QM Forum

The Quran => General Discussions => Topic started by: Joseph Islam on November 17, 2011, 02:44:21 PM

Title: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Joseph Islam on November 17, 2011, 02:44:21 PM
Dear All,

Salamun Alaikum.

One of the more common questions that I receive is with respect to the Qibla change, the location of the original sanctuary that Prophet Abraham (pbuh) built and the location of the original Masjid al Haram.

The main views that range are:

          (1) The original sanctuary built by Prophet Abraham (pbuh) was in Makkah (Traditional position)
          (2) The original sanctuary built by Prophet Abraham (pbuh) was towards the Holy Lands (My position)
          (3) The original Masjid al Haram was not in Makkah but in Jerusalem
          (4) The original Masjid al Haram was not in Makkah or Jerusalem but in Jabal al-Lawz
          (5) The original Masjid al Haram was in Makkah (My position and the traditional position)
          (6) The different locations of the first Qibla

I have responded to many of you with my views on this matter which can be sourced from my articles. Many of you have provided an array of rich views citing your respective evidence for support.

I invite all those that have written to me directly and those that are interested in this discussion to have a civilised, thought provoking discussion on this thread. It is obviously a matter which is of keen interest to many of you that write to me.

Please don't feel shy to express your views. Your views will be respected. I have notified the moderator(s) to remain very vigilant with a view to maintain decorum on the forum and to allow all to express their views with a view to advance academic debate (keeping in mind the basic forum rules of course). I will also be keenly reading the responses.

Please share your views why you believe what you do and let the discussions develop, God willing.

Regards,
Joseph


PS:  My views on the Qibla change and the original sanctuary can be sourced from the following articles. God willing I will shortly be sharing another related article.

THE QIBLA CHANGE
http://quransmessage.com/articles/qibla%20FM3.htm

PROPHET ABRAHAM'S (pbuh) ORIGINAL SANCTUARY - AT MAKKAH (MECCA) OR BAKKAH (BACA)?
http://quransmessage.com/articles/makkah%20bakkah%20FM3.htm



Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Reader Comments on November 17, 2011, 11:00:06 PM
BY MEMBER: Wazir1961

Conclusions:

If we see all these verses in big picture, it becomes clear that Prophet Ibrahim PBUH and Prophet Ismail PBUH built the Kabah in Makkah and declared it as a Qibla for mankind. Later on, people of the Book changed their center of devotion (Qibla) to Jerusalem.

People of Book might be pursuing Prophet SAW and his followers to accept their wishes and possibly their Qibla (2:105, 2:109, 2:120, and 2:135). Moreover, objection raised in verse 4:142 also possibly implies that the people who put forward the question essentially asking Prophet SAW to accept their Qibla as a common ground to compromise. So, Allah SWT not only formally appointed Kabah as Qibla, But, He warned them (Prophet SAW and his followers) that 'If thou after the knowledge hath reached thee, Wert to follow their (vain) desires,-then wert thou Indeed (clearly) in the wrong '(verse 2:145).

So, when Prophet SAW received revelation or even before that he 'used to' believe Makkah a center of devotion (Qibla) and not Jerusalem (which was a center of devotion for people of the Book).

So, premise that Prophet SAW and his followers were praying towards Jerusalem and changed their direction toward Makkah, seem to be untenable.


FULL ANALYSIS AVAILABLE HERE:

http://quransmessage.com/forum/members/wazir1961/qibla%20change-wazir1961.htm

QM Forum Admin
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Reader Comments on November 17, 2011, 11:37:25 PM
The writer of this post is not an English speaker and makes use of Google Translate to converse. Please appreciate the efforts afforded by this reader to communicate with fellow believers and give due allowance for any weaknesses in the language conversion.

It is the argument that the reader posits which matters most.

QM Forum Admin


CONCLUSION

The original Masjid al Haram was not in Makkah or Jerusalem but in / around Jabal al-Lawz


Gabal musa , the tur sina- in fact- is in Arabia in the old Midian, and this is the same place, where Ibrahim built the house, where prophet Ilyas he catch himself in a cave and this is the holy land, the ancient house, the forbidden place- because in fact, the saudis close all the ground there/ it's forbidden to entrance....why?

There is a rock, he is splits into two sides, and it seems, that it was rushing water from this rock (Kaaba, the meaning> swelling breasts from young girls..?! it's the very perfect meaning from this stone, because he was swelling like the breasts, from the water, what after rushed out strongly) and not only a little bit.

And there is a altar in front of this mountain (Sina) , from Moses , beside we found rocks in a line (SAFA) and MARWA (I found a translation it's means 'the place where is running the water out,ore collecting the water together ') when we look all this signs, then is clear why Allah he speaks from a blessing place with Signs. (The Manna for the Bani Israel from Allah they became also in this Valley Bacca.)

Also the Sina, the mountain by himself is very special. He is a vulcano and he looks like a pyramid and the top is very black- (black stone?) exactly like the pyramid from Giza and the same of the one-dollar-note!!!

I'm sorry I make mistake when I write in english but to give you more infos, I will attach files that you can read. it seems, that the masjid al Haram is in this place and not in mecca. interesting also, there is a word in hebraec 'meccaca” 

Files attached: Please see link:  http://quransmessage.com/forum/members/email1/makkah.htm

Furthermore:

(1)  The Quran says the qibla is Masjid al haram, the question still: is Masjid al Haram in Mekka?
(2)  We don't find the Kaaba  together with Mekka in the Quran, we find it with 'Masjid al Haram”:the Kaaba is only found together with Pilgrimage . But the Quran not says the Kaaba in Mekka.
(3)  The mount of the temple in Jerusalem in hebräic language means 'bait al haram', the ground of the temple was also a 'mustatil', the sanctuary from the Bani Israel was in Jerusalem. But the 'tur' is with 'baraka' and there, where Musa received the scripture. And Abraham left his 'Zuriat' in a valley near the 'balad  mubaraka'. I think, that is the same area.
(4)  Saudi Arabia was parted in three parts: a Syria part (capital Petra), a middle part (capital maybe Yathrib. Higra, Tayma) and the Arabia Felix with (sued-Arabia) the language were not the same , the Quran is clear the arabic from the middle (syroaramaenia), where we must search the town from Muhammads people, this is my own opinion.
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Sardar Miyan on November 18, 2011, 03:08:39 AM
 Assalam Bro. In my humble opinion first Qibla was towards Jerusalem on account of which the Jews were glad & Muslims were not happy. Allaha asked Prophet while actually during prayers in Masjid Qibalatain to turn towards Abrahams Masjid il Haram on which all Muslims were glad. This masjid is called Misjide Qiblatain because it has got two Qiblas. But after renovation of this mosque there is no old qibla. This information is authentic as Hajis visited long back & gone recently have told me. Thanks
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: chadiga on November 19, 2011, 05:21:53 AM
Die masjid al Quiblatain hat(te) zwei Quiblas, die leider zerstört wurden.(absichtlich...?) Wir müssen jedoch genau nachprüfen, ob sich diese zwei Quiblas nun in entgegengesetzter Richtung befanden oder eine Quibla in Richtung Jerusalem und die zweite in Richtung Mekka. Mekka liegt nämlich nicht in entgegengestzter Richung von Jerusalem, das wäre Medina oder Gabal al Lawz...

Mehr zum Thema unter dem folgenden link, auch in Deutsch
http://koransaussage.blogspot.com/2011/11/letzte-uberlegungen-zur-pilgerfahrt-und.html

Antwort auf die Aussage von Bruder wazir,
1.Woher nimmst du die Sicherheit, dass Abraham und Ismael das Haus in Mekka gebaut haben? Aus den Zweitquellen des Islams, der Koran erwähnt dies nämlich nicht
2. Wenn die erste Quibla Mekka war und die letzte genauso, weshalb sagt dann Gott "ich werde dir nun eine Quibla zuweisen, mit der du sicher zufrieden sein wirst..." das impliziert, dass die letzte nicht diesselbe ist, wie die erste. Dies kann gut möglich sein, denn es findet sich nirgends der Hinweis, dass Quibla 1 und 3 diesselbe seien...


FROM QM MODERATOR

For the benefit of all forum users the moderators have used Google Translate to translate the text above. We have not edited the translation and appears as is. Please see below (complete with any translation errors).

The masjid al Quiblatain has (had) two Quiblas, which were unfortunately destroyed. (Absichtlich. ..?) We need to check carefully whether these two Quiblas now in the opposite direction, or were in a Quibla toward Jerusalem and the second direction Mecca. Mecca does not lie in entgegengestzter rond of Jerusalem, which would Medina Jabal al Lawz, or ...

More on the topic at the following link, also in German
http://koransaussage.blogspot.com/2011/11/letzte-uberlegungen-zur-pilgerfahrt-und.html

Response to the statement of Brother wazir,
1.Woher you take security that Abraham and Ishmael built the house in Mecca? From the secondary sources of Islam, the Qur'an mentions this were not
Second If the first and the last Quibla Mecca was just, then why does God say "I'll now assign a Quibla, with which you will surely be satisfied ..." which implies that the latter is not the same as the first. This may well be possible, for there is nowhere to point out that Quibla were 1 and 3 have the same ...







 

Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Joseph Islam on November 20, 2011, 12:21:58 AM
Dear All,

Salamun Alaikum.

Please see my support for the following statement:

"The original Masjid al Haram was in Makkah (My position and the traditional position)"


IS MAKKAH THE ORIGINAL LOCATION FOR THE MASJID AL-HARAM?
http://quransmessage.com/articles/original%20sanctuary%20FM3.htm


Regards,
Joseph.


Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Saleh on November 20, 2011, 11:56:53 AM
Peace to All,
Bro Joseph,

After going through the articles and your analization, one can only say without doubt, it is a fact.

The Quranic perspective, House (Bayt), which is also 1st House,Sacred House, Ancient House, Frequent House, which is at Bakka and Masjid can only be the Sacred Masjid at Makkah. According to the Quran, The Ka'ba is associated with the Sacred House but now its incorporated in the Sacred Masjid.

With all these proofs, one can only come to a conclusion that the present hajj rituals is invalid?[already so many unquranic rituals are being practised], and now with this new evidence, how are we to carry out Hajj according to the Quran as we owe this to GOD.

The Quranic verse 95:2-3, which inform us about Mt Sinai(Jabal Lawz?) and a city. Is the city mentioned refering to Bakka? [Jabal Lawz is located at NW of Saudi Arabia, to east of the mountain is the Sea of Akabah.]

Peace.

Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Joseph Islam on November 20, 2011, 12:52:46 PM
Dear brother Saleh,

Salamun Alaikum

Thank you for your comments.

Please let me clarify my position further which I have argued for in my articles:

In my opinion:

     (a) The original sanctuary built by Prophet Abraham (ancient house) was at Bakkah not Makkah. These are two different locations [1]
     (b) The Ka'aba is associated with the Sacred Mosque (Masjid al-Haram) and is in Makkah. [2]

However, I have also argued in section (-8-) of my article [1] below that:

The Ka'aba was made a place of monotheistic worship and ancient Abrahamic rites as explained in detail by the Quran were reinstituted at the Ka'aba (Makkah today). So the Hajj today at Makkah is correct and supported by the Quran in my personal opinion. Of course, there are practices that have been introduced and added to the Hajj today which I find no support for in the Quran. However, I have discussed those comprehensively in my Hajj related article [3] and with connected articles.

To answer your last question, I believe 95:3 and 'hada' (this) 'balad' (city) is a reference to Makkah similar to 90:1-2. 'Tur' has never been described as a city in the Quran (balad). 'Tur' has been described as a Holy valley (bil-wadil-muqadas - 79:16) consisting of a 'blessed' area (buqati mubaraka - 28:30) and not a city (balad).

I hope that this clarifies my personal humble opinion.

Your brother in faith,
Joseph


[1]   PROPHET ABRAHAM'S (pbuh) ORIGINAL SANCTUARY - AT MAKKAH (MECCA) OR BAKKAH (BACA)?
http://quransmessage.com/articles/makkah%20bakkah%20FM3.htm

[2]   IS MAKKAH THE ORIGINAL LOCATION FOR THE MASJID AL-HARAM?
http://quransmessage.com/articles/original%20sanctuary%20FM3.htm

[3]   THE HAJJ ACCORDING TO THE QURAN
http://quransmessage.com/articles/hajj%20FM3.htm

Connected articles:

(a)    The 'Lost' Months of Hajj
(b)    Kissing the Black Stone - Veneration or an Idolatrous Practice?
(c)    The Seven Circuits of the Ka'aba
(d)    Zam Zam Water



Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Reader Comments on November 22, 2011, 12:46:34 AM
BY MEMBER: Name Withheld


WHERE WAS THE OLD QIBLAH BEFORE MASJID AL-HARAAM IN MAKKAH?


The significance of Jabal al-Lawz - Member analysis

http://quransmessage.com/forum/members/email2/qiblah.htm


Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Joseph Islam on November 22, 2011, 01:12:51 PM
BY MEMBER: Wazir1961

Conclusions:

If we see all these verses in big picture, it becomes clear that Prophet Ibrahim PBUH and Prophet Ismail PBUH built the Kabah in Makkah and declared it as a Qibla for mankind. Later on, people of the Book changed their center of devotion (Qibla) to Jerusalem.


Dear brother Wazir,

I am not sure I concur with your statement above from the analysis of the Quranic verses you have provided.

I have a humble rebuttal to this position. Please see the following article.

