3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Shari'a, errancies, miracles and science
User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Post by The Cat »

yeezevee wrote: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..
You are right here, dear yeezevee, for William Muir died in 1905, way before the compelling archeological proofs were gathered...

Let's go on...
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

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

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Post by AhmedBahgat »

LOL, the Cat

Looking for help from confused yekee who only talks from his arse

Well, I told ya, I will consider Muir evidence inadmissible, just concentrate on your dictionaries and just refute the meaning they told us, along with the freaks minders crap 'in the midst of dectruction) when we test it within the context of verse 48:24 and the context of the whole sura 48

See, I am trying to help your confused bum by making it easier for ya

Ghalibkhastahaal
Posts: 554
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:20 pm

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Post by Ghalibkhastahaal »

Spoiler! :
yeezevee wrote: 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[/quote]
There are idiots here and there are idiots elsewhere. Each idiot wants to play his tune. So, don't fall for it.

The desert Arabs of Jahiliya period did not have thousands of books. Just one book changed them within 23 years. That is the difference, dear.

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

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Post by The Cat »

AhmedBahgat wrote:Hello the Cat
Hi AB! Thanks for the well researched post, the time and trouble you took for it is duly appreciated.
AhmedBahgat wrote:Qahira is translated in English to Cairo, why is that , Cat? What Cairo means in English, pal? It means the city of Qahira in Egypt, it does not mean Compelling or Prevailing.
A word can have different meanings when use as a noun, a proper noun, an adjective or a verb. It is thus the case for makkata in 48.24. A proper noun in Arabic is usually indicated by -ism- and we do not find it there. So it must be considered as a noun of which meaning we'll look at and NOT as a proper name indicating a location. This goes with the Koran's habit not to mention locations, except a few exceptions of which 'makkata' isn't.
AhmedBahgat wrote:So based on these, why the confused and manipulative freak minders want to translate the name of a city to the meaning of its root?
Thanks for acknowledging that 'destruction' is a ROOT form of 'makkata'. Since this is a ROOT form, one must prove that it differs like by showing the -ism- indicating a proper name. So here we face a conjecture stemming out from the wishful desire of the translators,

Makkata is nowhere else written, not even in 2.125 and 2.196 where it would have been plainly stated according to self-logic.
Yet, it wasn't there so HAD to be added in man-made ADDED brackets:

2:196 Perform the pilgrimage and the visit (to Makka) for Allah.
No 'makkata': Wa 'Atimmū Al-Ĥajja Wa Al-`Umrata Lillāhi.

2:125 And when We made the House (at Makka) a resort for mankind and sanctuary, (saying): Take as your place of worship
the place where Abraham stood (to pray). And We imposed a duty upon Abraham and Ishmael, (saying): Purify My house
for those who go around and those who meditate therein and those who bow down and prostrate themselves (in worship).


No 'makkata' either: Wa 'Idh Ja`alnā Al-Bayta Mathābatan Lilnnāsi Wa 'Amnāan Wa Attakhidhū Min Maqāmi 'Ibrāhīma

This HUGE silence, the total absence of -makkata- where it's badly needed is a Koranic prove that it can't be a location!
AhmedBahgat wrote:
The Cat wrote:and the oldest qiblas weren't pointing there but way up North.
What the Qiblas have to do with it?
Everything! Before around 710, they weren't pointing toward nowadays Mecca !

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/FredericDecat50722.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
If it was such an important place, certainly those to whom the trade was going would have noted its existence. Yet, WE FIND NOTHING, though the Greeks refer to the towns of Ta’if and Yathrib (later Medina ), as well as Khaybar in the north. The unmentioned of Mecca is indeed troubling for the historicity of a city whose importance lies at the center of the nascent Islam....

According to the Islamic tradition, the prayer’s direction was finalized towards Mecca for all Muslims in or around 624. But the archaeological evidence, which has been and is continuing to be uncovered from the first mosques built in the 7th century, by archaeologists Creswell and Fehervari concerning two Umayyad mosques in Iraq and one near Baghdad, had Qiblas not facing Mecca but oriented too far north. The Wasit mosque is off by 33 degrees, and the Baghdad mosque by 30 degrees.

This agrees with Balahhuri’s testimony (called the Futuh) that the Qibla of the first mosque in Kufa, Iraq, supposedly constructed in 670 lay to the west, while it should have pointed almost directly south. The Amr b. al As mosque outside Cairo in Egypt shows also that the Qibla again pointed too far north and had to be corrected by the governor Qurra b. Sharik. All above instance position the Qibla not towards Mecca but much further north, possibly to the vicinity of Jerusalem .

We find further corroboration for this direction of prayer by the Christian writer and traveler Jacob of Edessa, who, writing as late as 705 was a contemporary eye-witness in Egypt . He maintained that the Mahgraye (Greek name for Saracens) in Egypt prayed facing east and not south or south-east. His letter (still found in the British Museum ) is indeed revealing.

Therefore, as late as 705, the direction of prayer towards Mecca had not yet been canonized.
So, where were they pointing? We now have some computerized truly amazing result. LOOK!
Image
They point to the al-Ula (Dedan)-Hijr (Hegra) area, best explaining Muhammad's own Hijr (Hegira).
AhmedBahgat wrote:AGAIN WHERE IS THAT BLOODY DESTRUCTION THAT THEY WERE IN ITS MIDST?
The answer is simple: There was no destruction, rather there was Sakina, i.e. Tranquillity
Surah 48 (Conquest/Victory, al-Fath) is clearly in the context of a battle to be as per 48.20-22.
But, generally speaking, surah 48 talks about the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, in 628, as a 'victory'.
As per the treaty enacted bloodshed was spared, thus the Sakina mentioned, i.e. Tranquility !
AhmedBahgat wrote:according to them, all the above variations of the root MK should mean ’destruction’.
On this you've made a fairly good point :up: for at Hudaybiyyah there was negotiations, thus:
Al-Qamus Al-Muheet
Used with an opponent to mean others insisting on requests from him
Lisan Al-Arab & Al-Wasit:
4- تمكَّك , TAMAKKAK: Insisted on requests from an opponent
Al-Ghani
مَكَّكَ , MKK: Sucking; used with an opponent to mean others insisting on requests from him.

For 'what is sucked' should be understood as what is obtained/lost in such a negotiation.
It can refers to destruction (or enmity) avoided, still NOT as the proper name of a place.

If harsh negotiation
48:24 And He it is Who hath withheld men's hands from you, and hath withheld your hands from them,
in the midst of negotiations, after He had made you victors over them. Allah is Seer of what ye do.


If enmity avoided
48:24 And He it is Who hath withheld men's hands from you, and hath withheld your hands from them,
in the midst of enmity, after He had made you victors over them. Allah is Seer of what ye do.

