their (present) faith. And to Allah belong the soldiers of the heavens and the earth. And ever is Allah Knowing, Wise.
[Al Quran ; 48:4]

-> The peace treaty is evident in 48:4, It is He Who sent down tranquillity into the hearts of the believers that they would increase in faith along with their (present) faith.

Now, where that peace treaty took place? The answer lies in the next part of 48:24

- بِبَطْنِ مَكَّةَ , i.e. in the valley of Mecca

Now this is where we have a problem, the freak minders say it means in the midst of destruction, but most Muslims and the history records say it meansa place in Mecca.

The important note is this, there was no destruction, in fact it was a state of peace because the treaty of Hudaybiyyah was in place starting from year 628 and supposed to be running for 10 years. The word midst must mean that you are in the middle, or in the centre of doing something, or in the midst of something that is happening to you. In our case, the midst of destruction as the confused freak minders allege was not there.

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 as 48:4 told us: It is He Who sent down tranquillity into the hearts of the believers that they would increase in faith along with their (present) faith , and as 48:24 told us: And it is He Who withheld their hands from you and your hands from them in the valley of Mecca. But let’s assume that before such peace treaty, there was a war, yet the same verse 48:24 tells us that the Muslims were not in a status of destruction, rather in a status of winning and being victories as seen in the next part of the verse:

- مِن بَعْدِ أَنْ أَظْفَرَكُمْ عَلَيْهِمْ , after He made you victorious over them., i.e. the last war, before this peace treaty, was won by the Muslims. I.e. the Muslims at that moment of time WERE NEVER IN THE MIDST OF DESTRUCTION; quite the contrary, THEY WERE IN THE MIDST OF COMPLETE VICTORY.

Now, if we analyse how the Preposition Bi in the words بِبَطْنِ مَكَّةَ , Bi-Batn Mecca was used in the Quran and what should come after it, we get the following list:

The Preposition Bi ب
The preposition Bi ب has various usages. It is used to express adhesion إلصاق; time and place ظرفية; swearing قسم; companionship and connection مصاحبة or ملابسة; to render an (intransitive) verb transitive تعدية or نقل; to indicate the instrument of whose aid we avail ourselves استعانة; to express the reason of cause علة or سبب, and to state the recompense, equivalent, or price given for anything تعويض , مقابلة, or ثمن [A Grammar of the Arabic Language by W. Wright]. It has diverse significations, including ‘in’, ‘by’, ‘at’, ‘with’, ‘from’, ‘to’, ‘into’, ‘upon’, ‘for’, or ‘by reason of’ [A Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran by John Penrice]. Some examples of various usages of Bi ب are given as follows:

1. To denote adhesion (and adjunction, or association) of the verb to its objective complement, or of a noun or verb to that to which it is itself prefixed. It indicates whether one thing is attached, affixed, neighbouring, bordering, adjoining, in contact, meeting or touching, connected or contiguous to another.
Amsaktu bi-Zeydin: ‘I laid hold upon or seized somewhat of the body of Zeyd, or what might detain him, as an arm or a hand, or a garment, or the like.’
Whereas Amsaktuhu may mean ‘I withheld him or restrained him from acting according to his own free will’.
Marartu bi-Zeydin: ‘I passed by Zeyd’; ‘I made my passing to adhere to Zeyd’.
Bihi daa’un: ‘In him is a disease’, i.e. ‘a disease is cleaving (or adhering) to him’.
Aqsamtu Billah: ‘I swear by God’.
Ashraka Billahi: ‘He associated another with God’.
Wakkaltu bifulanin: ‘I associated a wakeel with such a one’.
Alaika bi-Zeydin: ‘Keep thou to Zeyd or Take thou Zeyd’.
جلس به Jalasa bihi: He sat beside (or by) him.

2. To render a verb transitive.
In such cases, it must be translated into English by transitive verbs.
فَأْتُوا بِسُورَةٍ مِنْ مِثْلِهِ : ‘then bring (lit. come with) a sura like it’. [2:23, 10:38]
ذَهَبَ اللَّهُ بِنُورِهِمْ : ‘Allah took away (lit. went away with) their light’. [2:17]

3. It also denotes employing a thing as an aid or instrument.
كتبت بالقلم katabtu bilqalam: ‘I wrote with the pen’.
قَاتِلُوهُمْ يُعَذِّبْهُمُ اللَّهُ بِأَيْدِيكُمْ : ‘Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands’ [9:14].

4. To denote concomitance as syn. with مع.
وَقَدْ دَخَلُوا بِالْكُفْرِ وَهُمْ قَدْ خَرَجُوا بِهِ : ‘and indeed they come in with unbelief and indeed they go forth with it’ [5:61].
ادْخُلُوهَا بِسَلامٍ آمِنِينَ: ‘Enter you here with peace and security’ [15:46].

5. It is also syn. with ‘fi’ before a noun signifying a place or a time.
Fi فى (in) shows that one thing is actually in the midst of another, surrounded by it on all sides; whereas bi ب indicates that one is close by the other or in contact with it.
وَلَقَدْ نَصَرَكُمُ اللَّهُ بِبَدْرٍ :‘And Allah did certainly assist you at Badr’ [3:123].
وَهُوَ الَّذِي يَتَوَفَّاكُمْ بِاللَّيْلِ وَيَعْلَمُ مَا جَرَحْتُمْ بِالنَّهَارِ ‘And He it is Who takes your souls at night (in sleep), and He knows what you acquire in the day’ [6:60].


6. It also denotes substitution, meaning ‘instead of’ or ‘in place of’
لقيت بزيد بحرا laqeetu bi-zyedin bahran: ‘I found, in the place of Zyed, a man of abundant generosity.’

7. It also denotes requital, or the giving or doing in return.
أُولَئِكَ الَّذِينَ اشْتَرَوُا الضَّلالَةَ بِالْهُدَى : ‘These are they who have bartered Guidance for error’ [2:16].
إِنَّ اللَّهَ اشْتَرَى مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَنْفُسَهُمْ وَأَمْوَالَهُمْ بِأَنَّ لَهُمُ الْجَنَّةَ: ‘Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise)’ [9:111].

8. It is also syn. with عن ‘an’ and is said to be peculiar to interrogation.
فَاسْأَلْ بِهِ خَبِيرًا : ‘so ask respecting it one aware’ [25:59].
يَا أَيُّهَا الإنْسَانُ مَا غَرَّكَ بِرَبِّكَ الْكَرِيمِ: ‘O Man! What has lured you away from your Sustainer, the Bountiful?’ [82:6]

9. It is also syn. with على ‘ala’.
لَوْ تُسَوَّى بِهِمُ الأرْضُ : ‘That the ground were made even over them’ [4:42]

10. It also denotes part of a whole, as syn. with ‘min’ مِنْ.
عَيْنًا يَشْرَبُ بِهَا عِبَادُ اللَّهِ: ‘A fountain from which the servants of Allah shall drink’ [76:6]
عَيْنًا يَشْرَبُ بِهَا الْمُقَرَّبُونَ: ‘A fountain from which drink they who are drawn near (to Allah)’. [83:28]

11. It is also used to denote swearing.
Billah or uqsimu billah: I swear by God
لا أُقْسِمُ بِهَذَا الْبَلَدِ : ‘I do call to witness this City’ [90:1]

12. It is also syn. with ‘ila’ إِلَى as denoting the end of an extent or interval.
Examples:
Ahsana bi: ‘he did good to me’.

13. It is also sometime redundant (expletive). Mostly in case of the agent كَفَى
Examples:
وَكَفَى بِاللَّهِ حَسِيبًا : ‘Allah is sufficient as a Reckoner’ [4:6].
وَكَفَى بِاللَّهِ وَلِيًّا وَكَفَى بِاللَّهِ نَصِيرًا : ‘Allah is enough as a protector, and Allah is enough as a Helper’ [4:45].
وَكَفَى بِاللَّهِ عَلِيمًا : ‘And sufficient is Allah as the Knower’ [4:70].
Also see 4:50, 4:55, 4:79, 4:81, 4:132, 4:166, 4:171, 10:29, 13:43, 17:14, 17:17, 17:65, 17:96, 21:47, 25:31, 25:58, 29:52, 33:3, 33:39, 33:48, 46:8, 48:28.
Ahsinu bi-zaidin: ‘Zaid became possessed with goodness or beauty.’
Bi-hasbika dirhamun: ‘A thing sufficing thee is a dirhem.’
وَمَا اللَّهُ بِغَافِلٍ عَمَّا تَعْمَلُونَ : ‘And Allah is not unmindful of what you do’. [2:74]
وَالَّذِينَ كَسَبُوا السَّيِّئَاتِ جَزَاءُ سَيِّئَةٍ بِمِثْلِهَا : ‘And (as for) those who have earned evil, the punishment of an evil is the like of it’ [10:27]
Also see 2:137, 17:88, 18:109, 25:33.