PROPHET ABRAHAM'S (pbuh) ORIGINAL SANCTUARY - AT MAKKAH (MECCA) OR BAKKAH (BACA)?
http://quransmessage.com/articles/makkah%20bakkah%20FM3.htm

Regards,
Joseph.
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Saleh on November 22, 2011, 08:45:46 PM
Peace Bro Joseph,

Thank you very much for the explaination, actually i overlooked 5:97.

Further to

a. 03:97  - ......whoever enters it attains Tranquility.
b. 53:1-4 - By the Mount; By a Book inscribed; in a parchment unfolded; By the much Frequented House.
c.  95:1-3 - By the Fig; And the Mount of Sinai; An this City of Tranquility.

Does the House, Mount and City, the intricacies of the Quranic System which shows the 1st bless location?

My humble opinion. You are the expert. Correct me if i am wrong.

Salam Bro
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: chadiga on November 23, 2011, 03:37:12 AM
A few facts that the area around Jabal al Lawz seem to be even more interesting.
The question of a city, this area could be assigned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tayma
Please compare the Koordionaten the oasis Tayma (with a huge fountain) with those of Jabal al Lawz.

one other interesting connection with Tayma:

Nabonidus' stay in Tayma
It is not clear yet why Nabonidus stayed in Tayma for so long. His reason for going there seems clear: to what Tayma important oasis, from where lucrative Arabian trade routes could be controlled. The Assyrians before him had already attempted to do the same. [9] However, why Nabonidus stayed for so long (probably about ten years, perhaps from 553-543 BC) and why he returned when he did remain unresolved questions. It has been proposed that this was because he did not feel at home in Babylon, Which was opposed to his emphasis on Sin. Regarding his return, this may have had to do with the mounting threat of Cyrus and growing disagreements with Belshazzar, who was relieved of his command directly after Nabonidus had come back, along with a number of administrators. [10] During his stay, Nabonidus Tayma adorned with a complex of royal buildings, most of Which have come to light during recent excavations. [11] (wikipedia Nabonidus)

It remains a mystery why this king left his kingdom for such a long time and moved into that haven, it was perhaps not only because of trade? also significant that Tayma was a renowned trading center, not like the historic Mecca

I found a very interesting note to himself (unfortunately in German, have found nothing in English.).

http://terra-x.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/18/0,1872,7165906,00.html

Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Joseph Islam on November 23, 2011, 05:47:50 AM
Peace Bro Joseph,

Thank you very much for the explaination, actually i overlooked 5:97.

Further to

a. 03:97  - ......whoever enters it attains Tranquility.
b. 53:1-4 - By the Mount; By a Book inscribed; in a parchment unfolded; By the much Frequented House.
c.  95:1-3 - By the Fig; And the Mount of Sinai; An this City of Tranquility.

Does the House, Mount and City, the intricacies of the Quranic System which shows the 1st bless location?

My humble opinion. You are the expert. Correct me if i am wrong.

Salam Bro


Salamun Alaikum brother Saleh,

Thanks for your comments and questions.

I don't profess to be an expert in anything. I am a simple humble servant of God who has submitted his cause to study His word and live life by it, God willing. I like anyone can be right or wrong and what I posit are merely my arguments.

I am open to a better argument if it is cogent and a better position to the one I may currently hold.

In response to your questions:

(a)  Yes
(b)  Possible - Not definitive, may or may not be the case. However, I think you mean 52:4, baiti ma'mur (instead of 53:1-4). Also 52:4 may be unrelated to 52:1-3. All Quranic oaths aren't always related.
(c)   Possible - As above, 95:3 may or may not be related to 95:1-2. But 'balad ameen' is most definitely a reference to the Prophet's city by virtue of the demonstrative pronoun 'hadha' (this). However, this does not mean it is related to 'Bakkah'.

Just because two cities have been referenced as 'secure' (ameen), where one finds 'aman', separated by over 1000 + years (3:97) and (95:3), does not necessarily make them the same city.
 
Please note the dialogue. By virtue of 3:99, it can be argued that it was the ‘People of the book' specifically that were a cause for hindrance / obstruction (tasudduna), possibly to a location mentioned in 3:96-97 (Bakkah), not the 'Mushrikeen' or Pagans. There seems to be some tension here whereby the new Arabian Muslims seem to be hindered from going to a particular place or being obstructed which seems to be connected to the People of the Book specifically.

This supports the assertion that Bakkah and Makkah were separate locations.

It seems probable, that this tension was also a contributory factor as to why the ancient rites were 're-instituted' at Makkah (as argued in section 8 of my article noted above), a place that was familiar to both the Prophet and the converted Pagans of Arabia.

I hope this helps.

Joseph.
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Saba on November 23, 2011, 05:52:30 AM
A few facts that the area around Jabal al Lawz seem to be even more interesting.
The question of a city, this area could be assigned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tayma
Please compare the Koordionaten the oasis Tayma (with a huge fountain) with those of Jabal al Lawz.

one other interesting connection with Tayma:

...

Dear sister Chadiga

Aslamaolaikum

Are we note assuming a lot from sources outside the Quran? Would this approach not be the same as using Islamic sources which are secondary to the Quran? How do we know any of this is right?

Thanks.

Saba.
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Wazir1961 on November 24, 2011, 12:02:24 AM

Response to the statement of Brother wazir,
1.Woher you take security that Abraham and Ishmael built the house in Mecca? From the secondary sources of Islam, the Qur'an mentions this were not
Second If the first and the last Quibla Mecca was just, then why does God say "I'll now assign a Quibla, with which you will surely be satisfied ..." which implies that the latter is not the same as the first. This may well be possible, for there is nowhere to point out that Quibla were 1 and 3 have the same ...[/color]

1. There is no doubt that original House was built by Abraham PBUH and Ishmael PBUH, but the issue of its location is in debate. In my analysis, contention of the article is not where House was built? I have not analysed the issue of whether Makkah and Bakkah are same place or not. So, at this stage, you can ignore this argument which is one of the many arguments in the analysis.

2. Another question is why does God say "I'll now assign a Quibla, with which you will surely be satisfied ..." . In other word, what were reasons which made the declaration of Qibla necessary?

These reasons are mentioned in verse 2:143 as follow:

a) Verse 2:143 (Part): Thus, have We made of you an Ummat justly balanced, that ye might be witnesses over the nations, and the Messenger a witness over yourselves; In other words, Muslims were assigned responsibilty to vouchsafe over other nations and the Messenger was assigned responsibility to vouchsafe over Muslims, hence it became necessary to declare one universal Qibla for mankind which is done in this verse.

b)Verse 2:143 (Part): only to test those who followed the Messenger from those who would turn on their heels (From the Faith). In other words, to test followers who might have different directions of Qibla, but now after this declaration it become necessary for all to follow this Qibla as their Qibla. And that is why it was great dicision for people who were following other direction. (2:143 part: Indeed it was (A change) momentous, except to those guided by Allah. And never would Allah Make your faith of no effect)

Once formal declaration of Qibla is made, the next logical step is to order everyone to turn their faces to this Qibla which is mentioned in verse 2:144.

Verse 2:145 clearly warns believers not to compromise on issue of Qibla.

c) Before declaration of Ka'ba as universal Qibla, It might be a Qibla for Prophet SAW, his followers, his community and pagans. So, declaration of Ka'ba in Makkah as univesal Qibla definately please the Messenger as he used to consider it a Qibla.

d) There is no verse in Quran which instructed Prophet SAW to follow other Qibla before declaration of Ka'ba as universal Qibla for mankind.

I hope, this explanation will address your questions.

Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: chadiga on November 24, 2011, 04:52:50 AM
Reply to Joseph.Du brother say (rightly):                 Errors may be found in the language, I'm sorry
 


1.historical source is found for X, does not mean that X did not exist.
Just because the Quran does not directly connect the Ka'aba in Makkah with one verse does not mean they are not connected. There is an argument inherent fallacy of exhaustive investigation within hypothesis inherent in approach.
Second Just because something is not X, does not mean it is Y. Therefore Y must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. So, we must look at all related verses to ascertain as best we can, how cogent a Particular hypothesis remains.
3.There is no reason to suggest that non-Muslim sources were or are better informed than Islamic sources.
One can not conclude that just because the authenticity of many Islamic traditions may be disputed, that it can not be correct about a Particular Matter.

I'm sorry if I come again to speak at various points. First I want to again clarify that I do not claim that the traditional Mecca not exist-it's all about me, all arguments are logically and factually-to-compare.
1It is possible that they just do not belong together!. I have never claimed that Mecca does not exist, however, is the historic Mecca möglcherweise not equal to the Mekka today
2.Nochmals: I never said that the only possibility mentioned, because  when I read all the verses, i can not read out the Reinstituted rites in Mecca
3. It's not about that no muslim resources are better than others, it's about whether we are still somewhere finds evidence finden.Archäologische facts that can be misinterpreted. It can, however, the secondary sources also. its not a logical approach, on the one hand  completely reject the ahaadeeth and  never to consult it, in the absence of supporting evidence in the Qur'an, however overlooking  the same.
Then we could also consider that example, the seventh month in the Jewish calendar, which is considered particularly in the fasted and was equated with the 7.islam.month, which can also be accepted in the Hadith as sacred .This we ignore  at a Analysis of the sacred months but in the case from Mekka not.?

Answer for brother Wazir:

Thank you for your quickly Answer.zou write:

First There is no doubt that House was originally built by Abraham and Ishmael PBUH , but the issue of its location is in debate. In my analysis, contention of the article is not where House was built? I have not Analysed Whether the issue of Makkah and are Bakkah same place or not. So, at this stage, you can ignore this argument Which is one of the many arguments in the analysis.

c) Before declaration of Ka'ba as Universal Qibla, It might be a Qibla for Prophet SAW, his followers, his community and pagans. So, declaration of Ka'ba in Makkah as univesal Qibla definitely please the messenger as he used to consider it a Qibla.

d) There is no verse in Quran Which prophet SAW instructed to follow other before declaration of Qibla Qibla Ka'ba as universal for mankind.

You say on one hand that you have not analyzed whether Bekka and Mecca are the same place but in c) and) assoziierst you immediately  the Kaaba with  Mecca. The Kaaba is in the Koran clearly associated with the pilgrimage. Why do we rely entirely on this issue automatically to the secondary sources, if Allah in the Koran does not? I want by my side I just do not stiffen, as both possibilities are equally possible.


Answer for Saba Sheik:
 


I think that it is in the sense of the Koran, all possible sources to proof. Historical excavations can help us, where there written sources (which have been changed) is no longer able. We are looking for the truth, so yes, we also take some of the Bible to argue (this source is not even more authentic). We should put together all the particles of the puzzle of the Koran and in the light illuminate. That's my opinion.
 
I thank you all and hope that you forgive a Querschlägerin their tenacity .. :)
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Wazir1961 on November 26, 2011, 10:57:53 AM

Please see my support for the following statement:

"The original Masjid al Haram was in Makkah (My position and the traditional position)"


IS MAKKAH THE ORIGINAL LOCATION FOR THE MASJID AL-HARAM?
http://quransmessage.com/articles/original%20sanctuary%20FM3.htm


When we call it "The Original Masjid al Haram", Why we call it original? What was significance of "Masjid al Haram" before it declared as Qibla in verses 2:142-146? Who built it?

Will you shed some light on these questions?
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Wazir1961 on November 26, 2011, 11:11:07 AM

You say on one hand that you have not analyzed whether Bekka and Mecca are the same place but in c) and) assoziierst you immediately  the Kaaba with  Mecca. The Kaaba is in the Koran clearly associated with the pilgrimage. Why do we rely entirely on this issue automatically to the secondary sources, if Allah in the Koran does not? I want by my side I just do not stiffen, as both possibilities are equally possible.


Quote from the post of Joseph Islam at Reply #7 on: November 20, 2011, 05:52:46 AM

In my opinion:

     (a) The original sanctuary built by Prophet Abraham (ancient house) was at Bakkah not Makkah. These are two different locations [1]
    (b) The Ka'aba is associated with the Sacred Mosque (Masjid al-Haram) and is in Makkah. [2]

However, I have also argued in section (-8-) of my article [1] below that:

The Ka'aba was made a place of monotheistic worship and ancient Abrahamic rites as explained in detail by the Quran were reinstituted at the Ka'aba (Makkah today). So the Hajj today at Makkah is correct and supported by the Quran in my personal opinion. Of course, there are practices that have been introduced and added to the Hajj today which I find no support for in the Quran. However, I have discussed those comprehensively in my Hajj related article [3] and with connected articles.
--------------------------------------------

I hope this will answer your question.

Wazir
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Wazir1961 on November 26, 2011, 12:05:59 PM
BY MEMBER: Name Withheld


WHERE WAS THE OLD QIBLAH BEFORE MASJID AL-HARAAM IN MAKKAH?


The significance of Jabal al-Lawz - Member analysis

http://quransmessage.com/forum/members/email2/qiblah.htm

Quote from analysis:

'The scholars give us the opinion that 'Hateem' was initially part of the main building, and praying inside 'Hateem' is regarded as praying inside Kaa'ba itself.' Moreover, in fig 2 the direction of prayer is mentioned.

If we accept this premise, logical questions are:
1) Do you think person standing in semi-circle of 'Hateem' pray facing another direction while keeping his back towards Kaa'ba?
2) While praying in vicinity of Kaa'ba who will pray in another direction?
3) If one is praying in another direction, then, why would he come near Kaa'ba in first place?