AhmedBahgat wrote:
The Cat wrote:Sticking to makkata as a location named Mecca is thus -chronologically- devastating for Muslims.
What is devastating should be all the compelling evidences presented above
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Hudaybiyyah" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The treaty that took place between the state of Medina and the Quraishi tribe of Mecca in March 628CE.

There was no Quraishi tribe affected to a big pilgrimage center named Mecca. Such an important place would have been known
from external sources. Ta'if was so known, Yathrib and even Khaybar, but NOT MECCA. So it is all an obvious apologetic fabrication
mainly from the man-made Sira of Ibn Ishaq (that is rather from Ibn Hisham) and from the Hadiths. Do we trust them? NO.
AhmedBahgat wrote:
The Cat wrote:Thus the hadiths making the equation Abraham-Ishmael-Mecca (with Buraq!) are mythological !
Oh, come on, you may shove the hadith up your arse along with the lies and crap of the freak minders.
free-minds.org is a Koraner site, thus they reject the hadiths. But since you admit that the hadiths are corrupted,
I ask you to extand this to the LIE of Mecca. Basically, they were first concocted by the Abbasid to legitimate their
usurpation through a forged al-Muttalib/Muhammad/Abbas blood lineage...

The forged genealogy at the base of the (political) hadiths:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaiba_ibn_Hashim" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbas_ibn_Abd_al-Muttalib" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbasid_Caliphate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Abbasid caliphate was founded by the descendants of the Islamic prophet Muhammad's youngest uncle, Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As-Saffah" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
As-Saffah the head of one branch of the Banu Hashim, who traced their lineage to Hashim, a great-grandfather of Muhammad, via al-Abbas.

All this fabulation (Ishmael/al-Muttalib/Muhammad/Mecca) has been debunked by the inscription of king Abraha
Image

The inscription dated 552CE reads:
"With the power of the Almighty and His Messiah, King Abraha Zeebman, the King of Saba'a, Zuridan, and Hadrmaut and Yemen
and the tribes (on) the mountains and the coast wrote these lines on his battle against the tribe of Ma'ad (in) the battle of al-Rabiya
in the month of "Dhu al Thabithan" and fought all of Bani A'amir and appointed the King Abi Jabar with Kinda and Al, Bishar bin Hasan
with Sa'ad, Murad, and Hadarmaut in front of the army against Bani Amir of Kinda. and Al in Zu Markh valley and Murad and Sa'ad in
Manha valley on the way to Turban and killed and captured and took the booty in large quantities and the King and fought at Halban
and reached Ma'ad and took booty and prisoners, and after that, conquered Omro bin al-Munzir. (Abraha) appointed the son (of Omro)
as the ruler and returned from Hal Ban (halban) with the power of the Almighty in the month of Zu A'allan
in the year sixty-two and six hundred.
"

-- Abraha won.
-- No mention of Mecca whatsoever, while the province of Kinda is...
-- No mention of elephants (they would have needed a ton of water supply).
-- No mention of al-Muttalib nor of the Quraysh tribe.
--The inscription is ascertained 552AD, destroying the whole hadiths fabrications.


Thanks again for the time and trouble you took in your researched presentation.
Last edited by The Cat on Sat Nov 20, 2010 12:45 am, edited 3 times in total.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

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

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Post by AhmedBahgat »

Salam the Cat

Thanks for your reply

I have not read it yet, but will do in the next week as I will be away from home from 22/11 till 26/11 supervising some construction works about 800 KM from Sydney, so you may not get a reply all that time as my internet access will only be mobile which is not that fast or reliable, when i come back, i will read your comment thoroughly and reply if I have anything to say

Salam

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

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Post by The Cat »

AhmedBahgat wrote:Salam the Cat

Thanks for your reply

I have not read it yet, but will do in the next week as I will be away from home from 22/11 till 26/11 supervising some construction works about 800 KM from Sydney, so you may not get a reply all that time as my internet access will only be mobile which is not that fast or reliable, when i come back, i will read your comment thoroughly and reply if I have anything to say

Salam
Salam, take care... :wink:
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

User avatar
Muhammad bin Lyin
Posts: 5859
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: A Mosque on Uranus

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

Perfect time for Baghat to not have internet access, eh?? :lol:
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night

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

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Post by AhmedBahgat »

Hello the Cat

I still have not read your comment thourghly, bear in mind that I am doing this while being infected with a horrible flu that knocked me out completely for 48 hours and is massively disturbing my hearing system and balance and is on a lot of medication, therefore I will read your reply when i feel competent to think properly, what helped with my refute is the fact I mentioned that I have been through it 4 years ago with the same people you resource as a source of information.

Now, for me to reject the archeological evidences as admissible is simply to save the debate and make it healthy, because all archeological evidences are questionable and can lead to a combination of true and false implications.

Simply it means that, it will be a ping pong game between us, which will consume us then we end by disagreeing. So I am not interested at all on that. You have to know that, I am under no obligation to prove anything to anyone but myself. At the same time I know that it is all about BELIEF in God and His messenger and His scripture. Now if my belief does not harm you then we should have no issue between us. For you is what you believe, and for myself is what i believe. When things become facts, that is a different story, as in that case there should be no debate from the first place about any fact.

Now the fact you should know well that I can with ease question people's opinions and present other countering people's opinions. The same ping pong game I am talking about, for example; the following is from a web site:

Source

Thus, according to Crone and Cook and Hawting, the combination of the archaeological evidence from Iraq along with the literary evidence from Egypt points unambiguously to a sanctuary [and thus direction of prayer] not in the south, but somewhere in north-west Arabia (or even further north) at least till the end of the seventh century (Crone-Cook 1977:24).

What is happening here? Why are the Qiblas of these early mosques not facing towards Mecca? Why the discrepancy between the Qur'an and that which archaeology as well as documents reveal as late as 705 A.D.?

Some Muslims argue that perhaps the early Muslims did not know the direction of Mecca. Yet these were desert traders, caravaneers! Their livelihood was dependant on travelling the desert, which has few landmarks, and, because of the sandstorms, no roads. They, above all, knew how to follow the stars. Their lives depended on it. Certainly they knew the difference between the north and the south.

Furthermore, the mosques in Iraq and Egypt were built in civilized urban areas, amongst a sophisticated people who were well adept at finding directions. It is highly unlikely that they would miscalculate their qiblas by so many degrees. How else did they perform the obligatory Hajj, which we are told was also canonized at this time? And why are so many of the mosques facing in the direction of northern Arabia, or possibly Jerusalem? A possible answer may be found by looking at archaeology once again; this time in Jerusalem itself.


Which talks similar to what you talk, that early mosques in Egypt were pointing north to Jerusalem and not south to Mecca.

See the underlined part, it is argumentative, so the author argued back by saying no, those early Muslims knew directions very well because they traveled a lot. Which is nothing but wishful thinking, I.E. a mere belief. NOT A FACT. It is not like impossible to make mistakes, especially we are not talking norther and south from Egypt, rather North-East and South-East. In the second underlined part, the author refuted himself, because he said: It is highly unlikely that they would miscalculate their qiblas by so many degrees. Well, 'highly unlikely' does not make it a fact that it can never happen, in fact it means that least likely that they did many mistakes.

