The oldest copies of the Holy Qur'an did not mention Mecca, neither by name nor by implication.
"There is no reference in the Holy Koran to the city of Mecca by name nor by implication. ALL references, in the Holy Koran, to the City of Peace refer to Jerusalem NOT to Mecca." - http://jahtruth.net/kaba.htm
An ad hominem response does not refute the position that is held and of course there is a lot that we all do not know.The point here is that there's a lot you don't know...and that link jahtruth is a load of shite.
An ad hominem response does not refute the position that is held and of course there is a lot that we all do not know.
But as to the original comment regarding Mecca/Makka not being mentioned in the oldest copies, there are also other independent researchers who have been coming to the same conclusion through conducting their own independent analysis in that according to their finding :-
1- Makkah/Mecca is never found mentioned anywhere in the Koran
2- that the Kaba was never in Mecca
3- that all of the references to the Kaba (and synonyms) most closely resemble Jerusalem
"....the Ka'Ba as with the other synonymous expressions al-bayt (the house)
(8x), al-bayt al-? Atîq (the old house) (2x), al-bayt al- Harâm (the holy house)
(2x), al-masgid al-Harâm (the holy prayer house) (15x), al-maš? ar al-Harâm (the
holy place of pilgrimage) (1x), this question will be discussed philologically.
As a result, it will be seen that all these terms are most closely related to
No "Mecca" (Makka) and no "Bakka" in the Quran To Sure 48:24 and 3:96 A philological analysis...
Further, if one considers that:
"Ishmael's mother, who was called Hagar, was an Egyptian and was the hand-maiden (servant) of Sarah who was Abraham's first and legitimate wife.
The well of Beer-lahai-roi, where Hagar went whilst pregnant with Ishmael when she ran away the first time, is between Kadesh-Barnea and Bered (South of Beersheba) on the route to Egypt, her home-land.
Sarah sent Hagar away with Ishmael and she naturally went towards Egypt her home-land NOT to Mecca. They went to Beer-sheba in Paran on the edge of the Negev desert, as is stated by God in the Book of Genesis that God gave to Moses.
On both occasions when Hagar left Abraham she went towards Egypt her home-land, which is quite a natural thing to do.
Hagar found Ishmael an Egyptian wife. They did not go to or live in Mecca. Mecca is more than 1000 miles from Mt. Moriah across desert and much too far away for Ishmael to hear of Abraham's death and be able to return in time to assist Isaac with Abraham's burial (Genesis 25 v 9)."
It naturally follows that the following statement makes sense (but also in itself because even without the above, it is well known that hadiths - too numerous to list - contradict the Holy Koran. So, from that alone it should be obvious that they cannot be from God if they contradict Scripture).
"The story about Mecca was made up by the Meccans to advertise and promote Mecca (in their advertising brochure - the Hadith) and is a complete fabrication. It has NOTHING to do with the Holy Koran. The Hadith contradicts God's Koran."
"Mecca as a city didn't exist before 700, museums in saudi arabia are empty, they never found an artifact from the 7th century, they even built huge buildings around the kaaba, they never found something." (from the first link above).
Uncomfortable as it may be when long held beliefs are challenged, resorting to ad hominems are not going to help anyone to get closer to the truth, they only serve to attempt shutting down discussion.
The popular English translations that are interpreted from a hadith perspective have it inserted.Do the newer copies?
According to you, are the people who wrote the following also out of their depth, please?An ad hominem response does not refute the position that is held and of course there is a lot that we all do not know.
No, the rest of my post did refute it loud and clear. The mere FACT that this website openly misquotes the Quran and presents absolutely idiotic assertions like 'the kaba is a rock' 'it is solid' tells me everything I need to know.
they're athiests and faux christians.
Those people claimed the real Mecca was in Petra. They claimed the original mosque pulpit's pointed towards Petra. They made such claims without ANY evidence. Making claims doesn't mean shit in my books.
In fact this is a recent discovery
One of the Earliest Rural Mosques in the World Found in Israel
The modest edifice – which measures six square meters and was probably built to serve just one or two families in the village – provides silent testimony to the rapid spread of Islam after its advent and arrival in what is today Israel around 636 C.E
Not much remains of the ancient building, but the foundations of the walls feature the hallmark prayer niche facing southeast, towards Mecca.
How did they know they were facing Mecca around 1,300 years ago? “Astronomic knowledge,” Avni says. It has been shown that the ancient peoples of Mesopotamia and the Levant had extremely advanced astronomic knowledge, going back well over 4,000 years: Babylonian knowledge of the skies predated the ancient Greeks by centuries. Which raises the question of how accurate the readings were. “It isn’t as accurate as compasses and GPS, but their deviations were minor, at most about 5 percent. They knew which direction to face,” Avni says.