14. It also denotes a reason or cause علة or سبب (means for obtaining something; reason; cause; motive) translated e.g. as because of; on account of; due to; by
فَبِظُلْمٍ مِنَ الَّذِينَ هَادُوا حَرَّمْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ طَيِّبَاتٍ أُحِلَّتْ لَهُمْ وَبِصَدِّهِمْ عَنْ سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ كَثِيرًا : ‘Because of the wrongdoing of the Jews We forbade them good things which were (before) made lawful unto them, and because of their much hindering from Allah's way’ [4:160].
It is also used to denote a cause when prefixed with anna أَنَّ and ma مَا
ذَلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ قَوْمٌ لا يَعْقِلُونَ : ‘that is because they are a people without understanding’ [5:58].
ذَلِكَ بِمَا عَصَوْا : ‘that is because they disobeyed’ [2:61, 3:112].

Source
--------------

The Preposition Bi used in 48:24 falls under item 5 above, here it is again:

5. It is also syn. with ‘fi’ before a noun signifying a place or a time.

Fi فى (in) shows that one thing is actually in the midst of another, surrounded by it on all sides; whereas bi ب indicates that one is close by the other or in contact with it.


I.e. in the valley of Mecca. and I don’t mind translating it to in the midst of Mecca.

Yet, the deluded explanation described by the freak minders will never be found there, I remember when I challenged Ayman 4 years ago, he came up with some made up sentences that made absolutely non sense and a complete fool of himself, I think I laughed at him at that time after realizing that I am dealing with a complete esteemed friend of a manipulator.
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.
This is a clear cut lie as we are going to see in all classical Arabic dictionaries under both roots:

A- مكك ,MKK

B- مك 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.
Let me bring Al-Muheet in here:

Source
Image

The above explanation by Al-Muheet for the root MKK never ever mentioned any type of destruction; see:

مَكَّكَ يُمَكِّكُ تَمْكِيكًا , MKK; YAMKKUK; TAMKKIKA : Used with bones to mean excessively sucking it; used with an opponent to mean others insisting on requests from him.

How about, pussy cat, you take the above to the con-artist of the freak minders Ayman and shove it into his eyes and ask him: Where the hell is that destruction you are talking about in Al-Muheet dictionary? If he cannot answer you, then I advice you to shove it up his arse.

Well how about we look in the same dictionary for the other root MK:

Source
Image

مَكَّ يَمُكُّ مُكَّ أو اُمْكُكْ مَكًّا , MK; YAMMUK MAKK; or AMKKUK MAKKA : Used with bones to mean sucking everything therein; used with an opponent to mean others insisting on requests from him; used with anything to mean decreasing and destroying it.

While the meaning of to destroy is mentioned in this dictionary under MK, it was never the main meaning, in fact it was the last in the list, and was only as a verb but never as a common noun as the liars of freak minders are alleging to the fools.

Let’s look at the third dictionary named Al-Qamus Al-Muheet in which we find 7 different variations of Arabic words derived from the root MK:

Source
Image

1- مَكَّهُ): (وامْتَكَّهُ وتَمَكَّكَهُ ومَكْمَكَهُ , MAKKAHU; AMTTAKAHU; TAMAKKAKAHU; MAKMAKAHU: Sucked it all, and what is sucked is called MAMMKUK; MUKAK is a male or female Crow (bird).

2- مَكَّهُ , MAKKAHU: Destroyed and decreased from it; and from it comes MAKKA to mean the sacred city, or to mean the whole sacred place (including its sacred surroundings), the city was called so because it decreases or destroys sins; or it destroys the unjust people therein.

Now, we have the meaning of to destroy as the meaning for the root of the proper name MAKKA; but does it destroy the sincere believers? Of course not, if we take the meaning of the proper name MAKKA to mean destruction, then it is only the destruction of the following:

a- Destruction of sins, because believers living therein should refrain themselves from committing sins and/or sincerely seek forgiveness of Allah for their existing sins in order to decrease or destroyed some of them, if Allah wills.

b- Destruction of unjust people who commit crimes (BELIEVER OR UNBELIEVER) by enforcing the punishment of Allah upon the unjust from among them therein.

It is never referring to the destruction of believers through a war or a fight as the lying con-artists of freak minds are alleging.

3- تَمَكَّكَ , TAMAKKAK: Insisted on requests from an opponent.

4- المَكْمَكَةُ , AL-MAKKMAKA: Rolling while walking

5- المَكُّوكُ , AL-MAKKOK: Like a cup used for drinking; or different weight measurements.

6- المَكَّانَةُ , AL-MAKKANA: The slave woman

7- مَكَّ , MAKKA: Throw (the weapon at target)

What you should find to be very funny about those ignorant con-artists of freak minds like Ayman, Layth, the Cat and their likes, that according to them, all the above variations of the root MK should mean ’destruction’. How ridiculous by those fake and freak so called Muslims and their fellow kafirs.

And if we take a meaning from the above list to be the common meaning, then logically speaking it has to be the first one in the list according to the author of that classical dictionary, i.e. it has to be:

1- مَكَّهُ): (وامْتَكَّهُ وتَمَكَّكَهُ ومَكْمَكَهُ , MAKKAHU; AMTTAKAHU; TAMAKKAKAHU; MAKMAKAHU: Sucked it all, and what is sucked is called MAMMKUK; MUKAK is a male or female Crow.

However, because the above is my assumption, then the most logical course of action should be not to assume one as a common meaning, rather all the above are equally common. But we have seen the freak minders lying to us by telling us ALL CLASSICAL DECTIONARIES LISTED THE MEANING OF DESTRUCTION AS THE COMMON MEANING. How deluded they are..
The Cat wrote:Lisan Al-Arab lists it under MK and the meaning of MK(t) is given as "destruction" and TMK as "destroy".
Let’s bring Lisan Al-Arab dictionary in here:

Source
Image

Lisan Al-Arab lists 9 different variations of Arabic words for the root MK:

1- مكَّ , MKK: Used with brains to mean sucking it all; and used with anything to mean destroying and decreasing it; and used with a bird to mean throwing its weapon.

2- تمكَّك , TAMAKKAK: Sucking the whole brain.

3- امتكّ , AMTTAK: The baby drank all that his mother have (in her breasts)

4- تمكَّك , TAMAKKAK: Insisted on requests from an opponent

5- المُكَاك والمُكَاكَة, AL-MUKKAK and AL-MUKKAKA : What is being sucked, and it is used with brains because brains are sucked

6- المَكَّانُ , AL-MAKKAN : This is what the baby sheep suckle from.

7- المَكَّانَةُ , AL-MAKKANA: The slave woman

8- مَكَّهُ , MAKKA: The sacred city, or as the whole sacred place, and it is being called BAKKA with a ‘BA’ as an alternative but it was said with a ‘BA’ because of the ‘BA in Bayt (House) and with a ‘MIM’ to mean the vicinity around the House; it was also said with a ‘BA’ because of the words ‘Batn Makka’. The city was called MAKKA because it decreases or destroys sins, or destroys the unjust people therein.

Again and again, if we take the meaning of the proper name MAKKA to mean destruction, then it is only the destruction of the following:

a- Destruction of sins, because believers living therein should refrain themselves from committing sins and/or sincerely seek forgiveness of Allah for their existing sins in order to decrease or destroyed some of them, if Allah wills.

b- Destruction of unjust people who commit crimes (BELIEVER OR UNBELIEVER) by enforcing the punishment of Allah upon the unjust from among them therein.

It was never referring to a destruction of believers through a war as the lying con-artists of freak minds and their sidekick pussy cat are alleging.

9- المَكُّوكُ , AL-MAKKOK: Like a cup used for drinking; or different weight measurements.