I am a Civil Engineer, pal, and I now till today, not bloody year 700, that good engineers make horrible construction mistakes, and I am sure you know a lot too. Therefore people making many mistakes back then cannot be assumed impossible.

Also another important fact that you have to know, there is no such thing that a mosque should be facing the qiblah, it can bloody face any direction, as long as the people inside it are pointing to the proper direction of Qiblah irrespective to how the building is pointing, I am sure you have seen many mosques like that too. I prayed in hundreds like that. This is should be obvious because it is the people who are praying not the mosque. I agree that it is better logic to make the mosque facing qiblah but only from a logical design point of view, that is if you align the rows inside parallel with the walls, you should get max number, unlike if the building face if off 45 degrees from Qiblah, so the rows of people will be on an angel in relation to the mosque wall, which may lead to losing some precious space that can be used for more people who want to pray, but again it was never a compulsory thing to do, rather a good thing to do

Now, if we consider the hadith to be part of the bloody archeological evidences you are talking about, then we should consider what these people are saying:



And this is what I am talking about, pal. the same ping pong game, so please save us the time and effort

Salam
Last edited by AhmedBahgat on Sun Nov 21, 2010 7:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Post by The Cat »

AhmedBahgat wrote:Some Muslims argue that perhaps the early Muslims did not know the direction of Mecca....

It is highly unlikely that they would miscalculate their qiblas by so many degrees.
Well, 'highly unlikely' does not make it a fact that it can never happen,
in fact it means that lowly likely that they did many mistakes.
Not impossible but, as it is said, most unlikely. Early Muslims simply knew that the pilgrimage was performed elsewhere.

That is: Where was originally the Maqam Ibrahim (Gen.19.24-28). We are NOT in Jerusalem or Mecca, we're in Midian territory.

I see no other explanation. Do you?
AhmedBahgat wrote:Now, if we consider the hadith to be part of the bloody archeological evidences you are talking about...
You know I don't... please!

The hadiths' account is but a magnified version of Gen.21.14-21 (adding 1,000 miles of torching desert, forth and back and forth, etc):
And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child and sent her away: and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba. And the water was spent in the bottle, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs. And she went, and sat her down over against him a good way off, as it were a bow shot: for she said, Let me not see the death of the child. And she sat over against him, and lift up her voice, and wept.

And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is. Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation. And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink. And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer. And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran: and his mother took him a wife out of the land of Egypt.
So Ishmael was sent as a messenger to the Midianites, NOT to the southern Arabs.
For if it's so, as per the hadiths... Muhammad can't be their assigned messenger !

Have a good time outside Sydney (although that flu)...
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

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

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Post by AhmedBahgat »

AhmedBahgat wrote:Hello the Cat
The Cat wrote:Hi AB! Thanks for the well researched post, the time and trouble you took for it is duly appreciated.
Hello

I still have more. But let me see what you have to say
AhmedBahgat wrote:Qahira is translated in English to Cairo, why is that , Cat? What Cairo means in English, pal? It means the city of Qahira in Egypt, it does not mean Compelling or Prevailing.
The Cat wrote:A word can have different meanings when use as a noun, a proper noun, an adjective or a verb.
But the word you have is a proper noun. It seems you are eager to take a very complicated lesson in the Arabic grammar. Are you ready for it?
The Cat wrote:It is thus the case for makkata in 48.24. A proper noun in Arabic is usually indicated by -ism- and we do not find it there.
What the hell was that exactly?

The word Makkata is Ism already, i.e. proper noun. i.e Ism of a place. When I walk you through the very tough Arabic grammar lesson later, you should know how ignorant you are. But you should be excused because you know no Arabic, the ones who should never be excused are the con-artists of freak minds Layth and Ayman who know Arabic but yet continue to deceive the ignorant like you.
The Cat wrote:So it must be considered as a noun of which meaning we'll look at and NOT as a proper name indicating a location.
So far, you are talking pure rubbish, again, the name Makka is a proper Ism, i.e. a proper noun, and I showed you 3 dictionaries stating so, that it is a proper noun of a place, and they even explained through different opinions why it is called so. Now, what you need to do is prove those 3 dictionaries wrong, but you cannot because you are using the same dictionaries to prove your deluded case.
The Cat wrote: This goes with the Koran's habit not to mention locations, except a few exceptions of which 'makkata' isn't.
How stupid again, firstly there is no such thing called Quran habit, this is just pure stupidity. However I have to corner you in here waiting to upper cut you, you need to bring all those exceptions where the Quran mentioned places (numerous places), then explain why Mecca is not one of them

Stating such dull and dumb statements is not going to work with me, pal.
AhmedBahgat wrote:So based on these, why the confused and manipulative freak minders want to translate the name of a city to the meaning of its root?
The Cat wrote:Thanks for acknowledging that 'destruction' is a ROOT form of 'makkata'
Are you that manipulated manipulator?

Destruction was only one of the meanings of the roots, the last one to be precise

How about the main meaning which is SUCKING, like sucking brains, sucking milk, sucking bones, for which the dictionaries said Mecca got its name from because the people used to suck water from the ground with difficulty.

Yet, even if we take destruction to be the meaning, then as I said numerous time in my irrefutable reply, it was the destruction of:

1- Sins
2- The bad people

It was never the destruction of believers, you lying fool.
The Cat wrote: Since this is a ROOT form,
Again you blind fool, it is not the root, it is one of the meanings of the root, and I showed you that all dictionaries said that it means SUCKING, while not all of them said that it means Destroy, consequently the main meaning of the root should be SUCKING and not DESTROYING. This fits Makka well because it has no water and they used to suck it with difficulty from the ground.

Your manipulated and wishful thinking crap holds no water. Just dust in thin air.
The Cat wrote: one must prove that it differs like by showing the -ism- indicating a proper name. So here we face a conjecture stemming out from the wishful desire of the translators,
Total BS

The two words ‘Batn Makka’, constitute what is called Genitive Construction, genitive means that the last letter in the second word must end with a KASRAH vowel, so let me put a big image of the two words and see if it Makka ends with a KASRAH under the last letter in it:

Source of Image
Image

The image above shows three words:

1- The Preposition Bi: بِ, Bi, i.e. In
2- The first word in the Genitive Construction: بَطْنِ , Batni, i.e. the midst of
3- The second word in the Genitive Construction: مَكَّةَ , Makkata, i.e. Mecca

Now, listen carefully, pal:

Genitive Construction in the Arabic grammar has very restrict rules, one of its rules is this:

- The second word MUST be genitive, hence its name 'Genitive Construction'. This means that the second word in the genitive construction MUST have a KASRAH under the last letter.