Other questions are:
1) Is it appropriate to use current map to understand situation of 7th century or prior to that?
2) Is there any evidence suggesting that people lived in Makkah used to pray in direction of Jabl Al Awz?
3) Is there any evidence suggesting that people of Book ever prayed in direction of Jabl Al Awz ?
4) What is significance of alignment line you drawn in pictures? There can be many places in world aligning with Kaa'ba. So, what it proves?

I hope that the person (as name has been withheld) who did analysis and/ or advocating that  Jabl Al Awz was a original Masjid Al Haram will answer above cited questions.

Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Joseph Islam on November 26, 2011, 12:15:21 PM

Please see my support for the following statement:

"The original Masjid al Haram was in Makkah (My position and the traditional position)"


IS MAKKAH THE ORIGINAL LOCATION FOR THE MASJID AL-HARAM?
http://quransmessage.com/articles/original%20sanctuary%20FM3.htm


When we call it "The Original Masjid al Haram", Why we call it original? What was significance of "Masjid al Haram" before it declared as Qibla in verses 2:142-146? Who built it?

Will you shed some light on these questions?



Brother Wazir,

Salamun Alaikum

In response to your first question:

We know from the Quran that a 'Masjid al Haram' exists. Some Muslims (and non-Muslims) believe that the Quranic Masjid al-Haram was not in Makkah but at another location.

My article that you have cited supports the notion that the Quranic 'Masjid al-Haram' (sanctuary) was in Makkah in line with the traditional position.

Hence my use of the term 'original'.


In response to your second question:

The significance of the Masjid al Haram is clear from the Quran:

    (a) Verse 5:97 clearly tells us that the Ka'aba was made the Masjid al-Haram
    (b) The Ka'aba was originally a pagan place of worship (8:35)
    (c) The Masjid al Haram was a place pagans undertook maintenance of the place and assisted non-believing pilgrims such as attending to them by giving them water (9:19)
    (d) Masjid al-Haram was a place in which the pagans denied believers so must have initially rested control over it (48:25)


In response to your third question:

The Quran does not inform the readers as to 'who' built the 'Ka'aba'. (Irrelevant from a Quran's perspective) It has been introduced as a pagan sanctuary which later became a focal point for the new Muslims of Arabia. Muslims assume that Prophet Abraham and Prophet Ishmael built the Ka'aba. The Quran makes no such claim. As per the Quran, the original house built by Prophets Abraham and Ishmael was at 'Bakka' not 'Makkah' (3:96).  There is no Quranic proof that the two are synonymous. I have already posited my arguments with regards this in a separate article.

http://quransmessage.com/articles/makkah%20bakkah%20FM3.htm


I hope that answers your questions from my perspective, God willing.

Joseph.


Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Saleh on December 26, 2011, 10:05:12 AM
Salamum Alaikum,

Base on the Quranic intricacies and the Articles provide by Bro Joseph and also informations form my brothers and sisters of this forum, I found it rational to say that the first House built by Prophet Abraham and his son in Bakkah could be the Masjidil Aqsa [17:1].

Masjidil Aqsa - Place of worship in remote region. The word Aqsa which means remote like isolated,in the wilderness or mountainous. During the time of the Prophet, Jerusalem were flourishing with peoples comprising of the people of the book. As such it cannot be at Jerusalem.

Q-03:97 and 22:26, The first house was a Masjid,
Q-28:22-30, tell us that Prophet Moses was first summoned by GOD at Tursina, Madyan.
Q-52:01-04, Tell us that the Tur is asociated with the House. Since there are only two sanctuaries mentioned in the Quran:
1. Q-03:96-97, 02:125, 14:37, 22:26-33 which is at Bakkah and
2. Q-05:02,95,97, 08:35, 48:25-27, which is the Sacred House [Ka'ba] in Makkah,
Thus the House mentioned in 52:04  can only be the one that was built by Prophet Abraham in Bakkah, Madyan.
Furthermore, Q-95:02-03, tell us that the Tursina is in Arabia. Historical documents shows that Madyan is in NW Arabia which is a remote mountainous region.
There are also archeological artifacts found at the seabed of Gulf of Aqaba, where the remains of the Egytion army were and these were dated back to the Exodus of the Israelites - www.wyattmuseum.com
However, archeological artifacts have nothing to say about these miracles whether they happend or not. It is a matter of faith and the Quran is the miraculous gift that GOD has given us.
It is unequovical that the first House built by Prophet Abraham and his son in Bakkah, Madyan,NW Arabia, was the Masjidil Aqsa where propbaly all the prophets were summoned during their ministries including the Last Prophet - Q-17:01 & 53:01-18.

Salam
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Wazir1961 on January 03, 2012, 08:35:58 AM

I found it rational to say that the first House built by Prophet Abraham and his son in Bakkah could be the Masjidil Aqsa [17:1].

During the time of the Prophet, Jerusalem were flourishing with peoples comprising of the people of the book. As such it cannot be at Jerusalem.

Q-52:01-04, Tell us that the Tur is asociated with the House. Since there are only two sanctuaries mentioned in the Quran:
Thus the House mentioned in 52:04  can only be the one that was built by Prophet Abraham in Bakkah, Madyan.

It is unequovical that the first House built by Prophet Abraham and his son in Bakkah, Madyan,NW Arabia, was the Masjidil Aqsa where propbaly all the prophets were summoned during their ministries including the Last Prophet - Q-17:01 & 53:01-18.

Salam

Dear Brother Saleh,

Firstly, it seems to me that your main argument is based on verse 52:1-4. But, there is no connection between verse 52:1 and 52:4. Both are independent statement.

Second, Look at verse 3:97
Feehi ayatun bayyinatun maqamu ibraheema waman dakhalahu kana aminan walillahi AAala alnnasi hijju albayti mani istataAAa ilayhi sabeelan
In it are Signs Manifest; (for example), the Station of Abraham; whoever enters it attains security; Pilgrimage thereto is a duty men owe to Allah,- those who can afford the journey, (Yusuf Ali)

Now, as per verse 3:97, Pilgrimage was declared duty on men by Allah.
So, if you argue that Masjidil Aqsa, Bakkah, Madyan,NW Arabia was First House of Allah built by Prophet Abraham; then we have to believe that Allah gave site to Prophet Abraham(22:26), ordained Hajj and still nobody visited it in known history and nobody visits it. How is this possible? Will you explain please? Please remember Quran assert that Allah is All-Mighty, All-Knowing.

Mark the contrast: People were coming to Makkah for pilgrimage of Cuboid and idols installed in it before Prophet Muhammad and till date people go there for pilgrimage.

Regards,

Wazir
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: chadiga on January 03, 2012, 06:02:58 PM
dear sisters and brothers
I've been thinking more about the subject of the original Masjid and would like to share with you my thoughts:
The first thing I would point to an appendix that gives us a little more insight on the Quibla change.http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Dome_Of_The_Rock/qibla.html (http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Dome_Of_The_Rock/qibla.html)
Based on these findings it seems possible that the original Quibla was
Jabal al-Lawz , Mecca, Or as mentioned, less the Quibla as a specific place, rather then a directional information, ie. the pointing  to Arabia itself

When situating the Masjid al Haram ever I run the following points:
-Changing the Quibla, that should have been finished from the quranique side at the death of the Prophet, was not clear until much later
- The question why Malik wanted to move the pilgrimage to Jerusalem (in this case I need clear more facts: Where does this knowledge, what were the motives, political situation,  among the ummah: where are the reputable sources that will help us? ? Or is there just speculation?)
- The question of Mecca (where was Mecca, the fact that it is said in the secondary literature, Mecca was significant, however actually was not,  that the concealment of the facts, the motives of both sides :-Westerners Orientalists who  would deny Mecca and  Muhammad and want to interpret Islam as a direction of Christianity,- the Muslim side,  their position is based on the hadith, some of which clearly excessive and does not correspond to the truth)
-There seemed to be not only one Kaaba, but more-so the question arises, how do we know which was the most important ?
- The context of a pilgrimage rites in Mecca as a new institution only pursuant to a Koranic verse, for me this is not clear, however, clear, that Mecca today is the absolute center of Islam

Conclusions:

- Could it be because Allah is Knower, Seer and The Most Honorable, he has made this question EXTRA not clear? Allah is always very clear in his statement. Why this ambiguity in such an important issue? Here I come slowly to the conclusion, that maybe God wants us to push, do not fix us for one special sanctuary, a rite-He wants to encourage us to think about Abraham, about the pre-Islamic period, about Judaism and Christianity, He always points , that the Deen of Islam was and remains for all the times the same.
-  Because we see these ambiguities in the story, we are encouraged to ponder  much more deeply into the origins of the Deen, as he calls Allah. It causes us to reflect, not just blindly go on pilgrimage to a place. It brings us perhaps to make a pilgrimage to Mecca, after the Jabal al Lawz, to Jerusalem, to the undisputed holy land and its history as a whole
going to reconnect, to come toghether once more, not to separate ...?
thank you all for your opinions. Salam
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Saleh on January 04, 2012, 05:34:53 PM
Salamun Alaikum Bro Wazir and All

1. Thank you very much for your reply and INSHA ALLAh, I will try to explain my opinion, actually I am a learner, so please bear with me and yes, the Quranic verses [52:1-4] is connected. The Quran is not as what  the sceptic Joseph Smith wrote:
" ..... The Qur'an, on the other hand, reads more like a jumbled and confused collection of statements and ideas, many of which bear little relationship to preceding chapters and verses. Many scholars admit that the Qur'an is so haphazard in its make-up that it requires the utmost sense of duty for anyone to plough through it!"

The answer to the sceptic is what the Quran says:

"We did not leave anything out of this book" 6:38
"Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed?" 6:114
"The word of your Lord is complete, in truth and justice. Nothing shall abrogate His words. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient" 6:115
"This is not fabricated 'hadith'; this (Quran) confirms all previous scriptures, provides the details of everything, and is a guidance and mercy for those who believe" 12:111
"We have revealed to you this book to provide explanations for everything, and guidance and mercy and good news for the submitters" 16:89

And I do concur with Bro Irfan on his comprehensive argument with regards to the topic 'Compilation of the Quran' and 17:01, 52:1-4 are also connected. Check it out.

2. If you could go into the articles that Bro Joseph set up - Prophet Abraham Original Sanctuary - At Bakkah or Makkah - [8] Ancients Rites were Reinstitued at The Ka'ba,

05:97-GOD has made the Ka'ba, The Inviolable House, an establishment for mankind [qiamallinnas], and The Sacred Month an The Offerings and The Sacrificials Animals with Garlands; this is that you may know that GOD knows whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth and that GOD is the knower of all things


This verse is futher supported by verse 22:25
Surely those who disbelieves and hinder [men] from GOD's way and from The Inviolable Mosque which We have made equally for all men, the dweller therein and the visitor and whoever shall incline therein to wrong unjustly, We will make him taste of a painful chastisement.

You said,
Mark the contrast: People were coming to Makkah for pilgrimage of Cuboid and idols installed in it before Prophet Muhammad and till date people go there for pilgrimage.

This is in my mind, we were told to face the Sacred Masjid [02:144] - a focul point, where ever we are but where are we to face once we are there?  Are we suppose to face the ka'ba and bow and prostrate it? There is an article with regards to the 'Hateem' and its facing Jabl AlAwz? Can you explain that?

GOD is the hearer, the knower - 06:115

Salam Bro
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: chadiga on January 04, 2012, 09:12:44 PM
salamu aleikum dear brother wazir

you say:

Quote
Now, as per verse 3:97, Pilgrimage was declared duty on men by Allah.
So, if you argue that Masjidil Aqsa, Bakkah, Madyan,NW Arabia was First House of Allah built by Prophet Abraham; then we have to believe that Allah gave site to Prophet Abraham(22:26), ordained Hajj and still nobody visited it in known history and nobody visits it. How is this possible? Will you explain please? Please remember Quran assert that Allah is All-Mighty, All-Knowing
.

in fact we are not know, if Abraham and his people or any ancient prophet was make the pilgrimage to the Jabal al Lawz or not. in fact, we know not to much, also the history around Jesus is not clear at all- what we know, there was a temple in Jerusalem and we can see the Dome of the Rock today with quranic inscriptions- we have one the other side the stories from many sanctuaries in old Arabia and the named Kaaba in Mecca  today. but we can't be sure from its originality , we all know, that history is based up old stories and artefacts , we was not there in the time of the prophet... :'(
what we have in our hand is only the Quran who tell us, that he is clear- then why we must discuss to much? maybe our receivers are not clear...or because we are -in the eyes from most of the Muslims- apostates and all this questions arised because we leave the right way... (statement from my husband ;)
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Saleh on January 05, 2012, 08:44:32 PM
Salamun Alaikum Sis Chadiga and All,

Q - [3:96] The most important shrine established for the people is the one in Becca; a blessed beacon for all the people. Also read 22:26-33.

This verse tell us that all people who believe since Prophet Abraham carried out hajj ritual. Islam is as old as Prophet Abraham but men tends to go a stray after the revelation came to them. As for Prophet Jesus, The Quran has a comprehensive instruction about him and his book.

Since this is a forum, I believe most of us here like to share our ideas to a certain extend as long as we do not cross the line. 

[5:101] O you who believe, do not ask about matters which, if revealed to you prematurely, would hurt you. If you ask about them in light of the Quran, they will become obvious to you. GOD has deliberately overlooked them. GOD is Forgiver, Clement.

[5:102] Others before you have asked the same questions, then became disbelievers therein.