The same laugh goes at those confused freaks and their brainwashed kafir pal, that for them all those 9 different meanings should be ‘destruction’.
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.
Let’s bring Al-Wasit dictionary in here:
Source
Image

Al-Waseet lists 7 different variations of Arabic words derived from the root MK:

1- مكَّ , MKK: Used with bones to mean sucking all what is therein; and used with an opponent to mean others insisting on requests from that opponent; and used with anything to mean decreasing or destroying it.

2- مَكَّكَ, MAKKAK: Insisted on requests from an opponent.

3- امتكّ , AMTTAK: The bones being sucked; the baby sucked all that his mother have (in her breasts).

4- تمكَّك , TAMAKKAK: Insisted on requests from an opponent.

5- المُكَاك , AL-MUKKAK: The brain that is being sucked, likewise the milk that is being sucked.

6- المُكَاكَة, AL-MUKKAKA: The brain that is being sucked, likewise the milk that is being sucked.

7- المَكُّوكُ , AL-MAKKOK: Like a cup used for drinking; or different weight measurements. It is also used with sewing machines.

From all those 7 different meanings, the confused freak minders want the first one, yet the first one has three different meanings: Used with bones to mean sucking all what is therein; and used with an opponent to mean others insisting on requests from that opponent; and used with anything to mean decreasing or destroying it. The last of them is ‘destruction’, this cannot make it the most common meaning.

But again, for those dumb bums of freak minders, all the above should mean destruction. So how long are we going to laugh at those idiots and their confused sidekick kafir pussy cat?.
The Cat wrote:Al-Ghani lists it under MKK, the meanings given are: sucking, insisting with demands on an adversary.
Let’s bring Al-Ghani dictionary in here:
Source
Image

مَكَّكَ , MKK: Sucking; used with an opponent to mean others insisting on requests from him.

So what is the point of those confused freak minders? Destruction was never mentioned. How foolish and dumb.

Would that be all classical Arabic dictionaries? Of course not, we have another one called Muheet Al-Muheet explaining to us the different words derived from the root MK, let me bring it in here:

Source
Image

The dictionary listed all the meaning we discussed, sucking brains, sucking milk, sucking bones, and last was to destroy, then they said the following:

مَكَّةُ معروفة ، البلد الحرام ، قيل : سميت بذلك لقلة مائها ، وذلك أَنهم كانوا يَمْتَكُّون الماء فيها أي يستخرجونه ، وقيل : سميت مكة لأنها كانت تَمُكُّ من ظَلَم فيها وأَلْحَدَ أي تهلكه

MAKKA is known, it is the sacred city; it was said that they called it so due to the little water it has as they used to suck that water by extracting it from the land; it was also said that they called it so because it destroys anyone who commits injustice therein.

So what else we need to look at? There should be nothing conclusive than the same dictionaries those dumb bums of ignorant freaks are using. In which we read that the destruction they are talking about was never the destruction of the believers, rather the destruction of sins or the destruction of those who commit injustice in Mecca. It is never the destruction of the believers through any act of war as the lying freaks are telling us.
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.
You confused manipulated manipulator, three of the above dictionaries already defined what MAKKA is, it is a city which has a proper name; and yet, if we translate its root, we end up with numerous meanings, not just destroy; and yet, if we assume destruction to be the meaning, it will never fit in the context of verse 48:24 because the destruction your classical dictionaries are talking about are any of the following destructions:

a- Destruction of sins, because believers living therein should refrain themselves from committing sins and/or sincerely seek forgiveness of Allah for their existing sins in order to decrease or destroyed some of them, if Allah wills.

b- Destruction of unjust people who commit crimes (BELIEVER OR UNBELIEVER) by enforcing the punishment of Allah upon the unjust from among them therein.

It is never referring to the destruction of believers through a war or a fight as the lying con-artists of freak minds are alleging.

Let me bring the whole verse again and apply your dictionaries destruction meaning in the context and see for ourselves:

وَهُوَ الَّذِي كَفَّ أَيْدِيَهُمْ عَنْكُمْ وَأَيْدِيَكُمْ عَنْهُمْ بِبَطْنِ مَكَّةَ مِنْ بَعْدِ أَنْ أَظْفَرَكُمْ عَلَيْهِمْ ۚ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ بَصِيرًا (24)
And it is He Who withheld their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of destruction after He made you victorious over them. And ever is Allah over what you do, Seeing.
[Al Quran ; 48:24]

-> So it should be:

And it is He Who withheld their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of destruction (of sins)

Or

And it is He Who withheld their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of destruction (of the unjust people)

So where is the destruction of the believers, you filthy and retarded con-artists?

It cannot be any of the above, you pinhead freaks. It can only be:

And it is He Who withheld their hands from you and your hands from them in the valley of Makka.

And I am happy to accept the following too:

And it is He Who withheld their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of Mecca.
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.
If you will ever get a perfect fit, you should get it by shoving the crap and lies by the freak minders along with Yusuf Ali translation up your arse. I am sure you are going to get a perfect fit, because they spew a lot of crap and lies which need a big and abused arse to fit.
The Cat wrote:Based on the context from the great reading/"quran",
What happened here, confused? Is it called Quran or great reading? You funny clowns.
The Cat wrote: linguistic evidence from Arabic dictionaries,
Yes, I have seen it in Barbie classical dictionary, you brainwashed mentally disabled freaks.
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".
Yeh, like the lack of this evidence by the enemy of Islam William Muir in his book’The Life of Mahomet’

Or the lack of Wiki’s evidences, your favourite encyclopaedia:

Kaaba

Treaty of Hudaybiyyah

Conquest of Mecca
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; your wishful thinking along with the freak minders’ who molested and brainwashed you in their premises cannot be admissible.
The Cat wrote:The proofs of its nonexistence, up to the 6th century at the very least, are simply overwhelming.
What we should have proofs for by now, is the irrefutable fact that your brain along with the brains of those who molested and enslaved you to promote their lies, are non-existent
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.
The Cat wrote:Yep, archeolgy, dectionries and encycolpedias will all slam dunk me.
Well, as I told you before, you can shove your archaeological evidences up your arse, or up Layth’s, or up Ayman’s, or up yekee’s. All of you as dumb stupid bums deserved and earned it.

I only refuted you with your dictionaries (remember), your encyclopaedia (Wiki) and of course the Quran..
The Cat wrote:Go for it, Ahmed.
I certainly did and still have far more to say, but I did not want it to be too long for the pinheads.

Now, here is the deal, you will get only one chance to refute the above, take all the time you need (a year if you want), I am not going to tell you, you ran away, coward. But you have to use this chance really well, i.e. you need to refute all the above as I always do. And while you struggling to do so, keep in mind the following:

Only Dictionaries, Encyclopaedias, Google online Translation, Quran and Bible evidences will be allowed; your wishful thinking and your so called archegonial evidences will never be allowed, so don’t even think about presenting them.

But if you find my evidences to be overwhelming, then I expect you to be a man and concede that those freak minders are indeed a bunch of con-artists who only fool the fools and ignorant.

Finally keep this in mind:

1- I still have more evidences including other compelling grammatical concerning the two words Batn Makka which constitute what is called Genitive Construction in the Arabic language, but again I did not want to be very complicated upon the pinheads)

2- Have more Quran and Bible evidences

3- If you failed to refute logically and with merit, you will be dismissed and the logo of the Granmother of all Slams will be stamped

Salam

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 9:14 am
by Ghalibkhastahaal
Spoiler! :
AhmedBahgat wrote:
The Cat wrote:A thread inviting AB to refute the following:
viewtopic.php?p=132612#p132612" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Hello the Cat

This was refuted 4 years ago on the freak minders web site http//free-minds.org; let me tell you briefly how it happened, I joined the freak minders web site possibly in 2003/2004; firstly, I liked their stance and supported most of what they said, however when I digged deep into their writings, I realized quickly that these people cannot be right, they simply invented a totally new religion attracting many young Muslims who never had a chance to understand their religion but were excited, as I was, seeing them throwing all the hadith in the rubbish bin.