- Now, look at the image above from Quran verse 48:24, I highlighted the last letter of the second word of the Genitive Construction in red. However, it does not have a KASRAH under it, i.e. it is not genitive which violates the rule of the Genitive Construction that the last letter in the second word must be genitive. Well, the rest of the rule is as follow:

- The last letter of the second word in the Genitive Construction must be genitive with a KASRAH under it, unless the second word is ممنوع من الصرف , Mamnoo Mn Al-Sarf. I don’t know how to translate this exactly to English, but in simple terms: Prohibited for Noonation and must be genitive with a FATHA above the last letter in lieu of a KASRAH under the last letter.

- Now, look at the word Makka again in the Quran photo above, we have that FATHA (Accusative) above the last letter, seen in red. i.e. the word Makka is ممنوع من الصرف , Mamnoo Mn Al-Sarf; see below from An Arabic grammar web site:

Source of Image
Image

What they are saying above in simple terms: أن مكة ممنوعة من الصرف , i.e. Because Makka is Mamnoo Mn Al-Sarf

- This should take us to the next question, when is a noun will be ممنوع من الصرف , Mamnoo Mn Al-Sarf? The answer is as follow from the same grammar web site, :

Source of Image
Image

What they are saying, it happens when it is : العلم المؤنث المختوم بتاء التأنيث , i.e. A proper feminine name that is ending with the feminine Ta.

Guess what, pal, Makka is an Arabic word that is:

1- Proper name
2- Feminine
3- Ending with the feminine Ta, the highlighted letter in red seen in the first Quran image.

In fact they even listed the word مكة circled in blue as an example.

Here you have it, pal, I just showed you that Makka is a proper feminine name. This should shut your ignorant mouth for good along with your deceitful con-teachers Layth and his clown Ayman.

It also means that the Grandmother of all slams have been executed. i.e. Game Over.

I.e. this is my final serious session in this debate. You may reply afterward but as for me, Game is Over.

And I am sorry to tell you that it became evident to me that I have to dismiss the rest of your crap without even reading it, and I am really serious here, I have not read it. But if you feel that there is in it a strong point that you made, please copy that point only in a new comment and I will reply to it inshaallah. Salam
The Cat wrote:Makkata is nowhere else written, not even in 2.125 and 2.196 where it would have been plainly stated according to self-logic.
Yet, it wasn't there so HAD to be added in man-made ADDED brackets:

2:196 Perform the pilgrimage and the visit (to Makka) for Allah.
No 'makkata': Wa 'Atimmū Al-Ĥajja Wa Al-`Umrata Lillāhi.

2:125 And when We made the House (at Makka) a resort for mankind and sanctuary, (saying): Take as your place of worship
the place where Abraham stood (to pray). And We imposed a duty upon Abraham and Ishmael, (saying): Purify My house
for those who go around and those who meditate therein and those who bow down and prostrate themselves (in worship).


No 'makkata' either: Wa 'Idh Ja`alnā Al-Bayta Mathābatan Lilnnāsi Wa 'Amnāan Wa Attakhidhū Min Maqāmi 'Ibrāhīma

This HUGE silence, the total absence of -makkata- where it's badly needed is a Koranic prove that it can't be a location!
AhmedBahgat wrote:
The Cat wrote:and the oldest qiblas weren't pointing there but way up North.
What the Qiblas have to do with it?
Everything! Before around 710, they weren't pointing toward nowadays Mecca !

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/FredericDecat50722.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
If it was such an important place, certainly those to whom the trade was going would have noted its existence. Yet, WE FIND NOTHING, though the Greeks refer to the towns of Ta’if and Yathrib (later Medina ), as well as Khaybar in the north. The unmentioned of Mecca is indeed troubling for the historicity of a city whose importance lies at the center of the nascent Islam....

According to the Islamic tradition, the prayer’s direction was finalized towards Mecca for all Muslims in or around 624. But the archaeological evidence, which has been and is continuing to be uncovered from the first mosques built in the 7th century, by archaeologists Creswell and Fehervari concerning two Umayyad mosques in Iraq and one near Baghdad, had Qiblas not facing Mecca but oriented too far north. The Wasit mosque is off by 33 degrees, and the Baghdad mosque by 30 degrees.

This agrees with Balahhuri’s testimony (called the Futuh) that the Qibla of the first mosque in Kufa, Iraq, supposedly constructed in 670 lay to the west, while it should have pointed almost directly south. The Amr b. al As mosque outside Cairo in Egypt shows also that the Qibla again pointed too far north and had to be corrected by the governor Qurra b. Sharik. All above instance position the Qibla not towards Mecca but much further north, possibly to the vicinity of Jerusalem .

We find further corroboration for this direction of prayer by the Christian writer and traveler Jacob of Edessa, who, writing as late as 705 was a contemporary eye-witness in Egypt . He maintained that the Mahgraye (Greek name for Saracens) in Egypt prayed facing east and not south or south-east. His letter (still found in the British Museum ) is indeed revealing.

Therefore, as late as 705, the direction of prayer towards Mecca had not yet been canonized.
So, where were they pointing? We now have some computerized truly amazing result. LOOK!
Image
They point to the al-Ula (Dedan)-Hijr (Hegra) area, best explaining Muhammad's own Hijr (Hegira).
AhmedBahgat wrote:AGAIN WHERE IS THAT BLOODY DESTRUCTION THAT THEY WERE IN ITS MIDST?
The answer is simple: There was no destruction, rather there was Sakina, i.e. Tranquillity
Surah 48 (Conquest/Victory, al-Fath) is clearly in the context of a battle to be as per 48.20-22.
But, generally speaking, surah 48 talks about the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, in 628, as a 'victory'.
As per the treaty enacted bloodshed was spared, thus the Sakina mentioned, i.e. Tranquility !
AhmedBahgat wrote:according to them, all the above variations of the root MK should mean ’destruction’.
On this you've made a fairly good point :up: for at Hudaybiyyah there was negotiations, thus:
Al-Qamus Al-Muheet
Used with an opponent to mean others insisting on requests from him
Lisan Al-Arab & Al-Wasit:
4- تمكَّك , TAMAKKAK: Insisted on requests from an opponent
Al-Ghani
مَكَّكَ , MKK: Sucking; used with an opponent to mean others insisting on requests from him.

For 'what is sucked' should be understood as what is obtained/lost in such a negotiation.
It can refers to destruction (or enmity) avoided, still NOT as the proper name of a place.

If harsh negotiation
48:24 And He it is Who hath withheld men's hands from you, and hath withheld your hands from them,
in the midst of negotiations, after He had made you victors over them. Allah is Seer of what ye do.


If enmity avoided
48:24 And He it is Who hath withheld men's hands from you, and hath withheld your hands from them,
in the midst of enmity, after He had made you victors over them. Allah is Seer of what ye do.

AhmedBahgat wrote:
The Cat wrote:Sticking to makkata as a location named Mecca is thus -chronologically- devastating for Muslims.
What is devastating should be all the compelling evidences presented above
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Hudaybiyyah" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The treaty that took place between the state of Medina and the Quraishi tribe of Mecca in March 628CE.