Salam



Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Wazir1961 on January 07, 2012, 11:21:10 AM

1. ...., and yes, the Quranic verses [52:1-4] is connected. ......

2. If you could go into the articles that Bro Joseph set up - Prophet Abraham Original Sanctuary - At Bakkah or Makkah - [8]

....., where ever we are but where are we to face once we are there?  Are we suppose to face the ka'ba and bow and prostrate it? There is an article with regards to the 'Hateem' and its facing Jabl AlAwz? Can you explain that?


Dear Brother Saleh,

1). I agree with you that each sura and verse are connected, but it does not mean that we can connect any two verses to prove our point. So, let me elaborate regarding point # 1.

Verse 52:1, Verse 52:2-3, Verse 52:4, Verse 52:5 and Verse 52:6 are independent to each other and connected to verses 52:7 and 52:7 onward independently and collectively, but these verses are not inter connected.  If you believe that verse 52:1 and verse 52:4 are connected, then please explain how verse 52:2-3, 52:5 and 52:6 are connected to verse 52:4?

2) In article "PROPHET ABRAHAM'S (pbuh) ORIGINAL SANCTUARY - AT MAKKAH (MECCA) OR BAKKAH (BACA)?" Brother Joseph made argument that "(3) NO HEBREW PROPHET HAS BEEN KNOWN TO PERFORM PILGRIMAGE AT MAKKAH".

So, I am putting up same argument to you. In light of verse 3:97, can you present any evidence to prove that  any Hebrew Prophets or their followers ever did pilgrimage in Bakkah, Madyan, NW Arabia? and do you have any evidence to prove that Bakkah was located there?

For final point, I am reproducing my comments, I made on November 26, 2011 above, to the proponents of idea that  Bakkah was located at Jabal al-Lawz, Madyan, NW Arabia.
---------------------------------
Quote from analysis:

The scholars give us the opinion that  'Hateem ' was initially part of the main building, and praying inside  'Hateem ' is regarded as praying inside Kaa 'ba itself.” Moreover, in fig 2 the direction of prayer is mentioned.

If we accept this premise, logical questions are:
1) Do you think person standing in semi-circle of  'Hateem ' pray facing another direction while keeping his back towards Kaa 'ba?
2) While praying in vicinity of Kaa 'ba who will pray in another direction?
3) If one is praying in another direction, then, why would he come near Kaa 'ba in first place?

Other questions are:
1) Is it appropriate to use current map to understand situation of 7th century or prior to that?
2) Is there any evidence suggesting that people lived in Makkah used to pray in direction of Jabl Al Awz?
3) Is there any evidence suggesting that people of Book ever prayed in direction of Jabl Al Awz ?
4) What is significance of alignment line you drawn in pictures? There can be many places in world aligning with Kaa 'ba. So, what it proves?

I hope that the person (as name has been withheld) who did analysis and/ or advocating that  Jabl Al Awz was a original Masjid Al Haram will answer above cited questions.

Thanks in advance.
--------------------------------------------------------
So, will you please answer my above questions as you wrote that "It is unequovical that the first House built by Prophet Abraham and his son in Bakkah, Madyan,NW Arabia, was the Masjidil Aqsa where propbaly all the prophets were summoned during their ministries including the Last Prophet - Q-17:01 & 53:01-18."  ?

regards,

Wazir
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: chadiga on January 08, 2012, 02:53:59 AM
Dear brother wazir
I want to come out, now that it seems so important to you. I have posted  this theory of Jabal al Lawz to brother Joseph.  But I must emphasize again that I have never claimed that this theory is the absolute truth. Please let me living... :-[ Once again I've looked at all relevant points, plus Posts, plus articles, I have now written down all my thoughts on this subject, according to my possibilities. I apologize for the bumpy language, I have translated it with Google. For the verses of the Quran, I would ask everyone to take a reliable translation, since my post certainly errors. I hope that this will ensure the outstanding issues on your part, as well as possible. Many thanks to all.

http://koransaussage.blogspot.com/2012/01/pilgrimage-last-edition.html (http://koransaussage.blogspot.com/2012/01/pilgrimage-last-edition.html)


And i'm sorry that my answer came so late, but i have three children and they need me also a little bit... ;)


Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: chadiga on January 08, 2012, 10:44:12 PM
Salam again
i found a post anywhere, very interesting for the topic:
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9603245.0
salams :)
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Wazir1961 on January 08, 2012, 11:57:26 PM
Dear sister Chadiga,


First, let me thank you for revealing your identity as proponent of theory of Original House at Jabal al Lawz, Madyan.

Second, when you proposed the theory, you should answer legitimate questions of forum members, because, many people visit this forum to seek truth. So, to confuse them with theory and not answering their questions goes against the purpose of the forum.

So, if you still believe in your theory, you should provide rational bases for the belief and answer the questions cited in my previous post.

Third,  you quoted translation of verse 21:71 in your article as under:

'œ 21.71 And we delivered him (speaking of Abraham) and Lot to the land which we have blessed for the
Abraham and Lot took refuge in the blessed land Bakka. In the land of Midian.'

Will you explain how you arrive to words 'œBakka. In the land of Midian' in your translation? (I have not seen these words in this verse in any translation).

I am providing every word of verse with its translation, for ready reference, for you and for forum members, below:

21:71:1 / wanajjaynāhu /And We delivered him
21:71:2 / walūṭan / and Lut
21:71:3 / ilā / to
21:71:4 / l-arḍi / the land
21:71:5 / allatī / which
21:71:6 / bāraknā / We (had) blessed
21:71:7 / fīhā / [in it]
21:71:8 / lil'ʿālamīna / for the worlds.
(Source: http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=21&verse=71)

So, will you provide bases and authority to add words in verse to prove your theory?

I see many holes in your theory, but at present I pointed out main points. So, I hope you will address these questions.

I understand your personal circumstances, so take your time to reply. I am not in hurry.

Regards,

Wazir
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: chadiga on January 09, 2012, 11:01:03 PM
dear brother Wazir
First Point, of course,  Midian is not mentioned in the Koran, this is an interpretation on my part, it should be in kursiv letters , to emphasize the difference.
You know, a theory is primarily here to make you reflect on it. I have said several times that I've never claimed to be complete. Every day I learn again something new. So it makes me out of nothing at all to admit that I could be wrong .... 8)
I have trouble  to recognize Mecca as the place of pilgrimage. I think I have proven this with my post. But where we have to make the pilgrimage, where the real masjid al haram is that it seems to me still not clear.
I read new theories, all based on the Koran, all must be looked at compared. So I take me back and leave the field for the more learned... :)
You say that my theory has several holes. I see confusion too! tell me where you see the holes.
Either I give it up or we go on again ... Salaam and thank you for your answer.
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Saleh on January 10, 2012, 09:55:59 PM
Dear Bro Wazir

You quote on 07/01/2012:

1). I agree with you that each sura and verse are connected, but it does not mean that we can connect any two verses to prove our point. So, let me elaborate regarding point # 1.

You agree and at the same time you disagree? You need a perfect sentence then you will agree that one verse in one particular sura is connected to another verse of the other sura? Then why did GOD said - 04:82 - Why don't you ponder/analyze the Quran. Bro, if you analyze the Quran then you will have a better understanding of the intricacies of the Quranic system.

And you quote on Jan 08 2012:
So, if you still believe in your theory, you should provide rational bases for the belief and answer the questions cited in my previous post.

Third, you quoted translation of verse 21:71 in your article as under:

'21.71 And we delivered him (speaking of Abraham) and Lot to the land which we have blessed for the
Abraham and Lot took refuge in the blessed land Bakka. In the land of Midian.'

Will you explain how you arrive to words Bakka. In the land of Midian in your translation? (I have not seen these words in this verse in any translation).

So where can it be? Is the interpolation not relevent?
[2:125] We rendered the house a safe sanctuary. You may use station of Abraham as a prayer house. We commissioned Abraham and Ismail: "You shall purify My house for those organization [who follow millat Abraham], as a retreat and those who bow and prostrate."

[3:96] The first house established for men is the one in Bakkah; full of blessing and guidance for all nation.

[3:97] In it are clear signs: the station of Abraham. Anyone who enters it shall be granted safe passage. The people owe it to GOD that they shall observe Hajj to this shrine, when they can afford it. As for those who disbelieve, GOD does not need anyone.

[22:26] We appointed Abraham to establish the House: "You shall not idolize any other god beside Me, and purify My shrine for those organization (who follow millat Abraham), those who stand and those who bow and prostrate.

[22:27] "And proclaim that the people shall observe Hajj pilgrimage. They will come to you walking or riding on various exhausted (means of transportation). They will come from the farthest locations."

[22:28] They may seek commercial benefits, and they shall commemorate GOD's name during the specified days for providing them with livestock. "Eat therefrom and feed the despondent and the poor."

[22:29] They shall complete their obligations, fulfill their vows, and circumambulate the ancient house.

and

37:133-138 - And Lot was one of the messengers. When We saved him and all his family. Except an old woman who remained. Then, We destroyed the rest. And you pass by their ruins in the morning. And in the night. Do you not comprehend?

Prophet Lot was saved and delivered to the blessed land. From the verse, the ruins of the town are located on an often-travelled trade route which Prophet Muhammad and his people knew very well:

And it is on an established path. In that is a sign for the faithful. - 15:76-77

And the companions of the woods were also wrong doers. We exacted tribution from them. They were both on an open highway, plain to see. - 15:78-79

So, both the people of Prophet Lot and the people of Shuaib - companion of the woods, were near to the people of Prophet Muhammad. The people of Shuaib was in Madyan.

Again You quote on 07/01/2012:

Verse 52:1, Verse 52:2-3, Verse 52:4, Verse 52:5 and Verse 52:6 are independent to each other and connected to verses 52:7 and 52:7 onward independently and collectively, but these verses are not inter connected.  If you believe that verse 52:1 and verse 52:4 are connected, then please explain how verse 52:2-3, 52:5 and 52:6 are connected to verse 52:4?

My opinion:-

52:1 - Tur - It is the hallow ground where Prophet Moses was summoned by GOD - 25:22-30. This verses are connected to verses 95:2-3.
52:2-3 And the book written on parchment unfolded - These verses are connected to 53:13 - The second decent of Jibril and 75:17 - Compilation of the Quran and 25:32 - Arrange in a specific sequence.
52: By the House most frequented.
These verses tell us that the Quran was handed over to the Prophet Muhammad at the Tur juxtapose to the House after it was compiled and arrange in a specific sequence.
52:6-7 - the knowledge that is within the Quran.

There are lots similiraties between Prophet Muhammad and Prophet Moses. Both were given Furqan, 
Prophet Muhammad - 02:185
Prophet Moses         - 02:53 & 21:48
the only difference is that GOD spoke to Prophet Moses direct - 04:164.

Peace Brother Wazir




Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Saleh on January 11, 2012, 07:23:28 AM
Salam Bro Wazir

Plz refer to my opinion on 1. Tur - read 28:22-30 instead of 25:22-30. it was a typo,

Sorry Bro


Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Wazir1961 on January 11, 2012, 11:26:46 AM
tell me where you see the holes.

Dear Sister Chadiga,

First answer my questions, then I will show you holes of theory. Once you will try to answer my questions, most probably you  will notice a few holes.

Regards,

Wazir
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Wazir1961 on January 11, 2012, 11:31:55 AM
My opinion:-

52:1 - Tur - It is the hallow ground where Prophet Moses was summoned by GOD - 25:22-30. This verses are connected to verses 95:2-3.
52:2-3 And the book written on parchment unfolded - These verses are connected to 53:13 - The second decent of Jibril and 75:17 - Compilation of the Quran and 25:32 - Arrange in a specific sequence.
52: By the House most frequented.
These verses tell us that the Quran was handed over to the Prophet Muhammad at the Tur juxtapose to the House after it was compiled and arrange in a specific sequence.
52:6-7 - the knowledge that is within the Quran.

There are lots similiraties between Prophet Muhammad and Prophet Moses. Both were given Furqan, 
Prophet Muhammad - 02:185
Prophet Moses         - 02:53 & 21:48
the only difference is that GOD spoke to Prophet Moses direct - 04:164.

Dear brother Saleh,

Did you answered my simple question: How verse 52:2-3, 52:5 and 52:6 are connected to verse 52:4?

Regards,

Wazir
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Saleh on January 11, 2012, 05:30:41 PM
Dear bro Wazir,

Amendment,
52:1 - Tur - It is the hallow ground where Prophet Moses was summoned by GOD - 25:22-30. This verses are connected to verses 95:2-3.
52:2-3 And the book written on parchment unfolded - These verses are connected to 53:13 - The second decent of Jibril and 75:17 - Compilation of the Quran and 25:32 - Arrange in a specific sequence.
52:4 By the House most frequented.
These verses tell us that the Quran was handed over to the Prophet Muhammad at the Tur juxtapose to the House after it was compiled and arrange in a specific sequence.
52:5-6 - the knowledge that is within the Quran.

My simple answer,
[2:125] We rendered the house a safe sanctuary. You may use station of Abraham as a prayer house. We commissioned Abraham and Ismail: "You shall purify My house for those organization [who follow millat Abraham], as those who retreat [wal3kifina] and those who bow, prostrate."

wal3kifina - if you check the AlMawrid Arabic - English dictionary, the meaning is - devoted to, dedicated to,occupied with, busy with, working at.....

Thus, 52:2-3 is connected to 52:4 as such, 'wal3kifina' can be translated as working at the House, as the House was a Masjid, 'The Palace of GOD' established on earth and it can be utilised for many purposes such as sacrifice, sermons, marriage[nikah], most important work that concern divinity.