Later on, when I read them inventing a new place for Hajj and different numbers of Salat and different ways of Fasting (three of the basics of Islam), I concluded that those freak minders are yet another enemy of Islam that should be fought and exposed with no mercy, so I went on the attack and for two years replied harshly to most of their crap which was mostly by Layth (the web site owner) and his clown Ayman. So they banned me for good, and that is why I launched free-islam.com in 2006. This means what I am going to talk about was talked about already 4 years ago. But this time is no like 4 years ago. So let the show begins:
The Cat wrote:The term 'makkata' in 48.24 must be questioned as meaning Mecca/Becca (3.96) like Muslims ascertain....
Sure let’s question the word

The word is a name of a place; being a place name means it has no meaning but to refer to that place. Like the human names for example, a person may be named مؤمن , Mu’min, which means Believer , but that person may be an unbeliever. Therefore, applying the meaning of the word on proper names cannot be a valid action or argument. This means when this human name is written in English, it has to be Mu’min and not Believer.

Another example is the capital of Egypt, its name is قاهرة , Qahira, which means Compelling or Prevailing, yet that does not mean that this city is compelling or prevailing over something, in fact 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.

We don’t you see the English speaking people calling Cairo, Prevailing. Google Translate confirms that; let me put the image to build on it an irrefutable argument afterward:

Image

Now, the same word is also a feminine adjective to mean Prevailing, an example goes like this:

Susan is Qahira the problems, i.e. Susan is prevailing over the problems. But Google translate used the proper name in English Cairo as the translation instead of common name, so let me trick Google Translate and remove the last letter from the word قاهرة , Qahira to be قاهر , Qahir, this will make the word masculine, so let’s see how Google Translate will translate it:

Image

And that is exactly what I am talking about, the word Qahira means prevailing, but when used as a proper name of a place or a person, then its meaning must be ignored and will have absolutely no effect upon what the word refer to. That is why Qahira is written in English as Cairo, which I believe is wrong, it should be written in English as it is pronounced in Arabic because it is a proper name, i.e. Qahira and not Prevailing or Compelling or even Cairo. I believe they used the English meaningless word Cairo to just make it easy to pronounce the name instead of Qahira. See how Google Translate translates Mecca:

Image

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? They are doing so to serve their main objective of supporting with deception the new man made religion they invented.
The Cat wrote:For, historically, Mecca was unknown until around 710
As I said, wishful thinking is not admissible, now I will show you two sources of information about how far Mecca was traced, the first source is from the book The Life of Mahomet by a very known Christian author William Muir who only attacks Islam, this is what He said in his book, (I am happy to consider this evidence inadmissible):

History of Mecca already traced to 570 A.D

In the Introduction, I have traced the history of History of Mecca and the ancestors of Mahomet, from the earliest times of which we have any account, down to the famous Year of the Elephant, which marks the deliverance of the sacred city from the invading army of Abraha the Abyssinian viceroy of Yemen. Before proceeding farther, I propose briefly to describe Mecca, and the country immediately surrounding it.


Source The first words in the first chapter.

There will be no chance in hell that this Christian author enemy of Islam and Google are working with the Muslims along that alleged conspiracy theory invented by some freaks.

The second source of information is your favourite one, Wiki:

The early Arabian population consisted primarily of warring nomadic tribes. When they did converge peacefully, it was usually under the protection of religious practices.[16] Writing in the Encyclopedia of Islam, Wensinck identifies Mecca with a place called Macoraba mentioned by Ptolemy. His text is believed to date from the second century AD, before the foundation of Islam,[17] and described it as a foundation in southern Arabia, built around a sanctuary. The area probably did not start becoming an area of religious pilgrimage until around the year AD 500. It was around then that the Quraysh tribe (into which Muhammad was later born) took control of it, and made an agreement with the local Kinana Bedouins for control.[18] The sanctuary itself, located in a barren valley surrounded by mountains, was probably built at the location of the water source today known as the Zamzam Well, an area of considerable religious significance.


Source

See, Wiki even traces Mecca to the second century AD. Are all these people conspiring with the Muslims for 1400 years but only those two con-artists Layth and Ayman came 1400 years later to expose them? It cannot be. Those two freaks are only using the ignornace of many Muslims with the Arabic langauage to fool them into the flawed root method to understand the Arabic words, for which I proved with no doubt that proper names (like human names, or places) cannot be translated.

The freak minders replied to the above known fact through their FFI sidekick CAT with nothing but wishful thinking; see:
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).
Well, how about the enemy of Islam William Muir who traced Mecca back to year 570? Yeh he too conspired with the Muslims?

Well, let me just consider all the above evidences inadmissible, including your favourite Wiki. (I am just saving you the long time to refute everything I said, as later on you will be hit with the irrefutable)
The Cat wrote:and the oldest qiblas weren't pointing there but way up North.


What the Qiblas have to do with it? This is the nature of the freak minders, they always confuse the subject with nothing but irrelevant crap, I guess to confuse the listeners away from exposing their irrational thinking. Well, what they are saying above makes no sense, it is not like those early Qiblas were always north from any place on earth, I am sure they were also east to those living in the west side. I will just dismiss this crap of an argument.
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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (A Koraner site)
You mean the manipulation by the freak minders who translated it this way to confuse by deception; let me bring the verse in here and walk you through my translation bit by bit:

وَهُوَ الَّذِي كَفَّ أَيْدِيَهُمْ عَنْكُمْ وَأَيْدِيَكُمْ عَنْهُمْ بِبَطْنِ مَكَّةَ مِنْ بَعْدِ أَنْ أَظْفَرَكُمْ عَلَيْهِمْ ۚ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ بَصِيرًا (24)
And it is He Who withheld their hands from you and your hands from them in the valley of Mecca after He made you victorious over them. And ever is Allah over what you do, Seeing.
[Al Quran ; 48:24]

- وَهُوَ الَّذِي كَفَّ أَيْدِيَهُمْ عَنكُمْ, i.e. And it is He Who withheld their hands from you , very clear that Allah made the kafirs to stop fighting the Muslims; sounds like a peace treaty. It is not like the kafirs will all of a sudden fall in love with the Muslims so they stopped fighting them.

- وَأَيْدِيَكُمْ عَنْهُم , and your hands from them, this confirms the assumed peace treaty above, because Allah also made the Muslims to stop fighting the kafirs. This peace treaty is very well documented in history and is called: Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. See what your favourite source Wiki says about it:

In 628 AD, a group of 1,400 Muslims marched towards Mecca, in an attempt to perform Hajj (pilgrimage). They were forced to perform an Umrah (small pilgrimage). The group was prepared with animals of sacrifice, as they hoped that the Quraish made them honor the Arabian custom of allowing converts to enter the city. According to Lewis, Muhammad felt strong enough to attempt an attack on Mecca; but on the way, it became clear that the attempt was premature and the expedition was converted into a peaceful pilgrimage.[2] Andrae disagrees, writing that the Muslim state of ihram (which restricted their freedom of action) and the paucity of arms carried indicated that the pilgrimage was always intended to be pacific.[3] The Quraish intercepted the Muslim party well outside Mecca. By this time, all of Arabia was aware of the military strength of the Muslims.[citation needed] Muhammad wanted to avoid bloodshed in or near the holiest city of worship.

The two parties decided to resolve the matter through diplomacy rather than warfare. Hence the Quranic reference to the Sakina (tranquillity).


Source

The Quran also referenced this treaty in the same sura 48; the sura that starts by telling us about the conquest of Mecca (Makka):
إِنَّا فَتَحْنَا لَكَ فَتْحًا مُبِينًا (1)
Indeed, We have given for you an obvious conquest.
[Al Quran ; 48:1]

لِيَغْفِرَ لَكَ اللَّهُ مَا تَقَدَّمَ مِنْ ذَنْبِكَ وَمَا تَأَخَّرَ وَيُتِمَّ نِعْمَتَهُ عَلَيْكَ وَيَهْدِيَكَ صِرَاطًا مُسْتَقِيمًا (2)
That Allah may forgive for you what preceded of your sin and what will follow and complete His favour upon you and guide you to a straight path.
[Al Quran ; 48:2]

وَيَنْصُرَكَ اللَّهُ نَصْرًا عَزِيزًا (3)
And that He may help you with a mighty help.
[Al Quran ; 48:3]

هُوَ الَّذِي أَنْزَلَ السَّكِينَةَ فِي قُلُوبِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ لِيَزْدَادُوا إِيمَانًا مَعَ إِيمَانِهِمْ ۗ وَلِلَّهِ جُنُودُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ ۚ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ عَلِيمًا حَكِيمًا (4)
It is He Who sent down tranquillity into the hearts of the believers that they would increase in faith along with their (present) faith. And to Allah belong the soldiers of the heavens and the earth. And ever is Allah Knowing, Wise.
[Al Quran ; 48:4]

-> The peace treaty is evident in 48:4, It is He Who sent down tranquillity into the hearts of the believers that they would increase in faith along with their (present) faith.