There was no Quraishi tribe affected to a big pilgrimage center named Mecca. Such an important place would have been known
from external sources. Ta'if was so known, Yathrib and even Khaybar, but NOT MECCA. So it is all an obvious apologetic fabrication
mainly from the man-made Sira of Ibn Ishaq (that is rather from Ibn Hisham) and from the Hadiths. Do we trust them? NO.
AhmedBahgat wrote:
The Cat wrote:Thus the hadiths making the equation Abraham-Ishmael-Mecca (with Buraq!) are mythological !
Oh, come on, you may shove the hadith up your arse along with the lies and crap of the freak minders.
free-minds.org is a Koraner site, thus they reject the hadiths. But since you admit that the hadiths are corrupted,
I ask you to extand this to the LIE of Mecca. Basically, they were first concocted by the Abbasid to legitimate their
usurpation through a forged al-Muttalib/Muhammad/Abbas blood lineage...

The forged genealogy at the base of the (political) hadiths:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaiba_ibn_Hashim" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbas_ibn_Abd_al-Muttalib" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbasid_Caliphate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Abbasid caliphate was founded by the descendants of the Islamic prophet Muhammad's youngest uncle, Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As-Saffah" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
As-Saffah the head of one branch of the Banu Hashim, who traced their lineage to Hashim, a great-grandfather of Muhammad, via al-Abbas.

All this fabulation (Ishmael/al-Muttalib/Muhammad/Mecca) has been debunked by the inscription of king Abraha
Image

The inscription dated 552CE reads:
"With the power of the Almighty and His Messiah, King Abraha Zeebman, the King of Saba'a, Zuridan, and Hadrmaut and Yemen
and the tribes (on) the mountains and the coast wrote these lines on his battle against the tribe of Ma'ad (in) the battle of al-Rabiya
in the month of "Dhu al Thabithan" and fought all of Bani A'amir and appointed the King Abi Jabar with Kinda and Al, Bishar bin Hasan
with Sa'ad, Murad, and Hadarmaut in front of the army against Bani Amir of Kinda. and Al in Zu Markh valley and Murad and Sa'ad in
Manha valley on the way to Turban and killed and captured and took the booty in large quantities and the King and fought at Halban
and reached Ma'ad and took booty and prisoners, and after that, conquered Omro bin al-Munzir. (Abraha) appointed the son (of Omro)
as the ruler and returned from Hal Ban (halban) with the power of the Almighty in the month of Zu A'allan
in the year sixty-two and six hundred.
"

-- Abraha won.
-- No mention of Mecca whatsoever, while the province of Kinda is...
-- No mention of elephants (they would have needed a ton of water supply).
-- No mention of al-Muttalib nor of the Quraysh tribe.
--The inscription is ascertained 552AD, destroying the whole hadiths fabrications.
Image
The Cat wrote:Thanks again for the time and trouble you took in your researched presentation.
No worries. Take care

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

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Post by The Cat »

AhmedBahgat wrote:Again you blind fool, it is not the root, it is one of the meanings of the root, and I showed that all dictionaries said that it means SUCKING, while not all of them said that it means Destroy, consequently the main mean of the root should be SUCKING and not DESTROYING. This fits Makka well because it has no water and they used to suck with difficulty from the ground.
How can a place with not much water be a major trading and pilgrimage center? Or will you bring about the Zamzam miracle ?

Now, you're right that MKK's main ROOT is 'sucked', thus fitting the context of the negotiations leading to the Hudaibiyyah Treaty. See:

Al-Qamus Al-Muheet: Used with an opponent to mean others insisting on requests from him

Lisan Al-Arab & Al-Wasit: تمكَّك , TAMAKKAK: Insisted on requests from an opponent

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


For 'what is sucked' should be understood as what is obtained/lost in such a negotiation.
It can refers to destruction (or enmity) avoided, still NOT as the proper name of a place.

If harsh negotiation
48:24 And He it is Who hath withheld men's hands from you, and hath withheld your hands from them,
in the midst of swindles, after He had made you victors over them. Allah is Seer of what ye do.
AhmedBahgat wrote:The image above shows three words:

1- The Preposition Bi: بِ, Bi, i.e. In
2- The first word in the Genitive Construction: بَطْنِ , Batni, i.e. the midst of
3- The second word in the Genitive Construction: مَكَّةَ , Makkata, i.e. Mecca
48.24: Wa Huwa Al-Ladhī Kaffa 'Aydiyahum `Ankum Wa 'Aydiyakum `Anhum Bibaţni Makkata... (Not Al-Makkata).

Either way your fallacy is being exposed: There's no AL for the nominative, no ism for a proper name. In 'bibatni' the preposition is already
given in the 'bi' (IN). You are deceptively adding 'makkata' to this genitive construction because there was NO Kasrah, in fact there was no
diacritical mark whatsoever in the Koran's Arabic, obviously added here by the Islamic Pharisees you and the Koran otherwise disapprove.

Your construction is thus nothing but a conjecture, the kind dismissed by the Koran itself...
53.28: They follow but a guess, and lo! a guess can never take the place of the truth.

Same as the subterfuge we've seen in man-made added brackets:

2:196 Perform the pilgrimage and the visit (to Makka) for Allah.
No 'makkata': Wa 'Atimmū Al-Ĥajja Wa Al-`Umrata Lillāhi.

2:125 And when We made the House (at Makka) a resort for mankind and sanctuary, (saying): Take as your place of worship
the place where Abraham stood (to pray). And We imposed a duty upon Abraham and Ishmael, (saying): Purify My house
for those who go around and those who meditate therein and those who bow down and prostrate themselves (in worship).


No 'makkata' either: Wa 'Idh Ja`alnā Al-Bayta Mathābatan Lilnnāsi Wa 'Amnāan Wa Attakhidhū Min Maqāmi 'Ibrāhīma

This HUGE silence, the total absence of -makkata- where it's badly needed is a Koranic prove that it can't be a location!

53.23: They are naught but names which you have named, you and your fathers; Allah has not sent for them any authority.
They follow naught but conjecture and the low desires which (their) souls incline to...