This clearly answers all those Petra claims.
So basically you have zero ground to base an argument off 'independant researchers' who made up the petra claim to diss islam.
Furthermore, since this mosque is dated to 636CE, it outdates the earliest Quran manuscript.
As for Mecca not being mentioned by name. It was called Bakkah.
Bakkah is mentioned in sura 3 (Al-i-Imran), ayah 96 of the Qur'an,Translation: " Verily the first House set apart unto mankind was that at Bakka, blest, and a guidance unto the worlds."
As for the rest of what you wrote, you've ignored the context in what I wrote. Clearly you're out of your depth here.
The popular English translations that are interpreted from a hadith perspective have it inserted.
According to you, are the people who wrote the following also out of their depth, please?
1 year ago
"The first house of God set up for man is the one in Bakka . 81: ie Mecca ], (
set ) for the blessing and guidance for people around the world ( al-'alamun )
Syntax: Even an Arabist will notice that something is wrong with the syntax of
this sentence. The predicate of this sentence is the last sentence: "is the one
in Bakka ". This ends the sentence. This is followed by (in the Arabic
accusative) "for the blessing and guidance of the people". Because this addition
is missing the verb that governs this accusative, to Paret has been forced to
the verb ( set ) to repeat in parentheses to justify the following accusative.
Paret does not realize that the actual verb that governs this accusative is just
this lettering " bakka " (allegedly) " in Bakka ".
The Koranic lettering ( rasm ) shows two undefined ciphers and two unique k and
h ( ? Kh ). The final hour is provided with two points, be interpreted as Arabic
feminine ending, what is also at "Bakka ta has wrongly assumed". For the end- h
can also denote the masculine personal suffix, which here refers to " bayt"
(house) in the antecedent. The author therefore proposed the following
conjecture in his abovementioned study (page 336, note 352):
inna awwala baytin wudi'a li-n-nasi la-lladi tayyaka-hu mubarakan wa-hudan
This conjecture restores the syntax of this sentence as follows:
"The first (holy) house created for the people is the one that he has fenced (
fenced ) as a blessed (sanctuary) (and) to guide people ."
This understanding is supported by Sura 17: 1 where it is said of the " distant
house of prayer ": alladi bârak-nâ hawla-hu = "whose environment we have blessed
". An alternative verbal form for the chosen letter bi-Bakka follows elsewhere.
Result of the philogical discussion of the expression ( fî batni makka ) " in
the valley bottom of Mecca ":
Arabic batn is Syro-Aramaic karsa again, meaning here: in the midst of  .
makka means Syro-Aramaic "melee , physical altercation ".
The discussed passage from Surah 48:24 should therefore be understood as follows:
"He is the one who in the midst of a (physical) conflict has removedtheir hands
from you and your hands from them ..."
If Mecca is not mentioned in the Qur'an after that, it will be clarified in a
next post what may be meant by the Ka'ba , the central sanctuary of Islam.
1 year ago
...... Consequences of the misreading of bi-Bakka and the misinterpretation of
Did the in-depth philological analysis suggest that the Koran neither has a
primary place called Bakka yet another modified secondary name Makka (Mecca)
knows, since these putative place names are based on a misreading or
misinterpretation of unrecognized Syro-Aramaic expressions, so can with the
two-time occurring expression "umm al-qurâ" (Sura 6:92 and 42: 7) (literally
"mother of the cities" = supposedly "capital") also not meant Mecca. At the same
time, this leads to the realization that Ka'ba, which has been mentioned twice
in the Quran (Sura 5:95, 97), the central sanctuary of Islam, could not have
been in Mecca. What place and what exactly the Koran with the Ka'Ba as with the
other synonymous expressions al-bayt (the house) (8x), al-bayt al-? Atîq (the
old house) (2x), al-bayt al- Harâm (the holy house) (2x), al-masgid al-Harâm
(the holy prayer house) (15x), al-maš? ar al-Harâm (the holy place of
pilgrimage) (1x), this question will be discussed philologically. As a result,
it will be seen that all these terms are most closely related to Jerusalem."
Also, it says in the Koran -
Sura 34:44. But We had not given them Books which they could study, nor sent Apostles to them before thee as Warners.
There's a lot I find in Islam that is illogical and an insult to God, but that's a good one. Another one is the idea that God needs his followers to defend him with violence.God tells people repeatedly in the Koran to read the Bible e.g. Sura 6:154-157). The Meccans then claim that the Almighty God has allowed the Book, that He commands people to read, to have been lost forever. That is not logical and is an insult to God.