Now, where that peace treaty took place? The answer lies in the next part of 48:24

- بِبَطْنِ مَكَّةَ , i.e. in the valley of Mecca

Now this is where we have a problem, the freak minders say it means in the midst of destruction, but most Muslims and the history records say it meansa place in Mecca.

The important note is this, there was no destruction, in fact it was a state of peace because the treaty of Hudaybiyyah was in place starting from year 628 and supposed to be running for 10 years. The word midst must mean that you are in the middle, or in the centre of doing something, or in the midst of something that is happening to you. In our case, the midst of destruction as the confused freak minders allege was not there.

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 as 48:4 told us: It is He Who sent down tranquillity into the hearts of the believers that they would increase in faith along with their (present) faith , and as 48:24 told us: And it is He Who withheld their hands from you and your hands from them in the valley of Mecca. But let’s assume that before such peace treaty, there was a war, yet the same verse 48:24 tells us that the Muslims were not in a status of destruction, rather in a status of winning and being victories as seen in the next part of the verse:

- مِن بَعْدِ أَنْ أَظْفَرَكُمْ عَلَيْهِمْ , after He made you victorious over them., i.e. the last war, before this peace treaty, was won by the Muslims. I.e. the Muslims at that moment of time WERE NEVER IN THE MIDST OF DESTRUCTION; quite the contrary, THEY WERE IN THE MIDST OF COMPLETE VICTORY.

Now, if we analyse how the Preposition Bi in the words بِبَطْنِ مَكَّةَ , Bi-Batn Mecca was used in the Quran and what should come after it, we get the following list:

The Preposition Bi ب
The preposition Bi ب has various usages. It is used to express adhesion إلصاق; time and place ظرفية; swearing قسم; companionship and connection مصاحبة or ملابسة; to render an (intransitive) verb transitive تعدية or نقل; to indicate the instrument of whose aid we avail ourselves استعانة; to express the reason of cause علة or سبب, and to state the recompense, equivalent, or price given for anything تعويض , مقابلة, or ثمن [A Grammar of the Arabic Language by W. Wright]. It has diverse significations, including ‘in’, ‘by’, ‘at’, ‘with’, ‘from’, ‘to’, ‘into’, ‘upon’, ‘for’, or ‘by reason of’ [A Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran by John Penrice]. Some examples of various usages of Bi ب are given as follows:

1. To denote adhesion (and adjunction, or association) of the verb to its objective complement, or of a noun or verb to that to which it is itself prefixed. It indicates whether one thing is attached, affixed, neighbouring, bordering, adjoining, in contact, meeting or touching, connected or contiguous to another.
Amsaktu bi-Zeydin: ‘I laid hold upon or seized somewhat of the body of Zeyd, or what might detain him, as an arm or a hand, or a garment, or the like.’
Whereas Amsaktuhu may mean ‘I withheld him or restrained him from acting according to his own free will’.
Marartu bi-Zeydin: ‘I passed by Zeyd’; ‘I made my passing to adhere to Zeyd’.
Bihi daa’un: ‘In him is a disease’, i.e. ‘a disease is cleaving (or adhering) to him’.
Aqsamtu Billah: ‘I swear by God’.
Ashraka Billahi: ‘He associated another with God’.
Wakkaltu bifulanin: ‘I associated a wakeel with such a one’.
Alaika bi-Zeydin: ‘Keep thou to Zeyd or Take thou Zeyd’.
جلس به Jalasa bihi: He sat beside (or by) him.

2. To render a verb transitive.
In such cases, it must be translated into English by transitive verbs.
فَأْتُوا بِسُورَةٍ مِنْ مِثْلِهِ : ‘then bring (lit. come with) a sura like it’. [2:23, 10:38]
ذَهَبَ اللَّهُ بِنُورِهِمْ : ‘Allah took away (lit. went away with) their light’. [2:17]

3. It also denotes employing a thing as an aid or instrument.
كتبت بالقلم katabtu bilqalam: ‘I wrote with the pen’.
قَاتِلُوهُمْ يُعَذِّبْهُمُ اللَّهُ بِأَيْدِيكُمْ : ‘Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands’ [9:14].

4. To denote concomitance as syn. with مع.
وَقَدْ دَخَلُوا بِالْكُفْرِ وَهُمْ قَدْ خَرَجُوا بِهِ : ‘and indeed they come in with unbelief and indeed they go forth with it’ [5:61].
ادْخُلُوهَا بِسَلامٍ آمِنِينَ: ‘Enter you here with peace and security’ [15:46].

5. It is also syn. with ‘fi’ before a noun signifying a place or a time.
Fi فى (in) shows that one thing is actually in the midst of another, surrounded by it on all sides; whereas bi ب indicates that one is close by the other or in contact with it.
وَلَقَدْ نَصَرَكُمُ اللَّهُ بِبَدْرٍ :‘And Allah did certainly assist you at Badr’ [3:123].
وَهُوَ الَّذِي يَتَوَفَّاكُمْ بِاللَّيْلِ وَيَعْلَمُ مَا جَرَحْتُمْ بِالنَّهَارِ ‘And He it is Who takes your souls at night (in sleep), and He knows what you acquire in the day’ [6:60].


6. It also denotes substitution, meaning ‘instead of’ or ‘in place of’
لقيت بزيد بحرا laqeetu bi-zyedin bahran: ‘I found, in the place of Zyed, a man of abundant generosity.’

7. It also denotes requital, or the giving or doing in return.
أُولَئِكَ الَّذِينَ اشْتَرَوُا الضَّلالَةَ بِالْهُدَى : ‘These are they who have bartered Guidance for error’ [2:16].
إِنَّ اللَّهَ اشْتَرَى مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَنْفُسَهُمْ وَأَمْوَالَهُمْ بِأَنَّ لَهُمُ الْجَنَّةَ: ‘Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise)’ [9:111].

8. It is also syn. with عن ‘an’ and is said to be peculiar to interrogation.
فَاسْأَلْ بِهِ خَبِيرًا : ‘so ask respecting it one aware’ [25:59].
يَا أَيُّهَا الإنْسَانُ مَا غَرَّكَ بِرَبِّكَ الْكَرِيمِ: ‘O Man! What has lured you away from your Sustainer, the Bountiful?’ [82:6]

9. It is also syn. with على ‘ala’.
لَوْ تُسَوَّى بِهِمُ الأرْضُ : ‘That the ground were made even over them’ [4:42]

10. It also denotes part of a whole, as syn. with ‘min’ مِنْ.
عَيْنًا يَشْرَبُ بِهَا عِبَادُ اللَّهِ: ‘A fountain from which the servants of Allah shall drink’ [76:6]
عَيْنًا يَشْرَبُ بِهَا الْمُقَرَّبُونَ: ‘A fountain from which drink they who are drawn near (to Allah)’. [83:28]

11. It is also used to denote swearing.
Billah or uqsimu billah: I swear by God
لا أُقْسِمُ بِهَذَا الْبَلَدِ : ‘I do call to witness this City’ [90:1]

12. It is also syn. with ‘ila’ إِلَى as denoting the end of an extent or interval.
Examples:
Ahsana bi: ‘he did good to me’.

13. It is also sometime redundant (expletive). Mostly in case of the agent كَفَى
Examples:
وَكَفَى بِاللَّهِ حَسِيبًا : ‘Allah is sufficient as a Reckoner’ [4:6].
وَكَفَى بِاللَّهِ وَلِيًّا وَكَفَى بِاللَّهِ نَصِيرًا : ‘Allah is enough as a protector, and Allah is enough as a Helper’ [4:45].
وَكَفَى بِاللَّهِ عَلِيمًا : ‘And sufficient is Allah as the Knower’ [4:70].
Also see 4:50, 4:55, 4:79, 4:81, 4:132, 4:166, 4:171, 10:29, 13:43, 17:14, 17:17, 17:65, 17:96, 21:47, 25:31, 25:58, 29:52, 33:3, 33:39, 33:48, 46:8, 48:28.
Ahsinu bi-zaidin: ‘Zaid became possessed with goodness or beauty.’
Bi-hasbika dirhamun: ‘A thing sufficing thee is a dirhem.’
وَمَا اللَّهُ بِغَافِلٍ عَمَّا تَعْمَلُونَ : ‘And Allah is not unmindful of what you do’. [2:74]
وَالَّذِينَ كَسَبُوا السَّيِّئَاتِ جَزَاءُ سَيِّئَةٍ بِمِثْلِهَا : ‘And (as for) those who have earned evil, the punishment of an evil is the like of it’ [10:27]
Also see 2:137, 17:88, 18:109, 25:33.