AhmedBahgat wrote:I have to dismiss the rest of your crap without even reading it, And I am really serious here, I have not read it.
But you did have a look, didn't you? EVIDENCES are there to stay, if you dismiss them or not!
Image
Image

For there was NO MECCA in existence by the 5th/6th century that we know of. Prove me wrong or else eat your socks !
http://religionresearchinstitute.org/me ... eology.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you persist in stating that makkata means Mecca, then you are saying that the Koran lied.
Good luck in Hell ! :dev: :evil2:
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

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

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Post by AhmedBahgat »

Hello the Cat

I will look at this one for now, then I will look at the other one later inshaallah:
The Cat wrote:All this fabulation (Ishmael/al-Muttalib/Muhammad/Mecca) has been debunked by the inscription of king Abraha
Image

The inscription dated 552CE reads:
"With the power of the Almighty and His Messiah, King Abraha Zeebman, the King of Saba'a, Zuridan, and Hadrmaut and Yemen
and the tribes (on) the mountains and the coast wrote these lines on his battle against the tribe of Ma'ad (in) the battle of al-Rabiya
in the month of "Dhu al Thabithan" and fought all of Bani A'amir and appointed the King Abi Jabar with Kinda and Al, Bishar bin Hasan
with Sa'ad, Murad, and Hadarmaut in front of the army against Bani Amir of Kinda. and Al in Zu Markh valley and Murad and Sa'ad in
Manha valley on the way to Turban and killed and captured and took the booty in large quantities and the King and fought at Halban
and reached Ma'ad and took booty and prisoners, and after that, conquered Omro bin al-Munzir. (Abraha) appointed the son (of Omro)
as the ruler and returned from Hal Ban (halban) with the power of the Almighty in the month of Zu A'allan
in the year sixty-two and six hundred.
"

-- Abraha won.
-- No mention of Mecca whatsoever, while the province of Kinda is...
-- No mention of elephants (they would have needed a ton of water supply).
-- No mention of al-Muttalib nor of the Quraysh tribe.
--The inscription is ascertained 552AD, destroying the whole hadiths fabrications.

Thanks again for the time and trouble you took in your researched presentation.
Apparently you do not see the flaw in your logic above concerning your so called archaeological evidence of the inscription of King Abraha.

King Abraha was living in Sanaa Tamen, therefore he was an Arabic speaker. Your Barbie scripture is written in a language that you did not even tell us about, but certainly not Arabic, it is not like someone will come with some chicken sh!t or rubbish and claim this is the inscription of Abraha and so it is a fact.

The above so called inscription looks to me a forgery, a photo shop job, you can see how the letters are so bright which makes no sense especially with the two different directions of the rows which are overlapping each other in the middle, as seen with the three arrows I added to this forged photo shop image.

Now, Abraha lived for some time and conquered many villages as told in this funny inscription, therefore it is not like these only 10 lines or so are telling us all his history and what he did or heard about, just thinking this way is totally insane and ridiculous. It is not like we should have read in this unknown language of a few words that Abraha heard of Kabba and he is going to destroy it.

The un-mentioning of Kabba in this funny so called archaeological evidence does not really mean that Abraha did not know about it. And certainly he could have never added it after after he was killed in the battle of Mecca as the Quran told us. One guy whom I know responded to one of the deluded idiots like Cat concerning the same archaeological Abraha crap. So I would like to copy it but direct it at the Cat instead:

Here is the Cat believing in wild stories about Abraha’s army advancing on Arab tribes that was written on some alleged rock that was discovered some years before Muhammad's time. And the fact that he leaves out who and when this archaeological discovery was found, or proof that such a discovery was made probably has the audience on the edge of their seats in suspense of his magical rock. I mean what Arabs would agree to make up a story of their people being flogged to death?. You see, Cat thinks that a picture of a rock with clearly made up writing (as no old rock would be dug up with clear, bright, white writing on it) and no proof of who and when this rock was discovered, and whether it is actually authentic and that any other historically backed up evidence. The Cat has fallen for the old adage that If a lie is told over a long period of time it becomes fact. But this cannot change the fact that it is still a lie.

The Cat thinks that because the alleged archaeological find predates Islam by nearly 50 years somehow disproves the fact that Muhammad received revelation around 610 in Mecca. Yet we should note that he himself stated that the rock does not mention Mecca or the Kabba. Then it's absolutely absurd to say that the mentioning of Abraha trying to attack the Kabba is an invention of Muslims. For since it's two different stories, then there's a possibility of two different events being spoken of. See the idiocy in his posts. It's the same kind of foolish logic we find in all the freak minder arguments.

Back to Abraha’s conquest; according to his make-believe archaeological find. Abraha was victorious and the carved stone has been confirmed and date confirmed. So where does this leave us? Well, we can rely on an alleged archaeological find supported by no proof of who or when or how it was discovered or whether the inscription is true. It isn’t possible that some rock discovery can disprove or overrule the fact that Abraha was alive in 570 to conduct his quest upon Mecca. The inscription on the alleged rock which mentioned some prominent areas and peoples of Arabia but not Mecca, the Kabba and Quraysh proves nothing, because of the simple fact that the possibility that of it not being mentioned can be due to the fact that it relates to a different event. One should also take note that Mecca, the Kabba and Quraysh are all in Arabia and Cat even states that Abraha led a military expedition on Arab tribes. So a claim that Abraha intended to attack the Kabba is not far-fetched, unlike his claim through the freak minders about Mecca.

I’m really glad you are having a go at this conspiracy theory about Islam and Mecca because after what you copied from the freak minders and their likes, I am confident the absurdity in your logic is crystal clear to any reasonable person. You are pretty much admitting how flawed your logic is with such so called Abraha’s Inscription which is plagiarism of the freak minders argument. But now, you will not be able to debunk my argument, because by doing so, you will be debunking yours, as my argument regarding the so called Abraha’s Inscription is the same as yours. All wishful thinking, what I warned you about earlier regarding the always doubtful so called archaeological evidences.

So let me now make it clear, the Cat, just because you or else claim that an archaeological discovery is found, is not proof that it was found. Just because you refer to the freak minders which states your evidence is not proof that it is true. You have proven nothing as the freak minders and others proved nothing before you. You are simply copying and pasting links and articles claiming that they are true, but you don't have proof. There are websites stating that Big Foot is real, and Tupac and Elvis are still alive, but it doesn't make it true.

The point is that I'm not even stating that the archaeological find was not discovered, but that your logic behind stating that something is true is severely flawed. I've been demonstrating that in my plagiarism of your argument concering Abraha’s Inscription, in effect debunking me would be debunking yourself.

Even if the find was actually discovered, it is not proof that the inscription is true. Nor can you prove that the inscription is true. And even if the inscription is true, it still does not prove your point. For as you stated, the rock is dated 552 A.D., while Muhammad was born 570 A.D. Then since there are two different dates and the inscription states an event different from the year of the elephant in Islamic sources, then the logical conclusion is that the discovery refers to a DIFFERENT event. How do we know? Because you just told us that the date of the inscription and events are different. Thus your argument that the year of the elephant is made up in Islamic records is bogus. To even further debunk your absurdity, those who were first to accept Islam were Arabs themselves. The simple fact that they accepted Islam is further evidence which supports the fact that the story is true. For the Arabs of that time would know their history and would have easily criticized and rejected Islam for such a false interpolation of their history of their own people. Yet there is no such case or document in which the Arabs questioned that the year of the elephant is wrong explained in Islamic. So as demonstrated and as usual, your argument fails. I suggest you pick up a book on how to use logical thinking and proof, for your habit of copying and pasting and then stating it is true with no proof is truly an embarrassment.