How is that a good one when I've been saying the same thing in favour of the Bible ?There's a lot I find in Islam that is illogical and an insult to God, but that's a good one. Another one is the idea that God needs his followers to defend him with violence.
I haven't kept up with the thread so don't know exactly what you're trying to say. @bible_student was trying to diss islam/muslims by pointing out that the Quran supports the Bible, keep in mind he also disses Hadith. Yet, in fact the hadith also support the pro-bible argument and I also am pro-bible.Are you saying the word of God has been lost forever, or that Christians are commanded in the Bible to commit violence for God's sake?
Neither is true.
Ok I get you now.There's a lot I find in Islam that is illogical and an insult to God, but that's a good one. Another one is the idea that God needs his followers to defend him with violence.
But it's indeed illogical to believe that God told us to go read a gospel we can't have since He supposedly allowed us to lose it forever.I'll tell you something quite funny....
It's the fact you said 'illogical' and 'an insult to God'
Where ? Who should put anyone to death for this specific reason and according to what ?God said anyone who blasphemes will be put to death
The true Kaba (House of God) is Abraham's Station (Mt. Moriah in Jerusalem).1)
The Kaaba is not a solid rock, it is a house with a door and a room within. However the verse doesn't talk about praying with the Kaaba.
The verse calls it the BAYT (house).
Sura 2:126. And remember Abraham said: "My Lord, make this a City of PEACE (Jeru-SALEM in Hebrew), and feed its people with fruits,- such of them as believe God and in the Last Day." He said: "(Yea), and such as reject Faith,- for a while will I grant them their pleasure, but will soon drive them to the torment of Fire,- an evil destination (indeed)!"2) Remember the word for peace in Arabic (salam) is similar to hebrew. Jeru Salem(city of peace).
Here is the transliteration of 2:126
Waith qala ibraheemu rabbi ijAAal hatha baladan aminan waorzuq ahlahu mina alththamarati man amana minhum biAllahi waalyawmi alakhiri qala waman kafara faomattiAAuhu qaleelan thumma adtarruhu ila AAathabi alnnari wabisa almaseeru
And when Abraham prayed: My Lord! Make this a region of security and bestow upon its people fruits, such of them as believe in Allah and the Last Day, He answered: As for him who disbelieveth, I shall leave him in contentment for a while, then I shall compel him to the doom of Fire - a hapless journey's end!
Do you see any word like 'salam' mentioned there?
Aminan is an Arabic name for girls that means “calm”, “at peace”, “not afraid”.
God gave people the simple story in Genesis about the creation of Adam and Eve to keep it simple enough for us to understand what we need to and you can also tell the story to children so that they are able to understand it. That does not mean that it is not true, it's just simplified enough for us to be able to remember and understand it.3) the differences in scripture boil down to mythos truth. Genesis for example tells us the story of creation and it is scientifically absurd, yet it is a mythos truth. The wisdom in it was it's ability to give people guidance and meaning with their limited knowledge of the world. If God had told them the earth was spherical and there was a thing called gravity, that there are trillions of galaxies etc..would that really help?
One of them has to be true and the other not. One may say that it does not matter, yet it has had people fighting and disagreeing (causing division). It does matter, because knowing the Truth is what matters, or what should matter to people. If people all believe the truth, then they have no reason to disagree and go to war against each other, so in the end it does matter. We should love and seek the truth above all.If Arabs believe it's Ismael and Jews believe it's Isaac...what difference does it make?
God's Plan was for it to be Isaac as He told the promise to Abraham. Sarah then tried to intervene by giving Hagar to Abraham, but this did not change God's original plan, as He told it to Abraham. In Genesis, it says that after God carried out His Plan and promise regarding Isaac, then He blessed Ismael and that Abraham loved Ismael also.Still, I've read the Genesis version of the sacrifice story and it makes no sense. According to the mosaic law, a son born by a maidservant has the rights of a son born by a wife. Ismael was every bit Abraham's son as Isaac was. Not once is there any indication that Abraham doesn't regard Ismael as a son. Yet it says "take your son, your ONLY son".
According to the Bible account, Isaac was Abraham's miracle child that he waited almost a hundred years to have with his wife Sarah who he loved. God promised Abraham that Sarah would give him a son. Sarah intervened by giving her servant Hagar to Abraham and Ishmael was born, but God made a promise to Abraham that He fulfilled despite Sarah's intervention. If you consider that after waiting a hundred years, and then having Isaac (laughter) given to him and then having time to get to know Isaac and then having to offer him.. this is the penultimate test of Abraham's obedience and love for God, and it is also according to God's Promise to Abraham.In the Islamic version, Abraham had Ismael only...no other son at that time. He was tested and guided to sacrifice his only son. It's only because he was willing and had faith, that God gifted him Isaac.