14. It also denotes a reason or cause علة or سبب (means for obtaining something; reason; cause; motive) translated e.g. as because of; on account of; due to; by
فَبِظُلْمٍ مِنَ الَّذِينَ هَادُوا حَرَّمْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ طَيِّبَاتٍ أُحِلَّتْ لَهُمْ وَبِصَدِّهِمْ عَنْ سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ كَثِيرًا : ‘Because of the wrongdoing of the Jews We forbade them good things which were (before) made lawful unto them, and because of their much hindering from Allah's way’ [4:160].
It is also used to denote a cause when prefixed with anna أَنَّ and ma مَا
ذَلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ قَوْمٌ لا يَعْقِلُونَ : ‘that is because they are a people without understanding’ [5:58].
ذَلِكَ بِمَا عَصَوْا : ‘that is because they disobeyed’ [2:61, 3:112].

Source
--------------

The Preposition Bi used in 48:24 falls under item 5 above, here it is again:

5. It is also syn. with ‘fi’ before a noun signifying a place or a time.

Fi فى (in) shows that one thing is actually in the midst of another, surrounded by it on all sides; whereas bi ب indicates that one is close by the other or in contact with it.


I.e. in the valley of Mecca. and I don’t mind translating it to in the midst of Mecca.

Yet, the deluded explanation described by the freak minders will never be found there, I remember when I challenged Ayman 4 years ago, he came up with some made up sentences that made absolutely non sense and a complete fool of himself, I think I laughed at him at that time after realizing that I am dealing with a complete esteemed friend of a manipulator.
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.
This is a clear cut lie as we are going to see in all classical Arabic dictionaries under both roots:

A- مكك ,MKK

B- مك 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.
Let me bring Al-Muheet in here:

Source
Image

The above explanation by Al-Muheet for the root MKK never ever mentioned any type of destruction; see:

مَكَّكَ يُمَكِّكُ تَمْكِيكًا , MKK; YAMKKUK; TAMKKIKA : Used with bones to mean excessively sucking it; used with an opponent to mean others insisting on requests from him.

How about, pussy cat, you take the above to the con-artist of the freak minders Ayman and shove it into his eyes and ask him: Where the hell is that destruction you are talking about in Al-Muheet dictionary? If he cannot answer you, then I advice you to shove it up his arse.

Well how about we look in the same dictionary for the other root MK:

Source
Image

مَكَّ يَمُكُّ مُكَّ أو اُمْكُكْ مَكًّا , MK; YAMMUK MAKK; or AMKKUK MAKKA : Used with bones to mean sucking everything therein; used with an opponent to mean others insisting on requests from him; used with anything to mean decreasing and destroying it.

While the meaning of to destroy is mentioned in this dictionary under MK, it was never the main meaning, in fact it was the last in the list, and was only as a verb but never as a common noun as the liars of freak minders are alleging to the fools.

Let’s look at the third dictionary named Al-Qamus Al-Muheet in which we find 7 different variations of Arabic words derived from the root MK:

Source
Image

1- مَكَّهُ): (وامْتَكَّهُ وتَمَكَّكَهُ ومَكْمَكَهُ , MAKKAHU; AMTTAKAHU; TAMAKKAKAHU; MAKMAKAHU: Sucked it all, and what is sucked is called MAMMKUK; MUKAK is a male or female Crow (bird).

2- مَكَّهُ , MAKKAHU: Destroyed and decreased from it; and from it comes MAKKA to mean the sacred city, or to mean the whole sacred place (including its sacred surroundings), the city was called so because it decreases or destroys sins; or it destroys the unjust people therein.

Now, we have the meaning of to destroy as the meaning for the root of the proper name MAKKA; but does it destroy the sincere believers? Of course not, if we take the meaning of the proper name MAKKA to mean destruction, then it is only the destruction of the following:

a- Destruction of sins, because believers living therein should refrain themselves from committing sins and/or sincerely seek forgiveness of Allah for their existing sins in order to decrease or destroyed some of them, if Allah wills.

b- Destruction of unjust people who commit crimes (BELIEVER OR UNBELIEVER) by enforcing the punishment of Allah upon the unjust from among them therein.

It is never referring to the destruction of believers through a war or a fight as the lying con-artists of freak minds are alleging.

3- تَمَكَّكَ , TAMAKKAK: Insisted on requests from an opponent.

4- المَكْمَكَةُ , AL-MAKKMAKA: Rolling while walking

5- المَكُّوكُ , AL-MAKKOK: Like a cup used for drinking; or different weight measurements.

6- المَكَّانَةُ , AL-MAKKANA: The slave woman

7- مَكَّ , MAKKA: Throw (the weapon at target)

What you should find to be very funny about those ignorant con-artists of freak minds like Ayman, Layth, the Cat and their likes, that according to them, all the above variations of the root MK should mean ’destruction’. How ridiculous by those fake and freak so called Muslims and their fellow kafirs.

And if we take a meaning from the above list to be the common meaning, then logically speaking it has to be the first one in the list according to the author of that classical dictionary, i.e. it has to be:

1- مَكَّهُ): (وامْتَكَّهُ وتَمَكَّكَهُ ومَكْمَكَهُ , MAKKAHU; AMTTAKAHU; TAMAKKAKAHU; MAKMAKAHU: Sucked it all, and what is sucked is called MAMMKUK; MUKAK is a male or female Crow.

However, because the above is my assumption, then the most logical course of action should be not to assume one as a common meaning, rather all the above are equally common. But we have seen the freak minders lying to us by telling us ALL CLASSICAL DECTIONARIES LISTED THE MEANING OF DESTRUCTION AS THE COMMON MEANING. How deluded they are..
The Cat wrote:Lisan Al-Arab lists it under MK and the meaning of MK(t) is given as "destruction" and TMK as "destroy".
Let’s bring Lisan Al-Arab dictionary in here:

Source
Image

Lisan Al-Arab lists 9 different variations of Arabic words for the root MK:

1- مكَّ , MKK: Used with brains to mean sucking it all; and used with anything to mean destroying and decreasing it; and used with a bird to mean throwing its weapon.

2- تمكَّك , TAMAKKAK: Sucking the whole brain.

3- امتكّ , AMTTAK: The baby drank all that his mother have (in her breasts)

4- تمكَّك , TAMAKKAK: Insisted on requests from an opponent

5- المُكَاك والمُكَاكَة, AL-MUKKAK and AL-MUKKAKA : What is being sucked, and it is used with brains because brains are sucked

6- المَكَّانُ , AL-MAKKAN : This is what the baby sheep suckle from.

7- المَكَّانَةُ , AL-MAKKANA: The slave woman

8- مَكَّهُ , MAKKA: The sacred city, or as the whole sacred place, and it is being called BAKKA with a ‘BA’ as an alternative but it was said with a ‘BA’ because of the ‘BA in Bayt (House) and with a ‘MIM’ to mean the vicinity around the House; it was also said with a ‘BA’ because of the words ‘Batn Makka’. The city was called MAKKA because it decreases or destroys sins, or destroys the unjust people therein.

Again and again, if we take the meaning of the proper name MAKKA to mean destruction, then it is only the destruction of the following:

a- Destruction of sins, because believers living therein should refrain themselves from committing sins and/or sincerely seek forgiveness of Allah for their existing sins in order to decrease or destroyed some of them, if Allah wills.

b- Destruction of unjust people who commit crimes (BELIEVER OR UNBELIEVER) by enforcing the punishment of Allah upon the unjust from among them therein.

It was never referring to a destruction of believers through a war as the lying con-artists of freak minds and their sidekick pussy cat are alleging.

9- المَكُّوكُ , AL-MAKKOK: Like a cup used for drinking; or different weight measurements.

The same laugh goes at those confused freaks and their brainwashed kafir pal, that for them all those 9 different meanings should be ‘destruction’.
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.
Let’s bring Al-Wasit dictionary in here:
Source
Image

Al-Waseet lists 7 different variations of Arabic words derived from the root MK:

1- مكَّ , MKK: Used with bones to mean sucking all what is therein; and used with an opponent to mean others insisting on requests from that opponent; and used with anything to mean decreasing or destroying it.