52:2-3 is connected to 52:5-6 - knowledge that is within the Quran and 52:5-6 is independent to 52:4.

Peace

Saleh





Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: chadiga on January 12, 2012, 04:40:41 AM
DEAR brother Wazir
I must first mention that the analysis of the post quoted below is not mine. But still I'll answer to your questions:
you say:

Quote from analysis:
m
"The scholars give us the opinion that 'hateem' was initially part of the main building, and praying inside 'Hateem' is regarded as praying inside Kaa'ba itself." Moreover, in fig 2 the direction of prayer is mentioned.

To be correct, we can not take support on Muslim scholars when they cometo such a conclusion by means of   their historical sources  Your questions make sense only if I prefer this sources. I'm rather skeptical. In addition, your first three questions for me makes little sense. since in fact, i questions the association of Kaaba with Mecca  . So the first three questions are really immaterial, because they were made because of an assumption, not based on verifiable sources.

If we accept this premise, logical questions are:
1) Do you think person standing in a semi-circle of 'Hateem' pray facing another direction while keeping his back towards Kaa'ba?

2) While praying in vicinity of Kaa'ba who wants to pray in another direction?
3) If one is praying in another direction, then, why would he come near Kaa'ba in first place?
this three questions i answered above.

Other questions are:
1) Is it appropriate to use current map to understand the situation of 7th century or prior to that?

This question is legitimate, I would say that it can give us an indication. Surely we can find clues, but rely only on those maps seems to me incorrect.

2) Is there any evidence suggesting that people lived in Makkah used to pray in the direction of Jable Al Awz?
After examining all hypotheses related to the question it seems to me quite possible that the followers of Muhammad  prayed in a different direction from Mecca, it seems quite possible that this could be Jabal al Lawz.

3) Is there any evidence suggesting that people of Book ever prayed in the direction of Jable Al Awz?

It must be said that the theory that the Jabal al Lawz as"the Holy City of God" was established by Christians. There are also newer theories of represent scholars (Finkenstein)  who question Jerusalem as the place where the Temple of Solomon had been in . The situation around the Quibla from the people of the book is not clear.

4) What is significance of alignment line drawn you in pictures? There can be many places in the world aligning with Kaa'ba. So, what it proves?
This analysis was also  not mine, but anyway, it can give us an idea to study the Quibla changes more accurately. There is no proof, but perhaps another clue to solve the puzzle.
It seems to me that you ask  always for "prove". Counter question: where are your proofs? From my side it was always clear that this theory is firstly  an assumption. Far from being a complete theory.
I hope that I am now sufficiently answered your questions?and sorry for mistakes in the language.
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Truth Seeker on January 16, 2012, 01:50:32 AM
Salaam Chadiga,

I can see that you are researching deeply on this topic of whether the Kaaba is in Makkah or not.
Since the era of Islam, on a practical day to day basis, Muslims have been in unison regarding the direction of prayer.

I feel that God has stressed the importance of the Qibla change and also the Masjid al Haram to the Muslims. Because of the emphasis on praying and is importance, could God have allowed it to be that Muslims place their centre of worship and Hajj in the incorrect location and direction.
In my opinion, something as important as this would surely not be overlooked by God.


As far as my knowledge on this, I do not think that in the early years of Islam, Muslims were praying in a different direction or that their Kaaba was elsewhere.

Is it not possible that like the preservation of the Holy Quran, the Muslims preserved the direction of prayer and location of the Kaaba.

Thanks
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Saleh on February 05, 2012, 11:35:00 AM
Salaam Chadiga,

I can see that you are researching deeply on this topic of whether the Kaaba is in Makkah or not.
Since the era of Islam, on a practical day to day basis, Muslims have been in unison regarding the direction of prayer.

I feel that God has stressed the importance of the Qibla change and also the Masjid al Haram to the Muslims. Because of the emphasis on praying and is importance, could God have allowed it to be that Muslims place their centre of worship and Hajj in the incorrect location and direction.
In my opinion, something as important as this would surely not be overlooked by God.

As far as my knowledge on this, I do not think that in the early years of Islam, Muslims were praying in a different direction or that their Kaaba was elsewhere.

Is it not possible that like the preservation of the Holy Quran, the Muslims preserved the direction of prayer and location of the Kaaba.

Thanks

Salam Sis

What is comment on this link - www.free-minds.org/where-was-mohammad

Rgds

Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Truth Seeker on February 06, 2012, 08:51:54 AM
Salam Sis

What is comment on this link - www.free-minds.org/where-was-mohammad

Rgds


Salaam Saleh,

I checked out your link but it doesn't seem to work. Please can you post the link again.

Thanks.

Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Saleh on February 06, 2012, 01:50:36 PM
Salam Sis

What is comment on this link - www.free-minds.org/where-was-mohammad

Rgds


Salaam Saleh,

I checked out your link but it doesn't seem to work. Please can you post the link again.

Thanks.

Salaam

It should be

http://free-minds.org/where-was-mohammad

sorry

Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Saleh on February 06, 2012, 01:59:22 PM
Salam Sis

What is comment on this link - www.free-minds.org/where-was-mohammad

Rgds


Salaam Saleh,

I checked out your link but it doesn't seem to work. Please can you post the link again.

Thanks.

Salaam

It should be

http://free-minds.org/where-was-mohammad

sorry

Sorry again, it should be http://free-minds.org/Kingdom-Israel and there there is a link to Where was Mohammad.
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: chadiga on February 10, 2012, 08:40:53 PM
salamu aleikum truth Seeker

sorry, when i was absent a wile, i had a crazy time and was sick. you say:


Salaam Chadiga,


I feel that God has stressed the importance of the Qibla change and also the Masjid al Haram to the Muslims. Because of the emphasis on praying and is importance, could God have allowed it to be that Muslims place their centre of worship and Hajj in the incorrect location and direction.
In my opinion, something as important as this would surely not be overlooked by God.


As far as my knowledge on this, I do not think that in the early years of Islam, Muslims were praying in a different direction or that their Kaaba was elsewhere.

Is it not possible that like the preservation of the Holy Quran, the Muslims preserved the direction of prayer and location of the Kaaba.

Thanks

Allah protects his word, not the false interpretation of it. Allah lets go astray, who wants to go astray and guides who will be rightly guided. For me, it is therefore quite possible that God allows it, because people do not use their AQL  enough  to seek the truth. They rely on their religious leaders and push so the responsibility of madness going on from those.
The location of the Kaaba is simply accepted so the word Kaab also, the black Stone as an integrated Point of focus, etc.
It is always difficult to imagine that a large mass  going wrong and this for a long time. The same problem also have the Christians, I can well remember the discussions with my parents when they were still talking with me, and her horror and disbelief that all Christians may be led astray, and God allows it.
For me, the site is open. I can not claim anything-with my current knowledge-i am simply keep my eyes open and continue to learn and seek knowledge. Only Allah expand our knowledge. A very interesting new aspect of the whole early history of Islam was presented in the FM forum by Pazuzu. Here the links
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9603245.msg289455#msg289455[/url]][url=http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9603245.msg289455#msg289455]http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9603245.msg289455#msg289455[/url] (ftp://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9603245.msg289455#msg289455)
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9603432.msg291976#msg291976 (http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9603432.msg291976#msg291976)

Peace be with you all in the forum and I love you all your sister chadiga
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Peaceful on December 19, 2012, 11:34:59 AM
According to Gibson : http://searchformecca.com/Jerusalem.html

Neither Jerusalem nor Mecca were the First Qibla. In fact, it was Petra. The same location used by Arab pilgrims for centuries!!!

"It is very true the the Mosque of the Two Qiblas faced Jerusalem, but if one examines a map, it is obvious that Petra is located between Medina and Jerusalem. Thus this mosque faced BOTH Jerusalem and Petra. If you examine the Changing of the Qibla Timeline you will discover that there are a dozen early mosques that faced Petra, including the mosques in Medina and Jerusalem! These mosques alone are solid archeological proof that Petra was the focal point of the first qibla and not Jerusalem. Not a single mosque, outside of the Mosque of the Two Qiblas points to Jerusalem, but EVERY mosque built during the first hundred years of Islam pointed to Petra."

Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Sardar Miyan on December 20, 2012, 04:07:43 AM
Quranists say Qibla is not the direction of Muslims prayers but a center to concentrate on Allahs Commands.When it was not for the dirction of prayers why were TWO ( Qiblas) in Masjide Qiblatain as confirmed by Imam of our local Masjid having seen two Mimbers. a place from where Juma Qutba is delivered & also stand for offering Juma & regular five Prayers
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Wakas on January 07, 2013, 04:45:41 PM
Salaam all,

I just wanted to add a note to this discussion. I recently completed an extensive research on "qiblah" and "al masjid al haram", as per Quran, and found an alternative to those shown below:


The main views that range are:

          (1) The original sanctuary built by Prophet Abraham (pbuh) was in Makkah (Traditional position)
          (2) The original sanctuary built by Prophet Abraham (pbuh) was towards the Holy Lands (My position)
          (3) The original Masjid al Haram was not in Makkah but in Jerusalem
          (4) The original Masjid al Haram was not in Makkah or Jerusalem but in Jabal al-Lawz
          (5) The original Masjid al Haram was in Makkah (My position and the traditional position)
          (6) The different locations of the first Qibla


The term "qiblah" means, in terms of likelihood:
1) focal-point - focus/centre of interest or activity
2) direction - general aim or purpose; a general way in which someone/something is developing
3) point-of-approach - a way in which to approaching something
4) counteraction - to oppose and mitigate the effects of by contrary action

"masjid" means "time of SJD/acknowledgement".

"al masjid al haram" means "the inviolable time of acknowledgement" (i.e. the term referring to the time-period/event of the inviolable months).

The above can provide a perfect fit with The Quran, and consequently renders much of this debate/controversy moot.

Link can be provided upon request.
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Joseph Islam on January 07, 2013, 10:25:54 PM
Dear Wakas,

May peace be with you.

Thank you for sharing the outcome of your study with the readers of this forum. Much appreciated.

I have a few academic questions to ask regarding your understanding of the terms.

Please can you cite any Arabic literary source / lexicons which corroborates / supports your understanding of the terms as you have defined them, or do you respectfully acknowledge that this is merely a synthesis of your own Quranic study but has no support in any Arabic literary source / spoken Arabic language?


Furthermore:

MASJID:

Personally, I find that verse 18:21 clearly implies that a masjid is a structure / building. For example:

""Construct (ib'nu) over them a structure (bun'yanan).  Their Lord knows best about them". Those who prevailed in their matter said "Surely, we will take over them a Masjid""

I also see tension in other verses where I have slotted your understanding. Please kindly assist to clarify.

002:114
"And who is more unjust than the one who prevents from the Masjid of God that His name should be remembered IN THEM (Arabic fiha)"
Your understanding slotted: "And who is more unjust than the one who prevents from the 'time of SJD/acknowledgement' of God that His name should be remembered IN THEM (Arabic fiha)"

What is your understanding of 'fiha' in this context? How can God's name be prevented 'fiha' (in them) when masjid according to yourself is a 'time of SJD/acknowledgement'

009:017
It is not for the polytheists that they maintain / inhabit the Masjid of God
Your understanding slotted: "It is not for the polytheists that they maintain / inhabit 'time of SJD/acknowledgement' of God"

The verb 'amara' means to build upon something, maintain, inhabit or visit a thing often.

How can one 'inhabit' / maintain (ya'muru) God's 'time of SJD/acknowledgement'? Can time be inhabited / maintained? Please explain your understanding on this.

Similarly,

009:018
“Only he will maintain / inhabit (ya'muru) the masjid of God who believes ...”
Your understanding slotted: "Only he will maintain / inhabit (ya'muru) the 'time of SJD/acknowledgement' God who believes ..."
 

002:187
Your understanding slotted: "And do not have relations with them while you are secluded / resident IN (fi) 'time of SJD/acknowledgement'"

How can one be resident / secluded in a time of SJD?

017:007
Your understanding slotted: And to enter (liyadkhulu) the 'time of SJD/acknowledgement'.

How can one 'enter' a time of SJD?

In the following verse, Masjid seems to be a place of worship, given that Masjid appears with monasteries, churches and synagogues. Please can you clarify.

022:040
"Surely would have been demolished monasteries (sawami'u) and churches (wabiya'un) and wasalawatun (and synagogues) and masajid (time of SJD?)"



Al-MASJID AL HARAM

I have slotted your understanding into some of the Quranic verses. With respect, once I have done so, I find difficulty in the understanding of those verses. Please assist to clarify if you kindly will.


002:144 - So turn your face towards the DIRECTION (Arabic: shatra) of "the inviolable time of acknowledgement" - How can one turn towards the direction of a time? - Please clarify.
002:191 - And do not fight them NEAR (Arabic: inda) "the inviolable time of acknowledgement" until they should fight you IN IT (Arabic: fihi)
009:007 - Except those with whom you made a covenant NEAR (inda) the "the inviolable time of acknowledgement"
009:028 - So let them not come near the "the inviolable time of acknowledgement" after this year of theirs
017:001 - Glory be to Him, who carried His servant by night from the "the inviolable time of acknowledgement"
048:027 - Surely, you will enter "the inviolable time of acknowledgement", if God wills, secure"


With respect, as always,
Joseph.
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Orange on January 16, 2013, 10:53:47 AM
Jabal al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia is the true Mount Sinai.

http://www.bobcornuke.com/content/mount-sinai

Disclaimer Statement

The research and site survey being investigated by the BASE Institute has strong potential. Is it the Biblical Mt. Sinai? The BASE Institute does not make the claim that we have found Mount Sinai. We'll let you draw your own conclusions. In our opinion, it's a candidate. The research continues.
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Wakas on January 17, 2013, 05:28:41 AM
Dear Joseph,
w/salaam.

