"The Quest for the Historical Muhammad"

Alsalamu alaikum,

Abdalla Alothman wrote:
What would an acceptable evidence look like to you? Can you please
give an example of a sound evidence that would prove that the Ka'ba
existed prior to the Message?

The best and most sound evidence would be evidence from the great
reading/"quran" itself. For example, we know from the great reading that
"ka'ba" is itself the restriction house/"al-bayt al-7aram" (5:97).
Clearly, the restriction house/"al-bayt al-7aram" where people can
assemble in safety (2:125) inside it (3:97) cannot be some room-sized
stone cube with no windows and an inaccessible elevated door. Also,
everyone is well aware that there are absolutely no signs from Ibrahim
or anyone else inside the so-called Kaaba, so this is another reason why
it cannot be what is talked about in 3:97. The above clear and
indisputable facts make it a logical and physical impossibility for the
present stone cube to be what is meant by The God in the great reading.
Thus, the only possible conclusion is that the present so-called Kaaba a
man-made fraud that is not authorized by The God.

Since no one can bring any evidence from the great reading itself for
their beloved stone cube, the standard of evidence had to be lowered for
people such as Asim and now you. Now the standard is not the word of The
God but any pre-quranic physical evidence (not hearsay). Physical
evidence is any manuscripts and inscriptions that, unlike hearsay
legends and pious fictional stories, can be verified and dated.

Can you name one "pre-Quranic" historian that you would consider
authentic? I don't take orientalists as a reliable source to me. I
would rather be interested in the sources orientalists used.

You seem to not know the difference between "history" and "archeology".
I don't consider any historian a reliable source. History is essentially
the subjective point of view of the historian. Thus, even modern history
is problematic, let alone ancient one. For example, the history of the
Middle East is told totally differently from the Israeli point of view
than from the Arab point of view. If Israel in the future conquers all
Arab countries, then its version of history would be the only supposedly
"true history".

This is why I asked for archeological evidence. In the above example,
hundreds of years from now archeologists will be able to see that many
Israeli settlements were built on top of destroyed Palestinian homes and
will be able to see a better picture of who was the true oppressor.

22:36 clearly tells us that the purpose of slaughtering animals is to
eat from it and feed the needy and the poor. On the other hand, spinning
seven times around a stone is a mindless purposeless pagan ritual. This
ritual is documented in pre-quranic times (for example, in 4th century
CE manuscript by Epiphanius) as relating to the annual birthing
celebrations of the pagan fertility goddess Allat. In fact to THIS DAY,
it is an Arabic tradition to go SEVEN times around the house while
carrying the newborn infant as part of the ancient "Subu3" birthing
celebrations, which take place seven days after the birth of a child.

1. Tawaaf is also mentioned in the Quran in 2:39.

I assume you mean 22:29. There is nothing in 22:29 about the verb
"yatawaf" meaning "spinning seven times around something". This of
course, unless you want to make the illogical suggestion that those who
go in heaven have drinks or servants spinning seven times around them
(52:24, 56:17, 76:19, 37:45, 43:71, 76:15) and your family and you spin
seven times around each other (24:58). So clearly, "spinning seven
times" is a sectarian conjecture that has nothing to do with what The
God's message is actually saying.

2. When this person relates Tawaaf to "pre-Quranic" times, he is right.
it existed from the time of Ibraheem and Isma'eel.

The spinning seven times around an idol that sectarians call Tawaf has
nothing to do with Ibraheem and Ismaeel. It existed in pre and
post-quranic times only as part of pagan birthing celebrations. Again,
you object but evade giving any answer on the purpose of this ritual.
This is not surprising because like all pagan rituals, it is completely
mindless to spin seven times around a stone cube.

3. Passing the newly born is a personal issue, it has nothing to do
with Islam. Likewise, when someone dies in Makkah, they also pass the dead.

Unlike the newborn Subu3 celebrations were people like in the so-called
Hajj go seven times around the house, I am not aware that the body of
people who die in Makkah is spun seven times around the house.

Again, regardless of whether what you are saying is relevant or not,
please tell us the purpose of spinning seven times around a cube. We see
the same spinning seven times ritual in ancient Subu3 traditional birth
celebrations. This is all connected to the pagan birthing celebrations
that were part of the pagan godess Allat's rituals.

4. Here we see the non-believer calling Allaat as a the fertility
goddess. His siblings called Allaat the moon god.

Epiphanius lived in the 4th century CE long before you and I have this
discussion and even long before the prophet was born. I am sure that he
didn't conspire with me to show that sectarian so-called Hajj is nothing
more than the appropriation of pagan rituals and symbols into Islam
exactly like Christmas is nothing more than the appropriation of pagan
rituals and symbols into Christianity.