2- مَكَّكَ, MAKKAK: Insisted on requests from an opponent.

3- امتكّ , AMTTAK: The bones being sucked; the baby sucked all that his mother have (in her breasts).

4- تمكَّك , TAMAKKAK: Insisted on requests from an opponent.

5- المُكَاك , AL-MUKKAK: The brain that is being sucked, likewise the milk that is being sucked.

6- المُكَاكَة, AL-MUKKAKA: The brain that is being sucked, likewise the milk that is being sucked.

7- المَكُّوكُ , AL-MAKKOK: Like a cup used for drinking; or different weight measurements. It is also used with sewing machines.

From all those 7 different meanings, the confused freak minders want the first one, yet the first one has three different meanings: Used with bones to mean sucking all what is therein; and used with an opponent to mean others insisting on requests from that opponent; and used with anything to mean decreasing or destroying it. The last of them is ‘destruction’, this cannot make it the most common meaning.

But again, for those dumb bums of freak minders, all the above should mean destruction. So how long are we going to laugh at those idiots and their confused sidekick kafir pussy cat?.
The Cat wrote:Al-Ghani lists it under MKK, the meanings given are: sucking, insisting with demands on an adversary.
Let’s bring Al-Ghani dictionary in here:
Source
Image

مَكَّكَ , MKK: Sucking; used with an opponent to mean others insisting on requests from him.

So what is the point of those confused freak minders? Destruction was never mentioned. How foolish and dumb.

Would that be all classical Arabic dictionaries? Of course not, we have another one called Muheet Al-Muheet explaining to us the different words derived from the root MK, let me bring it in here:

Source
Image

The dictionary listed all the meaning we discussed, sucking brains, sucking milk, sucking bones, and last was to destroy, then they said the following:

مَكَّةُ معروفة ، البلد الحرام ، قيل : سميت بذلك لقلة مائها ، وذلك أَنهم كانوا يَمْتَكُّون الماء فيها أي يستخرجونه ، وقيل : سميت مكة لأنها كانت تَمُكُّ من ظَلَم فيها وأَلْحَدَ أي تهلكه

MAKKA is known, it is the sacred city; it was said that they called it so due to the little water it has as they used to suck that water by extracting it from the land; it was also said that they called it so because it destroys anyone who commits injustice therein.

So what else we need to look at? There should be nothing conclusive than the same dictionaries those dumb bums of ignorant freaks are using. In which we read that the destruction they are talking about was never the destruction of the believers, rather the destruction of sins or the destruction of those who commit injustice in Mecca. It is never the destruction of the believers through any act of war as the lying freaks are telling us.
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.
You confused manipulated manipulator, three of the above dictionaries already defined what MAKKA is, it is a city which has a proper name; and yet, if we translate its root, we end up with numerous meanings, not just destroy; and yet, if we assume destruction to be the meaning, it will never fit in the context of verse 48:24 because the destruction your classical dictionaries are talking about are any of the following destructions:

a- Destruction of sins, because believers living therein should refrain themselves from committing sins and/or sincerely seek forgiveness of Allah for their existing sins in order to decrease or destroyed some of them, if Allah wills.

b- Destruction of unjust people who commit crimes (BELIEVER OR UNBELIEVER) by enforcing the punishment of Allah upon the unjust from among them therein.

It is never referring to the destruction of believers through a war or a fight as the lying con-artists of freak minds are alleging.

Let me bring the whole verse again and apply your dictionaries destruction meaning in the context and see for ourselves:

وَهُوَ الَّذِي كَفَّ أَيْدِيَهُمْ عَنْكُمْ وَأَيْدِيَكُمْ عَنْهُمْ بِبَطْنِ مَكَّةَ مِنْ بَعْدِ أَنْ أَظْفَرَكُمْ عَلَيْهِمْ ۚ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ بَصِيرًا (24)
And it is He Who withheld their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of destruction after He made you victorious over them. And ever is Allah over what you do, Seeing.
[Al Quran ; 48:24]

-> So it should be:

And it is He Who withheld their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of destruction (of sins)

Or

And it is He Who withheld their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of destruction (of the unjust people)

So where is the destruction of the believers, you filthy and retarded con-artists?

It cannot be any of the above, you pinhead freaks. It can only be:

And it is He Who withheld their hands from you and your hands from them in the valley of Makka.

And I am happy to accept the following too:

And it is He Who withheld their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of Mecca.
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.
If you will ever get a perfect fit, you should get it by shoving the crap and lies by the freak minders along with Yusuf Ali translation up your arse. I am sure you are going to get a perfect fit, because they spew a lot of crap and lies which need a big and abused arse to fit.
The Cat wrote:Based on the context from the great reading/"quran",
What happened here, confused? Is it called Quran or great reading? You funny clowns.
The Cat wrote: linguistic evidence from Arabic dictionaries,
Yes, I have seen it in Barbie classical dictionary, you brainwashed mentally disabled freaks.
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".
Yeh, like the lack of this evidence by the enemy of Islam William Muir in his book’The Life of Mahomet’

Or the lack of Wiki’s evidences, your favourite encyclopaedia:

Kaaba

Treaty of Hudaybiyyah

Conquest of Mecca
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; your wishful thinking along with the freak minders’ who molested and brainwashed you in their premises cannot be admissible.
The Cat wrote:The proofs of its nonexistence, up to the 6th century at the very least, are simply overwhelming.
What we should have proofs for by now, is the irrefutable fact that your brain along with the brains of those who molested and enslaved you to promote their lies, are non-existent
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.
The Cat wrote:Yep, archeolgy, dectionries and encycolpedias will all slam dunk me.
Well, as I told you before, you can shove your archaeological evidences up your arse, or up Layth’s, or up Ayman’s, or up yekee’s. All of you as dumb stupid bums deserved and earned it.

I only refuted you with your dictionaries (remember), your encyclopaedia (Wiki) and of course the Quran..
The Cat wrote:Go for it, Ahmed.
I certainly did and still have far more to say, but I did not want it to be too long for the pinheads.

Now, here is the deal, you will get only one chance to refute the above, take all the time you need (a year if you want), I am not going to tell you, you ran away, coward. But you have to use this chance really well, i.e. you need to refute all the above as I always do. And while you struggling to do so, keep in mind the following:

Only Dictionaries, Encyclopaedias, Google online Translation, Quran and Bible evidences will be allowed; your wishful thinking and your so called archegonial evidences will never be allowed, so don’t even think about presenting them.

But if you find my evidences to be overwhelming, then I expect you to be a man and concede that those freak minders are indeed a bunch of con-artists who only fool the fools and ignorant.

Finally keep this in mind:

1- I still have more evidences including other compelling grammatical concerning the two words Batn Makka which constitute what is called Genitive Construction in the Arabic language, but again I did not want to be very complicated upon the pinheads)

2- Have more Quran and Bible evidences

3- If you failed to refute logically and with merit, you will be dismissed and the logo of the Granmother of all Slams will be stamped

Salam
Brother, salam to you

I am speechless. I do not have words to express my appreciation for your great scholarly post. I am impressed. May I copy and save your post for use on other forums. It was very educational. :worthy:

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 9:44 am
by MesMorial
I think the :worthy: emote was placed here for the non-Muslims to worship :lol: But I agree it was an excellent post in itself. I often use Free-Minds.org to gather opinions but I would never ever use it as a source of information (except for some articles which are too busy replying to Sunnis and Shiites to create conspiracies). It is a rabble and they even redefined the "old dry palm branch" of 36:39 to suit their case.

May Allah bless you for your effort Ahmed.

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 11:52 am
by Ghalibkhastahaal
MesMorial wrote:I think the :worthy: emote was placed here for the non-Muslims to worship :lol: But I agree it was an excellent post in itself. I often use Free-Minds.org to gather opinions but I would never ever use it as a source of information (except for some articles which are too busy replying to Sunnis and Shiites to create conspiracies). It is a rabble and they even redefined the "old dry palm branch" of 36:39 to suit their case.

May Allah bless you for your effort Ahmed.
I had wanted to use :rock: but I did not like it. Since I considered the post extremely worthy and priceless, I added :worthy:

You are right in saying that it was an excellent post in itself.