An archaeological discovery mentioning a different year and instances is proof of a different event, not that another story is made up. Such a conclusion is absurd. By that logic, that means that all history which is not mentioned in the archaeological fins is false. That is simply ridiculous. Secondly, the fact that the Arabs accepted and embraced Islam is very strong evidence to support the fact that the incident concerning the year of the elephant mentioned in Islamic records is true. Otherwise, the Arabs would have rejected Islam, not embrace it. Your logic is utterly flawed Cat. Get over it, you have been mother slam dunked

Thanks to my friend, and thank you Cat

Cheers

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

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Post by The Cat »

AhmedBahgat wrote:King Abraha was living in Sanaa Tamen, therefore he was an Arabic speaker. Your Barbie scripture is written in a language that you did not even tell us about, but certainly not Arabic, it is not like someone will come with some chicken sh!t or rubbish and claim this is the inscription of Abraha and so it is a fact.

The above so called inscription looks to me a forgery, a photo shop job, you can see how the letters are so bright which makes no sense especially with the two different directions of the rows which are overlapping each other in the middle, as seen with the three arrows I added to this forged photo shop image.
Look who's into conspiracy theory... For the picture originates from: The Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History!
http://www.mnh.si.edu/EPIGRAPHY/e_pre-i ... an_img.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now, you're simply displaying your ignorance on history in general, how an inscription stands above all speculations, and then of king Abraha and of former Arabic scripts. For he was an Abyssinian king (Ethiopia), reigning over the Aksumite Empire, which included parts of Christianized Yemen.
Image

Now the script -is Arabic- but Yemenite's Sabean, that is of the Musnad type (see the Zabur script).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Arabian_alphabet" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This alone is proving that it was written in Pre-Islamic time for the Musnad type disappeared shortly after the emergence of Islam. Now there's something odd about the fact that the northern Nabatean script prevailed (from Aramaic) instead of the Musnad, for the later was better fit to express Arabic's 28 phonemes than the 22 alphabet letters of the Nabateans. That is clearly indicating a northern origin for the Koranic Arabic, rather than a central one. Now the inscriptions in the desert are incredibly well preserved due to the lack of rain and humidity. Here's another Musnad inscription...
Image

The former umm al-Qura (or mother towns) are displayed in red where the oldest Arabic scripts were discovered,
the green being those of the Musnad type. We shall note that in the beginning of Islam the whole area, including
Hegra (al-Hijr), Al-Ula (Dedan), where the earliest qiblas are pointing, was named WADI AL-QURA !
Image
AhmedBahgat wrote:it's absolutely absurd to say that the mentioning of Abraha trying to attack the Kabba is an invention of Muslims.
Since when do you believe in the Ibn Ishaq fabulations? Did he mention Abraha associated with Mecca, an elephant called Mahmud refusing to attack the kaaba? YES. Is this mythological? YES. Did Ibn Ishaq joined this with the Year of the Elephant as of 570. YES. Since when do you stand by his fabulations?

The Abraha inscription still stands at its place of origin (in Mureighan) and there's another from Abraha. Now I took the picture from an Islamic site, displaying the original from the Smithsonian institute. The inscription also clearly states that ar-Rahman (the Beneficent) was the name for God in the Christian Yemenite/Ethiopian communities, it opens with: ''bi khayl Rahmanan wa masyha''. It's plainly crushing your traditional chronology:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Response ... man_av.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
A far greater problem for the Islamic traditions is that the Sabean date on this inscription is 552 A.D.1 According to the most recent scholarship, Abraha died in 553 A.D. or shortly thereafter2 – but, according to the Muslims, Muhammad was born in 570 A.D. So, if we want to believe the Muslim traditions concerning Abraha, we have to push Muhammad's birth back 15, 16 or even 18 years. This has enormous consequences for much of early Islamic history. If Muhammad was born 18 years earlier, when did Muhammad begin to receive revelations? When did the Hijrah occur? When did Muhammad die? When did various battles take place, and when did the first four Caliphs reign? This is potentially messing up everything that Muslims believe about their early history. Moreover, this may cast doubt on much of the Islamic Traditions. The accuracy of their so-called "Sahih" Hadiths cannot be trusted because the "chains of transmission" may now be broken - most events in the life of Muhammad has been pushed back 18 years and gaps are bound to open up somewhere in the chains between Muhammad and the time of Bukhari, Muslim, and the other collectors.....

Muhammad ibn al-Sa'ib (died 726 A.D.) said that Muhammad was born 15 years before the "Year of the Elephant". Ja'far ibn Abi 'l-Mughira (died early 8th century A.D.) dates Muhammad's birth 10 years after the "Year of the Elephant", while Al-Kalbi tells us that Shu'ayb ibn Ishaq (died 805 A.D.) said that Muhammad was born 23 years after this event. Al-Zuhri (died 742 A.D.) believed that Muhammad was born 30 years after the "Year of the Elephant", while Musa ibn 'Uqba (died 758) believed that Muhammad was born 70 years later!8 If we assume that the "Year of the Elephant" was 570 A.D., then Muhammad could have been born anytime between 555 A.D. and 640 A.D. and could have died anytime between 615 A.D. and 700 A.D.! How can we trust any of the hadiths?
That is assuming that Muhammad was born in the Year of the Elephant! This is then multiplied as per 552AD ! A total mess...
AhmedBahgat wrote:An archaeological discovery mentioning a different year and instances is proof of a different event, not that another story is made up.
Again, since when do you believe in the Ibn Ishaq account? Is the Koran enough for you or not?

Ibn Ishaq's account, see how birds dropped stones on the elephants of Abraha (etc)...
http://books.google.ca/books?id=ul73yY_ ... ib&f=false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

History is build upon such evidences as this inscription, not on hearsays or story-tellers' fables like the siras/hadiths.
The discovery of such an inscription, its datation, force historians to readjust their uphold theories like in science...

Earliest qiblas aren't pointing to 'Mecca' but to the former wadi al-Qura area! Hegra = Hegira!
Image

So 48.24, in the context of the Hudaibiyyah harsh negotiations and aftermath, is thus best rendered:

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


I've included the ROOT meaning of 'sucked' from the Classical Arabic dictionaries. It's NOT ''In the valley of Mecca''!
AhmedBahgat wrote:Thanks to my friend, and thank you Cat
As you've said: ''Get over it, you have been mother slam dunk...''