Quote
Please can you cite any Arabic literary source / lexicons which corroborates / supports your understanding of the terms as you have defined them, or do you respectfully acknowledge that this is merely a synthesis of your own Quranic study but has no support in any Arabic literary source / spoken Arabic language?

I have not checked all Classical Arabic dictionaries but I am not aware of this specific meaning in them. However, I do know traditional translators such as Shakir, Yusuf Ali, Muhammad Asad use "time of prayer/prostration" for "masjid", but I do not know if they simply made this up or based it on earlier commentaries. They likely based it on earlier commentaries, so the "time" aspect likely has some support in sources.

Further, grammarians openly acknowledge that the form "ma3fil" (same as "masjid") is known as a "noun of time and place", indicating when and/or where the verb occurs. I discuss this in my article.

Thus, the meanings I have stated are theoretically possible, there is no doubt about that.

In my analysis of occurrences, I discuss every one. I will quote from my articles in regard to the verses you cite as potentially problematic:




18:21 And like that We made known about them that they might know that God's promise is true and that the Hour there is no doubt in it. When they disputed amongst themselves about their issue, so said: "Build over/upon them a building". Their Lord knows best about them. Those who prevailed on their issue said: "Surely we will take* (to ourselves) over/upon them a maSJD."
*verb form 8, reflexive.

Interestingly, almost all translators seemingly neglect certain aspects of this verse:
    Firstly, they imply a physical building was built (worse still, a Mosque) over them (i.e. their graves), as some sort of shrine in their memory, which is completely against the message of The Quran (i.e. no saint/human reverence). Some commentators do not distinguish whether this was a good or bad thing, i.e. do not clarify who "prevailed" in the dispute, the right view or wrong view. The flow and logic of the verse would imply those who prevailed were in the right, otherwise there would be little point ending on this note. It seems most commentators have this view also.
    Secondly, it clearly states there is a dispute and some said "build a building over/upon them" yet it later says those who prevailed said "surely we will take (to ourselves) a maSJD over/upon them" clearly implying there must be a significant difference between each side's position. If traditionally understood, the only difference is one argues for a building, the other argues for a Mosque. What kind of building would have been built by the former side? It would most likely be a communal building, i.e. a Mosque-type building, thus trying to determine the difference in their arguments is difficult going by the traditional understanding. As a side note, Asad makes a reasonable interpretation of the term "over/upon them" as "in their memory", which seems plausible.
    Thirdly, the former expression uses "build a building..." and the latter uses "take (to ourselves) a maSJD...", as if they were both about building why not use the same word? Not to mention "take to ourselves (a building)" doesn't quite make sense, as it implies a pre-existing thing. To check this, out of 128 occurrences of this specific verb form there are five occurrences that may refer to "taking for/to oneself a structure/building" and they are:

29:41 (implies pre-existing thing)
9:108 (unclear)
7:74 - "take FROM (partitive) its plains palaces" (plains are pre-existing) or from context may refer to existing Thamud structures
26:129 (implies pre-existing thing)
16:68 (implies pre-existing thing)

Thus, the evidence is weighted in favour of a pre-existing thing. To use a reflexive verb such as this, to refer to building/creating something anew seems odd. To refute this, evidence to the contrary would have to be brought. Interestingly, this simple observation helped illuminate the parable of the spider: click to read.
    Lastly, since it implies the ones who prevailed had it right, we must ask ourselves what is the message of this verse? Well, clearly for the people in question God gave them a sign in this story. After this lesson, they disputed, some said "build a building over them" and in-between the other side's argument it says 'Their Lord knows best about them' (also mentioned in subsequent verses), implying their number or who they were is not the point, thus no need for a building, as their Lord knows best about them, and it is the outcome/lesson of the story or God's will prevailing that is important. Also, in 18:22 it says "do not dispute about them except with an argument obvious/apparent", and since AQ does not clarify their number which seems to be the main dispute, the primary obvious/apparent argument is the lesson of their story, and this is what people should be reminded of and take to themselves.
May be interesting to read in conjunction with 2:125, for a comparison of a similar phrasing "...take (to yourselves) from the status/position of Abraham a time/place of bonding/blessing/honour/commendation...".

#####

2:113 And the Jews said: "The Nazarenes have no basis," and the Nazarenes said: "The Jews have no basis," while they are both reciting the decree/writ! Like that, those who do not know said a similar thing. So God will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection in what they were differing in.
2:114 And who is more wicked/unjust than one who prevented God's maSaJiD to be remembered/mentioned His name in them and strived in their ruin/waste/uncultivation? Those! Not it was for them that they enter/dKhl them except as those fearing; they will have humiliation in this world and in the Hereafter a painful retribution.

Note the use of "those!" in 2:114, implying those previously mentioned are doing this. Are the previous incidences examples of ruining and preventing God's maSaJiD to be mentioned His name in them? If so, the salat mentioned in 2:110 may be of relevance to the context, as it could be argued the regular/timed salat is an example of a maSJD, i.e. a time of SJD/acknowledgement. (Background: salat article)
    Note the use of "enter" implying whatever maSJD is it can be entered, but this is not necessarily an entering of a building, e.g. see how the word dKhl is used in 5:61, 72:17, 2:208, 7:151, 17:80, 27:19, 49:14, 110:2.
    The phrase "not it was for them that they enter them except as those fearing" is a little unusual. For a comparison, this perhaps should be read in conjunction with 48:27, in which an example of entering "al masjid al haram" not fearing is given. Possibly implying they (believers) may have feared previously when entering. If we imagine one group is in a minority and they attempt to disrupt something the majority are trying to uphold then it would be natural to "fear" doing so - of what may happen, e.g. the consequences, e.g. humiliation, or worse. See 41:26, 7:204, 17:46, 15:91, 23:67, 43:31, 25:32 - for ways in which people cause problems or prevent others from the message.
The traditional understanding is related to attempting to destroy Mosques, however, there is no clear evidence of this taking place in AQ as far as I'm aware.

#####

Note the plural, not singular:

9:17 It was not for the polytheists that they develop/cultivate/enliven* God's maSaJiD (while) witnessing over their own rejection/concealment. For these, their works have fallen, and in the Fire they will abide.
9:18 Only will develop/cultivate/enliven* God's maSaJiD is one who believed in God and the Last Day, and upheld/established the bond/salat, and brought forth betterment/zakat, and does not fear except God. Then perhaps these that will be of the guided ones.
*Arabic: ya'muru, root: Ayn-Miim-Ra, other occurrences of this form lessen the possibility of "maintain" as a meaning, e.g. see 30:9. Please note the difference between "maintain" and "develop".

These verses likely refer to the mix of polytheists, i.e. those who did and did not break the treaty, see chapter 9. In 9:18 note the use of imperfect and perfect verbs, implying in future only those who did X, Y, Z will be able to develop/enliven God's maSaJiD.
    Note the important and very interesting use of the word "asa/perhaps" in 9:18 which clearly shows even if you believe and do the aforementioned things you may not be of the guided ones. This notion ties in with verses such as 7:28 in which those who believe in a diety/Allah are doing things not authorised by Him, in other words, one can believe in God but still be on a Quranic journey, purifying their beliefs/practices as they go.

#####

2:187 Lawful for you nights (of) the abstinence is sexual approach* to your women, they are a garment for you and you are a garment for them. God knows that you used to betray/deceive yourselves so He turned towards you and He forgave you; so now approach** them and seek what God has decreed/written for you. And eat and drink until becomes distinct the white thread from the black thread, of dawn. Then you shall complete the abstinence until the night, and do not approach** them while you are devoting/cleaving in the maSaJiD. These are God's boundaries, so do not transgress them. It is thus that God makes His revelations clear to the people that they may be righteous/God-concious.
*Arabic: RaFaTh (root: Ra-Fa-Tha)
**Arabic: BaShiR (root: Ba-Shin-Ra)

IF one takes masajid=mosques then if women were not allowed in them, it would make this statement illogical, thus clearly implying women could be present in the mosques. It also implies men and women are unlikely to be segregated, as they could approach one another, i.e. interact.
    Who in their right mind would approach their wife in a sexual manner in a public Mosque? Was this such a temptation or common practice that AQ had to tell them not to do it? According to history/tradition mosques in those early days were very basic or simply courtyards thus unlikely to have multiple rooms so it seems even more odd to suggest such a thing taking place in a Mosque. This traditional understanding verges on the nonsensical.
    IF masajids=mosques, why even mention mosques, when there is much greater chance of sexual temptation in the homes during abstinence? The traditional commentators attempt an explanation for this, e.g Jalalayn/Ibn Kathir say this is referring to 'itikaf' (spiritual retreat in the mosque) when believers would leave the mosque for sex then return, when they are meant to reside at the mosque for a certain number of days. This is a complete insertion of course, and hardly "clear" as it implies at the end of the verse, and the obvious error as it says "...WHILE YOU are devoting/cleaving IN the masajid" not when one leaves them. So, it would seem they interpret it as "...while you are staying in the masajid (for itikaf)...".
    If it did mean 'itikaf' then this is not explained elsewhere in AQ, e.g. how many days, what does it involve, why, is it obligatory, examples of anyone actually doing it etc. If we are relying upon AQ only for our understanding of this verse, then 'itikaf' must be rejected outright. The consequence of this however, is that it renders the understanding of masajid=mosques illogical, or at least very unusual.
    Another explanation put forth for this verse is that sexual approach to your women is permitted in the nights of the abstinence but not when one is staying in the mosques, e.g. The Sacred Mosque (in Mecca). Not for "itikaf" per se but simply a spiritual/devotional retreat there, e.g. travellers to The Sacred Mosque (in Mecca) may have come from afar and thus set up tents there, and this verse is referring to them (a verse cited to support this notion of "residency/staying" is 22:25). Not that I necessarily agree with this explanation, but it is at least more plausible than the Traditional explanation, which advocates a specific practice of "itikaf" rather than an undefined one. It is debatable whether the word "akif" means "reside/stay" according to Quran usage, but in any case people staying-over in the mosque seems odd/impractical if one takes "tawaf" as "circumambulation" for example, and the "hadiy" (gifts/offerings) are also to be taken to such a venue. It could make "circumambulation" rather awkward, and if many residents/gifts/animals, perhaps impossible.

#####

I consider 22:40 perhaps the best example of a non-time understanding, however even this does not provide concrete counter-evidence:

22:39 It is permitted for those who have been persecuted to fight. And God is able to give them victory.
22:40 Those who were expelled from their homes without right, except that they said: "Our Lord is God!" And if it were not for God checking/defending the people, some by others, surely would have been overturned/demolished monasteries and churches/synagogues and synagogues/blessings/bonds/petitions and maSaJiD in which the name of God is mentioned/remembered much. And surely God will help those who help Him. Indeed God is Powerful, Noble.
22:41 Those who if We empower them in the land, they uphold/establish the salat/bond, and give forth betterment, and enjoin the right and forbid from the wrong. And to God is the conclusion of matters.

According to CAD "salawatun" (the plural of 'salat') can mean "synagogues", hence translators opting for this. Interestingly, it should be noted that if "salawatun" were translated as "prayers", as it is elsewhere in AQ by most translators, it would not fit as "prayers" are not destroyable. Coincidence? The word "biya'un" can also mean "synagogues" hence putting it twice above.
The implication of 22:40 is that God does not want these things to be ruined. Somewhat unusually, it singles out 'maSaJiD' saying "in which the name of God is mentioned/remembered much", implying the others listed do not have this or some maSaJiD do not have this. A more detailed study into the possible CAD meanings of "sawami" and "biya'un" may need to be done.
24:36 may be interesting to note as it uses "buyoot/houses" not "masajid". IF masjid=mosque, it seems that could have been more appropriate to use.

###

And as for 17:7 and 2:144 the quotes are rather lengthy, thus it would be better to view them directly on the article pages, article 3 in the series:

Articles:
1) http://mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-of-SuJuD-from-Quran.html
2) http://mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-masjid-quran.html
3) http://mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-masjid-al-haram-Quran.html


I thought you had already read the above articles, but if not, please take your time, and if/when you have time to respond, please do so.
Even if you prefer not to respond at length, you may wish to tackle the multiple problems I highlight for an understanding of "place of sujud, i.e. Masjid" and "The Sacred Masjid" which I assume are your understandings.


Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: HOPE on January 17, 2013, 07:08:35 AM
Salaam Wakas,

Quote
Interestingly, almost all translators seemingly neglect certain aspects of this verse:
    Firstly, they imply a physical building was built (worse still, a Mosque) over them (i.e. their graves), as some sort of shrine in their memory, which is completely against the message of The Quran (i.e. no saint/human reverence). Some commentators do not distinguish whether this was a good or bad thing, i.e. do not clarify who "prevailed" in the dispute, the right view or wrong view. The flow and logic of the verse would imply those who prevailed were in the right, otherwise there would be little point ending on this note. It seems most commentators have this view also.
    Secondly, it clearly states there is a dispute and some said "build a building over/upon them" yet it later says those who prevailed said "surely we will take (to ourselves) a maSJD over/upon them" clearly implying there must be a significant difference between each side's position. If traditionally understood, the only difference is one argues for a building, the other argues for a Mosque. What kind of building would have been built by the former side? It would most likely be a communal building, i.e. a Mosque-type building, thus trying to determine the difference in their arguments is difficult going by the traditional understanding. As a side note, Asad makes a reasonable interpretation of the term "over/upon them" as "in their memory", which seems plausible.