This version makes far more sense.
Otherwise if Abraham already knew he had another older son, would it be a true test to sacrifice Isaac?
At a bare minimum, Abraham (12:2, 22:17), Ishmael (Gen 17:20), Isaac (Gen 26:3, 26:24), Sarai (Gen 17:16), Jacob (Gen 32:29), Joseph (Gen 49:25) to name a few names where God said He would bless them, found only in the Book of Genesis.The story in genesis tells us Hagar took the boy to the desert of Paran..she carried/lifted the boy. The boy cried etf. Yet he was 13 yrs old at the time.
At 13 I was stronger than my mum. She made me carry things...and I certainly didn't cry like a kid.
4) Paul said Mt Sinai was in Arabia.
you know Jordan or anywhere near the Sinai peninsula is not Arabia. Jordan is the Levant region.
the geography in the Torah is all over the place, that's the problem.
for example it mentions a spring of water that rose form the place where Ismael was LIFTED (remember according to the genesis version he was 13 yrs old...in the Islamic version he was a baby)..
How come for 1500 yrs minimum Mecca has had the zamzam water?
go on YouTube and watch some videos on how this water is pumped and distributed all over the world. Millions of Muslims all over the world drink it every day.
It just happens to be in Mecca, near the kaba.
Where is the genesis version?
Remember what God told Abraham about Ismael? "I will BLESS him"
How many ppl in the Bible have that said about them?
Water is of course a blessing from God as well as being a necessity for human life. The story of Abraham and Ismael going to Mecca though, if believed creates an internal contradiction in the Koran (according to my understanding of it), so it does not fit. However, if interpreted in the same way as the Torah has it, then there is none.You know without the zamzam spring, there would be no Mecca and probably no pilgrimage. The reason Mecca became a place of rest for travellers and a place of pilgrimage was because of the zamzam. So when God said He would bless Ismael and make him a great nation...why is it all of this really has its foundation around a source of water? Just think about that.
Since God has promised to guard His Scriptures, we can be assured that His promise is kept. People back in the day used to memorize it completely and there are some people who still do the same thing today, like with the Quran, etc.4) the Torah was rewritten by Ezra the scribe. It isn't the original.
we do not know of there was alterations and if so...their purpose. As I pointed out there is a thing called mythos. So if the Torah was rewritten was it written in a different way to maybe bring the Jews back to the faith after they lived in Babylon?
No, if there are indeed contradictions present, and it's not just a matter of people misreading it, then that means there is still an error somewhere. Chronicles and kings are historical accounts of Israel's doings and would certainly not be considered to be of the same level of importance as the Torah is (first 5 books - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy). In the Qur'an God mentions the Torah specifically and says not to doubt it (Sura 32:23).5) chronicles and kings...contain the same stories with different numbers for example. That is an example of clear contradiction. Is such a contradiction from God? If that is true for those texts why isn't it true for any other?
Well, what if (Solomon) was not able to see it? So he may not have been admitting it to himself at the time he wrote what he did in Ecclesiastes. His ego could have blinded him to it, not wanting to admit it? However, I don't know this for a fact, although it does seem like a possible explanation. Even Solomon, the wisest man, not being able to admit to himself what really happened. Maybe he didn't see it (yet) for what it really was, or he could also have regained faith after it happened. Saying it's all vanity, is saying it's like chasing after the wind. So, it depends on how you interpret what he says. In the end, the Scripture has to be in agreement with itself for it to be correct. Also in the Quran it says to seek the best meaning in it.eg kings says Solomon lost faith at the hands of foreign pagan women. IN Ecclesiastes Solomon talks about how he tested himself with wealth and women...and then concluded "it is all vanity" eg he was not swayed by the pussy. He didn't write "all these women made me lose faith"
They have said many things and wrote the Talmud which changes the words from their correct places. Jesus called them out as being unrighteous frauds and serpents and God removed them from authority over the people.In fact Jewish rabbis have even said that the king's version of Solomon's downfall was written for other reasons.
No doubt they have written many books. The Jewish "rabbis" have kept adding to it to this day with their Talmud ("traditions of their fathers") but Jesus condemned the Talmud, and them too for writing their own legislation which they have done even though the Torah forbids it (Deut. 4:2).I could speculate that Jews in Babylon dabbled in channelling and magic trying to be like Solomon and control spirits. These stories were given to scare them....see..that is an example of mythos in scripture.
It's actually widely acknowledged amongst religious Jews that magical arts were practices in Babylon. They have written many books on the topic.
But it's indeed illogical to believe that God told us to go read a gospel we can't have since He supposedly allowed us to lose it forever.
Where ? Who should put anyone to death for this specific reason and according to what ?