5. This stuff this person is saying is all coming from poor Egyptian Copts
who discard the fact that the religion of the idol worshipers of Arabia
was a diversion from the religion of Ibraheem. They changed most
of the religion, but kept some of it. For example, and in addition to
Allaat, the Arabs also believed in Allah (the ilaah / god of all of
their gods with the major god -- for Quraysh -- being Hubal).

Epiphanius was not a Copt. So your comment is false and irrelevant.
Again, instead of desperate excuses such as the above, try to tell us
the purpose of mindless rituals such as spinning seven times around a
cube and kissing the Black Stone.

If you were walking on the street and suddenly saw a group of people
spinning around a stone rectangle and kissing and fondling it and a
white stone setup in one of its corners in a female vulva shaped
enclosure, wouldn't you think that what they are doing is silly? If they
told you that this is a religious ritual, you would probably also think
that they are members of some kind of pagan cult. Why would you think of
the so-called Kaaba and Black Stone any differently? It is only because
it is YOUR symbols and YOUR rituals. It has nothing to do with logic or
common sense for the behavior and symbolism are the same in both cases.

This is not true. Kissing the head is for respect, not to mention that
it's totally irrelevant.

You are obviously not an Arab and are not familiar with Arab traditions.
The kissing of the hands or shoulders is the one for respect. The
ancient tradition of kissing the head for forgiveness remains to this
day in the Arab world. Thus, we hear many Arabs say "aboos rasak" (I
kiss your head) instead of "forgive me" when they ask for forgiveness.

The religion of Ibraheem is older. There was no Syria during the
time of Ibraheem.

Since the circling of altars can only be traced back to the
altar-worship movement in ancient Syria, what you are saying is further
confirmation that circling of altars has nothing to do with Ibraheem.

How do you know that any of the magnificent KNOWN and FAMOUS temples in
Hegra, Teima, Ta'if, etc. were not held in high esteem and revered by all the Arabs?
If any of those temples (the one in Taa-if didn't even have walls) were
famous, the Arabs would have visited those places. In ancient times this
would make the servants of the place rich. Quraysh were the richest among
all Arab tribes. Why? Because they made money from the worshipers.

Judging by the numerous monuments, ancient dwellings, and antiquities in
Taaif and the lack of the same in the so-called Mecca location, one can
logically conclude that the inhabitants of Taaif were far richer than
the inhabitants of Mecca (if they even existed).

Indeed, in pre-Islamic times, Taif was home to Suq Okaz, the most famous
of annual fairs anywhere on the Arabian peninsula. According to Saudi
archaeologists who have studied the area, it is believed that Suq Okaz
lasted until sometime around 760 CE. On the other hand, the EARLIEST
archeological evidence from Mecca is dated to the 8th century CE (with
or without walls).

All those towns as well as others were famous and well documented in
pre-quranic times and are mentioned in pre-quranic manuscripts and
inscriptions so the temples in them are more likely candidates than
Mecca, which no one mentions in any pre-quranic or even early
post-quranic inscription or manuscript.
From where did you get this information? If it is from an oriental
source, please refer to the Arabic sources they used.

The fact that Mecca is not mentioned in any pre-quranic inscription or
manuscript is agreed on by Oriental and Arabic sources. The only reason
people are forced to cling at straws by saying that the insignificant
place named Macroba mentioned only once by Ptolemy may be Mecca (which
by the way contradicts their Bacca is Mecca argument) is that there is
absolutely no mention Mecca.

More importantly, in the great reading we clearly see that Allah is a
generic term used to mean Al-Ilah/The God. See for example 6:3:
6:3. ...wa huwa Allah fi al-samawati ...
6:3. ...and he is The God in the heavens ...
What you say is nonsense...
20:98. inama ilaahukum Allahu allathee la ilaaha illa hu; wasi'a
kulla shay-in 'ilmaa.
20:98. Your Ilâh (God) is only Allâh, the One (Lâ ilâha illa Huwa)
(none has the right to be worshipped but He). He has full knowledge
of all things.
Who is your ilaah? Allah whom there is no ilaah except Him. Allah (tt)
is not a generic name to suit any god. This is one example out of many.

Since in 6:3 the word Allah is clearly used in the generic form to mean
Al-Ilah, what you are implying is that there is a contradiction between
6:3 and 20:98. On the other hand, I don't see such contradiction. They
are both used in the common form to mean The God. In fact, 20:98
actually confirms that the term Allah is generic and hence it is further
specified as "alathi la ilaha illa huwa".

20:98. Your God is The God who there is no god except He and He
encompassed everything in knowledge.