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 12:52 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
My God, you people are crazy. :lol:

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 1:05 pm
by Ghalibkhastahaal
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:My God, you people are crazy. :lol:
That was cute.

Which God do you believe in, MBL?

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 1:31 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:My God, you people are crazy. :lol:
That was cute.

Which God do you believe in, MBL?
The one that doesn't tell us the sky is a canopy like thing that will tear open, stars run their course every night and hide themselves, the sun orbits the earth, mountains were inserted on to the earth like pegs.......The list goes on and on and on. And what is most convincing, is that these erroneous ideas weren't strange ideas at all, but rather matched the erroneous beliefs of people in the 7th century perfectly. That's what truly makes it clearly obvious that this is a 7th century man writing these verses, not the creator of the universe. The Quran NEVER tried to impart any scientific information and instead was trying to get people to believe in it. So it referenced the things people could all see and thought that they understood, and used these as evidences that Muhammad's Allah is the true God, but in doing so, it inadvertently confirmed the faulty beliefs of the 7th century without having any idea it was doing so at the time. And that is perfectly understandable. After all, who would have or could have ever guessed that the earth spins?? So instead, if refers to the sun and moon as running a daily course, the stars traveling to hide themselves every day..... and says nothing about any movement of the earth. It matches what we would expect a 7th century man to say perfectly. Fits like a glove.

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:20 pm
by Ghalibkhastahaal
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:My God, you people are crazy. :lol:
That was cute.

Which God do you believe in, MBL?
The one that doesn't tell us the sky is a canopy like thing that will tear open, stars run their course every night and hide themselves, the sun orbits the earth, mountains were inserted on to the earth like pegs.......The list goes on and on and on. And what is most convincing, is that these erroneous ideas weren't strange ideas at all, but rather matched the erroneous beliefs of people in the 7th century perfectly. That's what truly makes it clearly obvious that this is a 7th century man writing these verses, not the creator of the universe. The Quran NEVER tried to impart any scientific information and instead was trying to get people to believe in it. So it referenced the things people could all see and thought that they understood, and used these as evidences that Muhammad's Allah is the true God, but in doing so, it inadvertently confirmed the faulty beliefs of the 7th century without having any idea it was doing so at the time. And that is perfectly understandable. After all, who would have or could have ever guessed that the earth spins?? So instead, if refers to the sun and moon as running a daily course, the stars traveling to hide themselves every day..... and says nothing about any movement of the earth. It matches what we would expect a 7th century man to say perfectly. Fits like a glove.
Ah! OK! So you believe in the stone age and the bronze age Tribal God of the Bible, who never made people think and reflect. Is that so?

I agree with you on one point and I quote:
The Quran NEVER tried to impart any scientific information and instead was trying to get people to believe in it.
Indeed, Quran was not teaching Science to people. It is not a book of Science. It was making them look around at the Creation, reflect and believe that there is a Creator, whom we call Allah.

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:21 pm
by yeezevee
AhmedBahgat wrote:
The Cat wrote:A thread inviting AB to refute the following:
viewtopic.php?p=132612#p132612" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Hello the Cat

This was refuted 4 years ago on the freak minders web site http//free-minds.org;
however when I digged deep into their writings,
So they banned me for good, and that is why I launched free-islam.com in 2006.
So let the show begins..
what show?? you crazy bum, when you spew hate , write filth and use words like "shove in arse", people will ban you. Every one is not FFI you dumbo. You dig in to a pile of bullshitt you get bullshitt and that is what you are doing with early Islam in your posts.
The Cat wrote:The term 'makkata' in 48.24 must be questioned as meaning Mecca/Becca (3.96) like Muslims ascertain....
Spoiler! :
Sure let’s question the word

The word is a name of a place; being a place name means it has no meaning but to refer to that place. Like the human names for example, a person may be named مؤمن , Mu’min, which means Believer , but that person may be an unbeliever. Therefore, applying the meaning of the word on proper names cannot be a valid action or argument. This means when this human name is written in English, it has to be Mu’min and not Believer.
Spoiler! :
We don’t you see the English speaking people calling Cairo, Prevailing. Google Translate confirms that; let me put the image to build on it an irrefutable argument afterward:

Image

Now, the same word is also a feminine adjective to mean Prevailing, an example goes like this:
what all you are doing with that nonsense you write above is ., "Quran is NOT a word of Allah/God or goat but parable saying of some guy some time in 7th, 8th,9th century somewhere from middle of Arabian desert., That is bottom line of your Quran"/Krane or Qahira/Cairo...
Source

See, Wiki even traces Mecca to the second century AD. Are all these people conspiring with the Muslims for 1400 years but only those two con-artists Layth and Ayman came 1400 years later to expose them? It cannot be. Those two freaks are only using the ignornace of many Muslims with the Arabic langauage to fool them into the flawed root method to understand the Arabic words, for which I proved with no doubt that proper names (like human names, or places) cannot be translated.
yes wiki didn't get that from Allah you bum, wiki is editable website. The guy is asking for dollars, you donate some Arab dollars you can go and edit with a of bit historical facts in it . Here Jimmy is asking for donation..

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/WMF ... ry_code=US" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Go and donate some money and put your freak translation on wiki..
The freak minders replied to the above known fact through their FFI sidekick CAT with nothing but wishful thinking; see:
You silly freak., you like to take wiki when it suits you..
Well, how about the enemy of Islam William Muir who traced Mecca back to year 570? Yeh he too conspired with the Muslims?

Well, let me just consider all the above evidences inadmissible, including your favourite Wiki. (I am just saving you the long time to refute everything I said, as later on you will be hit with the irrefutable)
look at this guy., he picks up stuff from William Muir's book and pastes here as if it is the truth and nothing but truth., but the bum didn't read the original source where William Muir got his stuff ., You dumb William Muir's gets his stuff on that Zam-zam water from that German guy John Lewis Burckhardt who traveled Arabia before the birth of William Muir "read Travels in Arabia By John Lewis Burckhardt".

In fact one should not trust John Lewis Burckhardt also., these books were written some time in 1820's ., If you want to look at the real Islamic History .. Go back in time all the way to Persian writings., Those are the oldest authentically documented stuff on early Islam ., But again they get from your Hadith..

Buffalo brain..

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:30 pm
by yeezevee
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
The Quran NEVER tried to impart any scientific information and instead was trying to get people to believe in it.
Indeed, Quran was not teaching Science to people. It is not a book of Science.
Good then go and tell that to Idiots like Adnan Oktar turkey types http://www.harunyahya.com/theauthor.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; dear Ghalib., there are 1000s in Islam and many of them are Ph.Ds
It was making them look around at the Creation, reflect and believe that there is a Creator, whom we call Allah.
what?


Quran was making them look around at the Creation?? What is it doing now?? growing beards and potbelly pigs spewing hate in Mosques and making Blasphemy laws to kill and incite violence against every one who is not Muhammad follower??

there are 1000s of books that makes you to wonder about creation., why books? walk on the grass without shoes in early morning dew and wonder how genetics of grass works. You will realize more about the creation than what you get by reading that silly story book Quran. You don't need gibberish of Quran to tell you the wonders of nature dear Ghalib.

with best
yeezevee

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:39 pm
by yeezevee
Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
1). The one that doesn't tell us the sky is a canopy like thing that will tear open, stars run their course every night and hide themselves, the sun orbits the earth, mountains were inserted on to the earth like pegs.......The list goes on and on and on.


2). The Quran NEVER tried to impart any scientific information and instead was trying to get people to believe in it. So it referenced the things people could all see and thought that they understood, and used these as evidences that Muhammad's Allah is the true God, but in doing so, it inadvertently confirmed the faulty beliefs of the 7th century without having any idea it was doing so at the time. And that is perfectly understandable.

After all, who would have or could have ever guessed that the earth spins
??
So instead, if refers to the sun and moon as running a daily course, the stars traveling to hide themselves every day..... and says nothing about any movement of the earth. It matches what we would expect a 7th century man to say perfectly. Fits like a glove.
You are dropping BOMBS dear Muhammad bin Lyin., but you got to realize that there are plenty of Ph.D.s from Islamic background who not only gets "earth spin" but many more spin concepts such as electron spin, proton spin, Neutron Spin, Moon spin., Brain spin, fetus spin, sperm spin out of that silly book.

Once you lock your mind with a brain washed idea, that any book is word of Allah/God whatever then You are putting rubbish in your mind so you get rubbish from your mouth..