Bye.
Last edited by The Cat on Sun Nov 21, 2010 6:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

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

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Post by AhmedBahgat »

Kepp spinning the Cat, you have been mother slammed

Will I slam you too concerning the word Ummi? If yes then take the stand and present your flwe3d argument as usual

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

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Post by The Cat »

AhmedBahgat wrote:Kepp spinning the Cat, you have been mother slammed
Where? :whistling:

http://isaalmasih.net/archaeology-isa/q ... ology.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Mecca
Mecca was allegedly the centre of Arabian trading routes before Muhammads time. Yet there is no archeological corroboration for this. Such a great ancient city would surely have received a mention in ancient history. However, the earliest reference to Mecca as a city is in the Continuato Byzantia Arabica, an 8th century document. Mecca is certainly not on the natural overland trade routes- it is a barren valley requiring a one hundred mile detour. Moreover, there was only maritime Graeco-Roman trade with India after the first century, controlled by the Ethiopian Red Sea port Adulis, not by the Arabs. If Mecca was not even a viable city, let alone a great commercial centre until after Muhammads time, the Quran is seriously in doubt.
As I've said: if you still maintain that -makkata- means Mecca, you're stating indeed that the Koran LIED. :dev: :evil2:
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

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

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Post by AhmedBahgat »

Well, I can also copy and paste a lit of things which will expose you and your master who molested you from the Frak Minders, however I am tired now, but will do later

Now let me mother slam you too concerning the word Ummi

Come on, manipulated, take the stand and tell us what Ummi means?

yeezevee
Posts: 6547
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:17 pm

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Post by yeezevee »

AhmedBahgat wrote:take the stand and tell us what Ummi means?
no..no..nono.. Prophet Muhammad was NO "Ummi" ., He was Dummi.,

Muslims bums made a caricature of some 7th century warlord and wrote bullshitt all over to create more DUMMIES like you dear Ahmed.

So don't forget to add "D" to "ummi" you Dummi..

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

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Post by The Cat »

AhmedBahgat wrote:Well, I can also copy and paste a lit of things which will expose you and your master who molested you from the Frak Minders, however I am tired now, but will do later
Do so!

See how you lose either may...

1) You lose the argument concerning 48.24, but save the Koran in regards of history.

2) You 'win' but then the Koran is proven faulty for there was no Mecca in existence.

You MUST prove that such important city was existing by the sixth century,
that is apart from the fabulations of Ibn Ishaq and unreliability of the hadiths..
.


And no... evading through the 'ummi' won't do. We've already discussed the topic, you and I, in the old forum!
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=54337" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewt ... 48#1089048" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Last edited by The Cat on Sun Nov 21, 2010 7:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

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

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Post by AhmedBahgat »

AhmedBahgat wrote:Well, I can also copy and paste a lot of things which will expose you and your master who molested you from the Frak Minders, however I am tired now, but will do later
The Cat wrote:Do so! See how you lose either may...
It is not my problem that you are a confused and abused manipulated kafirs who in a few months the freak minders molested you until you submitted to their non sense.
The Cat wrote:1) You lose the argument concerning 48.24, but save the Koran in regards of history.
Well I showed you, you confused manipulated manipulator, the dictionaries you used yourself defining Mecca to us as a city and even telling us why it is called so

I also shoved into your blind eyes a irrefutable Arabic grammar lesson confirming that Mecca is a proper name of a city

For both you preferred to be silent, however you had no option, ignorant, my refute was designed to silence you and your con-teachers Layth ad Ayman. Tell us what did they said concring the above if you have nothing to say on your own.?
The Cat wrote:2) You 'win' but then the Koran is proven faulty for there was no Mecca in existence.
Lol, Mecca is mentioned in the Quran more than two times punk, this is what your dictionaries told us and what the Arabic grammar p[roved beyond an atom weight of doubt.
The Cat wrote:You MUST prove this important city was even existing, that is apart from the fabulations of Ibn Ishaq and the unreliable hadiths...
Muir you stupid punk of a molested freak traced Mecca to 570, and youw Wiki traced it to the second century

I also showed you tard, the Great Mosque in Sanaa Yamen which was built during the prophet time, pointing to Mecca using Google earth

Why you have not replied to that you confused ignorant of a molested kafir?

I know, you had nothing to say but spin on the magical rock of Abraha, well, you may shove Abraha rock up your arse, or up Layhis, or up Ayman's or up Yekee, well the rock is huge, how about all of your break it up, and have a shoving party between yourself?
The Cat wrote:And no... evading through the 'ummi'. We've already discussed the topic, you and I, in the old forum!
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=54337" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewt ... 48#1089048" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
No punk, that is the next slam dunk for the record, but I will slam it when I choose, I want to watch you spinning around like a donkey for a few days first, it is entertaining

Cheers

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

Re: 3.96 versus 48.24: Bacca & Mecca

Post by The Cat »

AhmedBahgat wrote:the Great Mosque in Sanaa Yamen which was built during the prophet time, pointing to Mecca using Google earth
From Sana'a the direction towards Mecca and al-Ula is about the same. It proves nothing.
AhmedBahgat wrote:
The Cat wrote:1) You lose the argument concerning 48.24, but save the Koran in regards of history.
Well I showed you, you confused manipulated manipulator, the dictionaries you used yourself defining Mecca to us as a city and even telling us why it is called so. I also shoved into your blind eyes a irrefutable Arabic grammar lesson confirming that Mecca is a proper name of a city
Noops, the dictionaries state that 'sucked' is the basic root word for makkata. And your grammar 'lesson' has been debunked too...
There's no Al-Makkata indicating a proper name, no ism either, and you're genitive construction only applies to 'bibatni' and NOT
to Makkata for the Kasrah you came up with wasn't even existing in the Koranic Arabic. Another mystification of yours...
AhmedBahgat wrote:
The Cat wrote:2) You 'win' but then the Koran is proven faulty for there was no Mecca in existence.
Lol, Mecca is mentioned in the Quran more than two times punk
Where so? Aparts from MAN-MADE ADDED BRACKETS, like:

2.196: Perform the pilgrimage and the visit (--to Makka--) for Allah.
Face it, NO 'Makkata': Wa 'Atimmū Al-Ĥajja Wa Al-`Umrata Lillāhi.

2.125: And when We made the House (at Makka) a resort for mankind and sanctuary, (saying): Take as your place of worship
the place where Abraham stood (to pray). And We imposed a duty upon Abraham and Ishmael, (saying): Purify My house
for those who go around and those who meditate therein and those who bow down and prostrate themselves (in worship).


NO 'Makkata' either: Wa 'Idh Ja`alnā Al-Bayta Mathābatan Lilnnāsi Wa 'Amnāan Wa Attakhidhū Min Maqāmi 'Ibrāhīma

Again, the defeaning absence of -makkata- where it's badly needed is a Koranic disapproval of a location!
AhmedBahgat wrote:abused manipulated kafirs...... confused manipulated manipulator...... punk..... confused ignorant of a molested kafir........
you may shove Abraha rock up your arse....... I want to watch you spinning around like a donkey...... Cheers
Still and again, either way you LOSE the argument !

Cheers ! :D

Ps. I came to the confounding discovery that the Arabic Shariah comes from the pagan Dushares, in Arabic: Dhu al-Sha'ara !
Last edited by The Cat on Sun Nov 21, 2010 8:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

Post Reply