My understanding of this verse is different.  When the youth went to the cave, Christianity was not adopted as the religion of the Roman empire.  People knew where they were.  Some suggested to erect a building over the cave to bury them.  309 years later, christianity is accepted and when the story is discovered, people wanted to build a monument or a house of worship in the location.  In Roman Catholics, there is a concept of saint worship
In both instances, there is an activity of building, with different time periods with different purposes.

(http://quransmessage.com/forum/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: islamist on January 18, 2013, 03:30:43 AM
#####

2:187 Lawful for you nights (of) the abstinence is sexual approach* to your women, they are a garment for you and you are a garment for them. God knows that you used to betray/deceive yourselves so He turned towards you and He forgave you; so now approach** them and seek what God has decreed/written for you. And eat and drink until becomes distinct the white thread from the black thread, of dawn. Then you shall complete the abstinence until the night, and do not approach** them while you are devoting/cleaving in the maSaJiD. These are God's boundaries, so do not transgress them. It is thus that God makes His revelations clear to the people that they may be righteous/God-concious.
*Arabic: RaFaTh (root: Ra-Fa-Tha)
**Arabic: BaShiR (root: Ba-Shin-Ra)

IF one takes masajid=mosques then if women were not allowed in them, it would make this statement illogical, thus clearly implying women could be present in the mosques. It also implies men and women are unlikely to be segregated, as they could approach one another, i.e. interact.
    Who in their right mind would approach their wife in a sexual manner in a public Mosque? Was this such a temptation or common practice that AQ had to tell them not to do it? According to history/tradition mosques in those early days were very basic or simply courtyards thus unlikely to have multiple rooms so it seems even more odd to suggest such a thing taking place in a Mosque. This traditional understanding verges on the nonsensical.
    IF masajids=mosques, why even mention mosques, when there is much greater chance of sexual temptation in the homes during abstinence? The traditional commentators attempt an explanation for this, e.g Jalalayn/Ibn Kathir say this is referring to 'itikaf' (spiritual retreat in the mosque) when believers would leave the mosque for sex then return, when they are meant to reside at the mosque for a certain number of days. This is a complete insertion of course, and hardly "clear" as it implies at the end of the verse, and the obvious error as it says "...WHILE YOU are devoting/cleaving IN the masajid" not when one leaves them. So, it would seem they interpret it as "...while you are staying in the masajid (for itikaf)...".
    If it did mean 'itikaf' then this is not explained elsewhere in AQ, e.g. how many days, what does it involve, why, is it obligatory, examples of anyone actually doing it etc. If we are relying upon AQ only for our understanding of this verse, then 'itikaf' must be rejected outright. The consequence of this however, is that it renders the understanding of masajid=mosques illogical, or at least very unusual.
    Another explanation put forth for this verse is that sexual approach to your women is permitted in the nights of the abstinence but not when one is staying in the mosques, e.g. The Sacred Mosque (in Mecca). Not for "itikaf" per se but simply a spiritual/devotional retreat there, e.g. travellers to The Sacred Mosque (in Mecca) may have come from afar and thus set up tents there, and this verse is referring to them (a verse cited to support this notion of "residency/staying" is 22:25). Not that I necessarily agree with this explanation, but it is at least more plausible than the Traditional explanation, which advocates a specific practice of "itikaf" rather than an undefined one. It is debatable whether the word "akif" means "reside/stay" according to Quran usage, but in any case people staying-over in the mosque seems odd/impractical if one takes "tawaf" as "circumambulation" for example, and the "hadiy" (gifts/offerings) are also to be taken to such a venue. It could make "circumambulation" rather awkward, and if many residents/gifts/animals, perhaps impossible.
Salaam!

I am not interfering in this discussion between two very learned brothers.  But would like to make some comments in just one post.  Brother waqas,  I had a quick look through your points; hope to go in detail at some other stage.  You seem to have done lot of homework.  Some of your points make really good sense, but some are not as such.  I agree there may be some valid points in your claim of ‘theoretical  possibility of the meanings' you have stated, however, according to me, in majority of cases,  Masjid has an implication of a “structure” as JI has pointed out.  May be at some places like 2:187 there is possibility it can have a different connotation and your study might be relevant.   

One point I must admit here.  I have heard and read verse 2:187 hundreds of times, but you made me to have a close look at this verse (many thanks to you).  I was checking, particularly this verse, how different translators have translated, and I agree with you a traditional understanding does not make sense and going through different translations we can notice some sort of difficulty the translators faced while interpreting the verse;
 
But do not have sexual intercourse with them/ associate with wives/ touch them not/ do not go into them/ but do not lie with them skin to skin/ do not have contact with them;
 
while you are in retreat in the mosques – Yousuf Ali / touch them not, but be at your devotions in the mosques – Pickthall / when you are about to abide in meditation in houses of worship - Mohamed Asad /  while you keep to the mosques – Shakkir / while you remain in the Mosques for devotion – Sher Ali/ when you have decided to stay in the mosques for assiduous devotion/ while you dwell in confinement in the mosques/ while you perform I`tikaf (- while you are secluding in the mosque for prayer and devotion to God) / while you are consecrating yourselves in the mosques/ as long as you are staying for worship in the mosques/ during I‘htikaf (retreat in the mosques in last ten days of Ramadhan), etc

One odd explanation, not verbal translation as such, I found was from Parwez who has ‘explained’ the verse as follows, “From dawn to dusk you are required to fast. If after dusk you are detained at your centre (of training or activity e.g. Masjid) in order to ponder or resolve some important issue or problem, then you should devote your total attention to the task in hand and refrain from going home”!!  This 'explanation' not actually justifying the verbal meaning as such, however there is possibility that it could be the intended meaning of the verse.  Allahu Ahlam!
 
Also I have a few comments (critical) for your following statements
 
Quote
Firstly, they imply a physical building was built (worse still, a Mosque) over them (i.e. their graves), as some sort of shrine in their memory, which is completely against the message of The Quran (i.e. no saint/human reverence). Some commentators do not distinguish whether this was a good or bad thing, i.e. do not clarify who "prevailed" in the dispute, the right view or wrong view. The flow and logic of the verse would imply those who prevailed were in the right, otherwise there would be little point ending on this note. It seems most commentators have this view also.

I do not think the flow and logic of the verse would imply those who prevailed were in the right due to; (1) The Quran is  making a point here about the people who came after them getting involved in unnecessary disputes; (2) Building a place of worship over graves/ or at any place in memmory of any human being cannot be an Islamic act.  So there is no question of majority being right.

Quote
Secondly, it clearly states there is a dispute and some said "build a building over/upon them" yet it later says those who prevailed said "surely we will take (to ourselves) a maSJD over/upon them" clearly implying there must be a significant difference between each side's position. If traditionally understood, the only difference is one argues for a building, the other argues for a Mosque. What kind of building would have been built by the former side? It would most likely be a communal building, i.e. a Mosque-type building, thus trying to determine the difference in their arguments is difficult going by the traditional understanding.

I think the significant difference between each side’s positions is very clear since one group is for a monument without being a place of worship and the other group for a place of worship.
 
Quote
Thirdly, the former expression uses "build a building..." and the latter uses "take (to ourselves) a maSJD...", as if they were both about building why not use the same word? Not to mention "take to ourselves (a building)" doesn't quite make sense, as it implies a pre-existing thing.

Again, the first expression is just to build building without being a place of worship.  Also, even admitting your argument that it is a pre-existing thing, one thing you can not deny that the building was constructed only at a later stage after their story became known to others (since it is masjid ‘over them’).  It could be that majority wanted to convert a pre-existing building over their grave into a place of worship! May be (Allahu Ahlam)
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Duster on January 18, 2013, 04:08:30 AM
Shalom / Peace

I did a search on verse 2.187 on this forum and I find brother Joseph Islam's response on this quite convincing with the problem raised.

I think if the role of the mosque is understood properly (as brother JI explains) then there isn't a problem in interpretation I feel.

Please see >>>

http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=274.msg848;topicseen#msg848
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: islamist on January 18, 2013, 01:45:57 PM
Shalom / Peace

I did a search on verse 2.187 on this forum and I find brother Joseph Islam's response on this quite convincing with the problem raised.

I think if the role of the mosque is understood properly (as brother JI explains) then there isn't a problem in interpretation I feel.

Please see >>>

http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=274.msg848;topicseen#msg848

Good! Some points are clarified.  However, at the least in case of Masjid ul Haram,  it seems, the term “Masjid” has a wider connotation rather than just a building or structure, primarily because its role includes (as JI pointed out); a place of return (mathabatan), a place of security (aman),  a place of stay (to be resident (akifina) and a place of worship! -  and especially (quoting 22:25) its role “We have made (open) to (all) men - equal is the dweller there / inhabitant (Arabic: akifu) and the visitor from the country (which country?)”.  I prefer Muhammad Asad translation here as ‘those who dwell there and those who come from abroad’.  It is clear a distinction is made between dwellers/ residents in Masjid ul Haram and the visitors (from all countries including its surrounding places) – we can’t expect people permanently residing/ dwelling with their families inside Masjid ul Haram (in the sense of a building/ stucture) and dwellers/ residents cannot be said to be temporarily residing there as 'visitors' due to visitors issue is separately mentioned.  Allahu Ahlam
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Wakas on January 19, 2013, 06:20:00 AM
w/salaam islamist,

I agree that some points made in my article are significant, whilst some are minor. I state so in the introduction.

Can you clarify what you mean by point 2:
Quote
I do not think the flow and logic of the verse would imply those who prevailed were in the right due to; (1) The Quran is  making a point here about the people who came after them getting involved in unnecessary disputes; (2) Building a place of worship over graves/ or at any place in memmory of any human being cannot be an Islamic act.  So there is no question of majority being right.

The following requires the meaning of "ibnu" to mean "convert" which does not fit with its other occurrences:
Quote
Also, even admitting your argument that it is a pre-existing thing, one thing you can not deny that the building was constructed only at a later stage after their story became known to others (since it is masjid ‘over them’).  It could be that majority wanted to convert a pre-existing building over their grave into a place of worship!

Please bear in mind the following statements in my articles:
Quote
Place of SJD (i.e. mosque) and institution of SJD/obedience fare most poorly in 18:21 and 2:187.
and
'The Sacred Mosque' fares most poorly in 17:1, 2:142-150, 2:217, 9:28, and relatively poorly in 2:196, 22:25, 9:19. Also,
Quote
please note that traditional commentators (e.g. Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, Al-Jalalayn, Ibn Abbas) frequently switch their understanding of AMAH depending on verse, e.g. it can mean 'the sacred site/area of prostration' in 17:1, 'kaaba (cuboid)' in 2:144/2:149/2:150, 'the sanctuary / Mecca' in 2:196, 2:217, 22:25, 9:28. Usually, when one forces an incorrect understanding into AQ it will  result in inconsistency/variance/contradiction, see the important test of 4:82. If the problems discussed in this work can be answered then it recommended for those advocating such a view to put forth their answers.

In my view, whilst 18:21 and 2:187 fare most poorly out of the "masjid" occurrences for such an understanding, the "al masjid al haram" occurrences are more problematic.
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Joseph Islam on January 19, 2013, 09:24:21 AM
Dear Wakas,

Thank you so much for responding.

I feel it apt to acknowledge from the outset that albeit there exists at times differences in our approach to the Quranic narratives, there are also many areas of thought that we both share. 

Please see below a sincere critique of your contentions imparted with academic sincerity. I trust that you will acknowledge this with the same sincerity with which it is imparted and take anything you find plausible and good in it, God willing.

I understand from your posts above that you have specific contentions with the traditional understanding. 

You assert that:

Quote
“18:21 and 2:187 fare most poorly out of the "masjid" occurrences for such an understanding,”

Therefore, I will deal with these contentions directly.

Please see my responses in black to your contentions reproduced in brown below.


VERSE 18:21

Interestingly, almost all translators seemingly neglect certain aspects of this verse:

As I’m sure you will appreciate, the strength of the evidence of one’s position should not be argued merely on the basis of the perceived weakness of another’s position. There should be unequivocal evidence for one’s own position. Therefore, I have taken your statement as a general sentiment as I trust you will take mine.

Firstly, they imply a physical building was built (worse still, a Mosque) over them (i.e. their graves), as some sort of shrine in their memory, which is completely against the message of The Quran (i.e. no saint/human reverence).

The Quran simply narrates an incident with a view to explain what happened. It doesn’t take a theological stance in what they decided nor did the people in question follow the Quran. Therefore, your appeal to something being incongruent with the Quran’s message is respectfully, non sequitur.

Furthermore, it is well known to Christendom that places of devotion have often been associated with revered or respected personalities. 'Martyriums' have often known to have turned to churches in later periods.

Some commentators do not distinguish whether this was a good or bad thing, i.e. do not clarify who "prevailed" in the dispute, the right view or wrong view.

In my humble view, there is no basis for such an expectation, hence I do not see the reason why any commentator needs to elucidate. The Quran merely intends to narrate an incident in truth.

The flow and logic of the verse would imply those who prevailed were in the right, otherwise there would be little point ending on this note. It seems most commentators have this view also.