Because Allah is a generic term that is further qualified by "there is
no god except He", here is how translators were forced to translate the
passage:

020.098
YUSUFALI: But the god of you all is the One Allah: there is no god but
He: all things He comprehends in His knowledge.
PICKTHAL: Your Allah is only Allah, than Whom there is no other Allah.
He embraceth all things in His knowledge.
SHAKIR: Your Allah is only Allah, there is no god but He; He comprehends
all things in (His) knowledge.

Notice how Yusufali had to add the term ONE to the word Allah and how
Pickthal and Shakir had to use the term "Allah" for both the possessive
"ilahukum" and the definite Allah to make the passage logical.

Again, we KNOW that stone cubes and black stones are associated with
fertility goddesses
It's only you who knows that and holding into it tight out of stubbornness.

It is only sectarian blind followers who don't know it out of sheer
ignorance. Just go visit the Cyprus Museum and see the Black Stone of
Aphrodite (the Greek fertility goddess) which is similar to your beloved
Black Stone. Similarly, go visit Hindu temples and see similar Black
Stones that belong to Kali, the Hindu fertility goddess. Also, go visit
places such as Petra and see stone cubes representing Dushara and Allat.
This is empirically verifiable evidence. Go visit your so-called Kaaba
and you will see that the enclosure of the Black Stone is shaped exactly
like a dilated female vulva (if you ever saw a woman giving birth then
you will see what I am talking about). The Black Stone is shaped like
the crown of the head of the newborn as it is getting ready to come out
of this dilated vulva. Although the names of those things were changed
to make them fit into Islam, the symbolism and the purpose remained.
Hence, the symbolism of kissing the head of the newborn remained and the
purpose to get forgiveness and return like a newborn remained. The only
thing that changed is the name of the newborn baby Allat into the Black
Stone and the Jinn block of Allat into Kaaba.

Quraysh is the name of the tribe. It's silly to chang the addressed
to the definition of the addressed. Our tribe's name in the
books of seera is Bani 'Aamir (Later called Subai' bin 'Aamir);
If the Quran addressed our tribe instead of Quraysh, would
you then re-translate the sura to:
for the conservation/keeping of the populated ('Aamir)?
Also, another major flaw with silly translation above is:
"the victorious."
If this was close to the truth, it would have been "li eelafi
ALquraysh"
and that's not the case. It is "li eelafi quraysh."

In English sometimes Arabic indefinites get translated with the definite
article and vice versa. For example, "I am watching television" in
English gets translated as "Ana Ushahed al-television" in Arabic. This
is why as you see below Yusufali and Shakir added the definite article
in their translation to "quraysh" and "ilaf" despite the absence of the
definite article in both words in the original Arabic:

106.001
YUSUFALI: For the covenants (of security and safeguard enjoyed) by the
Quraish,
PICKTHAL: For the taming of Qureysh.
SHAKIR: For the protection of the Qureaish--

According to Lane's Lexicon, QaRaSha means gained/earned/acquired and
collected for his family. So another way to render the passage would be:

106:1-4. For keeping on earning, their keeping is the journey of the
winter and spring. So they should serve the Lord of this house who fed
them against hunger and secured them against fear.

At any rate, there can be two possibilities the word is either a common
noun or a proper name. If it was a proper name then surely such a
supposedly famous tribe would have been talked about in pre-quranic
times and their names would have been found in inscriptions and
manuscripts. What we actually find are many pre-quranic tribes such as
Bani-Asad, Ma?ad and even your tribe of Bani A'amir are mentioned many
times in pre-quranic inscriptions but there is never any mention of this
supposedly famous Quraysh. So given the evidence, the possibility of the
word being a common noun and not a proper name is much higher.

Salam,

Ayman


--
http://www.fastmail.fm - And now for something completely different?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Making money from Java
    ... He further proved that He is God by raising from the dead ... > soon) but Allah requires his faithful to use jihad to spread the word. ... >> evidence supports the truth of the Biblical account. ... wrote, quite literally, 'The Book' on evidence: "Law of Evidence". ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: The Black Stone Head of Allat
    ... Why do you, Ayman, call the black stone the head of Allat? ... the same god under different names. ... That is, Allah. ...
    (soc.religion.islam)
  • Re: The concept of a God is just a theory.
    ... Tom B. Stone wrote: ... The concept of a god is a hypothesis, ... No evidence, no way to repeat a test of the concept that returns a ...
    (talk.politics.misc)
  • Re: Concept of God in Islam
    ... She has many avatars. ... represents what one chooses to hold true, perhaps based on evidence, perhaps not. ... Allah is the personal name of the One true God. ...
    (comp.lang.java.programmer)
  • Re: Fwd: Im tempted to convert to ISLAM
    ... >God is a reality, but Allah is a FALSE description of this reality. ... So you believe in God? ... Or is it that a lowly person doesn't need evidence. ...
    (uk.religion.islam)