Again, best evidence for one’s own position is not dependent on human commentary. The Quran merely intends to focus on the end result which is that a place of devotion was finally built. In the process it captures an aspect of the dispute, but I do not see that to accept an absence / ambiguity of a theological stance by the Quran on the issue to be interpreted as illogical. The Quran simply captures an incident culminating at what was built.

Secondly, it clearly states there is a dispute and some said "build a building over/upon them" yet it later says those who prevailed said "surely we will take (to ourselves) a maSJD over/upon them" clearly implying there must be a significant difference between each side's position.

Not necessarily. I find the Quran simply captures some views that were put forth. I think to read into this an 'extent' in disparity of opinion is humbly, unwarranted. Many people often argue over the most insignificant of matters avoiding the wider context where there can be mutual agreement.

After all, the discussion could merely be whether a Martyrium should be built or a church outright which would double as a place of worship (i.e. type of building). Please remember, those that decided on the matter were not followers of the Quran.

If traditionally understood, the only difference is one argues for a building, the other argues for a Mosque. What kind of building would have been built by the former side?

I have already posited one suggestion, a Martyrium. But whatever the proposal was, this does not contradict the assertion that a ‘Masjid’ remains a building. The intent was to erect some sort of structure / a building (bunyanan) in commemoration.. Those that prevailed, decided on a place of devotion (Masjid). Hence, why I have maintained, that Masjid remains a building.

It would most likely be a communal building, i.e. a Mosque-type building, thus trying to determine the difference in their arguments is difficult going by the traditional understanding. As a side note, Asad makes a reasonable interpretation of the term "over/upon them" as "in their memory", which seems plausible.

Granted. However, once again in my humble view, presentation of human commentaries should not be considered sine qua non for determining best Quranic evidence.

Thirdly, the former expression uses "build a building..." and the latter uses "take (to ourselves) a maSJD...", as if they were both about building why not use the same word?

Because buildings can have different purposes.

Not to mention "take to ourselves (a building)" doesn't quite make sense, as it implies a pre-existing thing. To check this, out of 128 occurrences of this specific verb form there are five occurrences that may refer to "taking for/to oneself a structure/building" and they are:

29:41 (implies pre-existing thing)
9:108 (unclear)
7:74 - "take FROM (partitive) its plains palaces" (plains are pre-existing) or from context may refer to existing Thamud structures
26:129 (implies pre-existing thing)
16:68 (implies pre-existing thing)


‘yattakhidhu’ simply means to take something which does not need to imply a pre-existing thing. It can imply taking something after it has been 'created'. For example, in the following verse, the intoxicants are a derivative product that is created afterwards which did not 'pre-exist'.

‘Wamin thamarati-nakhili wal-a’nabi tattakhiduna min’hu sakaran wariz’qan hasanan’ or loosely translated, “And from fruits (and) the date-palm and the grapes, you take intoxicants and a provision. (16:67).

With respect, I do not see the tension.

Thus, the evidence is weighted in favour of a pre-existing thing.

With respect, I find your conclusion non-sequitur, in at least what has been presented hitherto.

Lastly, since it implies the ones who prevailed had it right,

I do not agree. There is no such conclusion drawn by the Quran which does not take an unequivocal theological stance on the matter. At best, both positions can be argued for.

we must ask ourselves what is the message of this verse?

Let me humbly posit a few suggestions of my own which are by no means intended to be comprehensive.


THE SLEEPERS OF THE CAVE - THE QURAN, HISTORICAL SOURCES AND OBSERVATION
http://quransmessage.com/travelogues/seven%20sleepers%20FM3.htm


Well, clearly for the people in question God gave them a sign in this story. After this lesson, they disputed, some said "build a building over them" and in-between the other side's argument it says 'Their Lord knows best about them' (also mentioned in subsequent verses), implying their number or who they were is not the point, thus no need for a building, as their Lord knows best about them, and it is the outcome/lesson of the story or God's will prevailing that is important. Also, in 18:22 it says "do not dispute about them except with an argument obvious/apparent", and since AQ does not clarify their number which seems to be the main dispute, the primary obvious/apparent argument is the lesson of their story, and this is what people should be reminded of and take to themselves.
May be interesting to read in conjunction with 2:125, for a comparison of a similar phrasing "...take (to yourselves) from the status/position of Abraham a time/place of bonding/blessing/honour/commendation...".

With respect, I cannot see that your contention based on 18:21 warrants a re-analysis of the Arabic word 'masjid', which remains of well established meaning not only from both Arabic literary sources and common parlance, but also in my humble view, the Quran.


VERSE 2:187

With regards the above, I believe that a possible inability to reconcile the understanding is based on limiting the scope of the role of a Masjid from a Quranic perspective. Duster has already shared my perspectives on this on a related thread (Thanks Duster). I will reproduce associated links:

http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=274.msg848;topicseen#msg848
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=198.0


FINAL THOUGHTS

Dear brother Wakas, with respect, for me to even consider an alternative rendition of a well established word of a language, or any theological concept, I have to be absolutely, unambiguously and unequivocally convinced / certain that a problem exists in the first place. I am sure you will at least, appreciate this sentiment. This is long before I embark upon an intricate journey of surveying possible alternative meanings and theological positions.

Hence why I have, with respect sought direct input from you to show me where the problem even exists. I really would like to be convinced so that I may assess the matter for myself with sincerity. At the moment, I humbly find that there is no justification in conducting a study to survey possible alternative meanings as the difficulties you have with the verses you cite are based on your problematic assumptions which are not allowing you to reconcile the verses appropriately.

Once again, thank you so much for sharing your perspectives / study with the readers of this forum and please take anything from this critique which you find useful.

With respect and warm regards as always.
Joseph.


REFERENCE:

[1] THE SLEEPERS OF THE CAVE - THE QURAN, HISTORICAL SOURCES AND OBSERVATION
http://quransmessage.com/travelogues/seven%20sleepers%20FM3.htm
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Peaceful on January 19, 2013, 11:44:38 AM
Isn't this all with the presupposition that the Mecca was a physical location at the Prophet's time?
What if later 'Muslims' had that verse re-interpreted so as to lead the true believers away from the real Qibla?

24   And He it is Who hath withheld men's hands from you, and hath withheld your hands from them, in the valley of Mecca, after He had made you victors over them. Allah is Seer of what ye do.   
 25   These it was who disbelieved and debarred you from the Inviolable Place of Worship, and debarred the offering from reaching its goal.


The Arabic word for Valley is Wadi. Why is this translated so many different ways? It appears as if Makkah was a stronghold for the disbelievers. All the Quran states about the 'Meccans' is that they prohibited worship and donations from reaching another physical location. There is no evidence that the Sacred Mosque is inside Mecca.

(SI) within [the area of] Makkah
(Khan/Ali)the midst of Makkah
(Pickthall/Shakir)the valley of Mecca
(Ghali)hollow (Literally: the belly, i.e., the midst of makkah) of Makkah

The very first mention of the word "Mecca" appears this year in the Continuatio Byzantia Arabica (Crone-Cook 1977 page 22,171). Before this Mecca did not appear in any literature, nor on any maps of Arabia.

What evidence do we, using the Quran alone, have that the modern Mecca includes the actual Sacred Mosque mentioned in it. Isn't just like traditions passed down. What if it's a long-forgotten city or Jerusalem?
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Joseph Islam on January 19, 2013, 01:48:36 PM
What evidence do we, using the Quran alone, have that the modern Mecca includes the actual Sacred Mosque mentioned in it. Isn't just like traditions passed down. What if it's a long-forgotten city or Jerusalem?

Dear Peaceful,

May peace be with you.

Please see the following article below where I present evidence from a Quranic perspective to argue that the Sacred Mosque was originally located in Makkah.

IS MAKKAH THE ORIGINAL LOCATION FOR THE MASJID AL-HARAM?
http://quransmessage.com/articles/original%20sanctuary%20FM3.htm

I hope that helps in some small way, God willing.

Regards,
Joseph.
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: islamist on January 20, 2013, 02:26:22 AM
Can you clarify what you mean by point 2:

I believe the decision of the majority to make/construct/'take to ourselves' a mosque "عَلَيْهِمْ" (over them) can not be regarded as an Islamic act since the focus is on honoring the youth لَنَتَّخِذَنَّ عَلَيْهِمْ مَسْجِدًا
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Peaceful on January 20, 2013, 03:02:31 AM
You provided strong evidence that the Sacred Mosque is in Mecca. But on what basis is the modern Mecca, KSA the Mecca of the Quran?

"However, it is accepted that even though there seems to be connection given the proximity of the two verses, that this not incontrovertible evidence that they are part of one location."

As you stated:
1. a location of a Main City which had an established community settlement.
2. We can also deduce that the 'mother tongue' of this town was 'Arabic'
3. Town B is most likely known as 'Yathrib'
4. A powerful community
5. clear evidence (at least in archaeological finds)

This can refer to at least 3 cities prior to the seventh century:
1. Petra (2 Earthquakes: prior and after Islam's spread across Asia) The Sunnat of Allah is the destruction of the towns where the Messengers were rejected.

2. Madi'an Saleh

3. Al-'Ula: 380 km North of Medina. It used to be an important trade centre for the old caravan route.... first led to Babylon passing through Taima and the second route led to Petra and Syria. Al Ula was under controlled by four civilizations namely Didan, Labyan, Maeen and most famous the Nabateans.
Mabiyat archaeological sites occur at 15 km to the south of Al Ula near Mugheira village. Its history goes back to the Umayyad and Abbasid periods. Ruins of buildings, remains of an irregular wall enclosure and pottery shreds can be seen on the site area. The Antiquities Department conducted excavations in 1948-1985 and covered the buildings of A LARGE ISLAMIC CITY.

Doesn't the Quran say that the Quraish were among the descendants, or successors, of the people of 'Ad, Thamud and Midian. The Quraish, according to the Quran, should have been able to SEE the remnants of these nations. This is physically impossible with modern Mecca, so the true Mecca must be North of Yathrib.
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Joseph Islam on January 20, 2013, 04:04:45 AM
Dear Peaceful,

May peace be with you.

Thank you for your post.

As you may have respectfully noted, I have humbly shared the following contention in my article against the suggestion of an alternative location.

Quote
A claim for another town as the original site for the Masjid al-Haram must be corroborated with clear evidence (at least in archaeological finds) which has been known to possess such a vibrant settled community as indicated by the Quran. It is difficult to accept that this location refers to some isolated location erased from common human memory.
 
Given that a Prophet had arisen in the midst of this town and Islam was accepted by many as attested by the Quran (110:2), communities must have continued to flourish in these localities. It is difficult to accept that if the original location of the Masjid al-Haram had been moved, that no furore took place amongst successive generations to capture such a momentous event.
 
SUPPORT 2      DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY
 
  • A place called 'Arafat' was a well known place (2:198).
  • Near Arafat there was a well known sacred monument (mash'ari haram - 2:198).
  • Safa and Marwa were well established places which were ratified by the Quran as God's 'sha'airi' (indications / signs / symbols - 2:158). The practice of circumambulation (tawaaf) around them was allowed to continue during Hajj.

With respect, I do not find the suggestion of Petra, Madain Saleh and Al-Ula satisfying the above contentions, especially the sentiments highlighted in bold black above.

You respectfully contend that:

Quote
"The Quraish, according to the Quran, should have been able to SEE the remnants of these nations."


037.137-38
"And indeed, you surely pass by (the ruin of) them (latamurruna) in the morning and at night. Then will you not use your reason / intellect?"

The verb 'yamurru' from the verb 'marra' clearly indicates to me something in motion, to pass, or passing by and not fixed. Some from the audience of the Quran 'passed by' these locations and not necessarily resided in / inhabited them.

Given that they did this day and night, it clearly implies to me that these locations were on or near well known trade routes which they often used. With respect, your contention would not ipso facto provide sufficient evidence for me that modern day Makkah in KSA is not the original Makkah of the Quran.

Your comment:

Quote
Doesn't the Quran say that the Quraish were among the descendants, or successors, of the people of 'Ad, Thamud

Whereas a linkage can be argued between Thamud and Aad (7:74), may I respectfully ask for Quranic evidence to support your claim that the Quraish were descendants of Aad and Thamud?

I would rather be inclined to posit that the Quraish were simply familiar with the histories of the two communities of bygone people (14:9) as well others.


I trust that even if you may not agree, you will still understand the academic gist of my perspective.  :)

I hope that helps, God willing.

With utmost respect,
Joseph.
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Peaceful on January 20, 2013, 11:54:39 PM
Dear Joseph,

Using all 5 points I referred to, and the fact that this City was Um-Ul-Qura, it must have been recognized by other nations and the jewel of Arabia. Modern Mecca was never mentioned in any pre-islamic literature, nor was it's geographic location referred to by the early Greek and Roman historians. They went up and down the Hejaz coast, wrote about hundreds of Arab tribes and cities, but Mecca(nor it's location) was never given any importance/notation. How could it then possibly be the Um-Ul-Qura? Yathrib, on the other hand, has been mentioned since the first century(which was supposedly LESS important).   

In regards your bold points:
- All 3 cities had a vibrant past and were well documented.
- Al-Ula was occupied since at least up to the Abbasid Era. As for Petra, it had an earthquake soon after Islam's spread across Asia(Qaryatayn?). All document's stopped after this period(was after Quran).
-"Verily, Ṣafa and Marwah are among the symbols of Allāh."
The Ka'ba stands exactly between the two mountains. (These mountains are so small that they are included INSIDE the mosque) They are at the ends of the long walkway on the right side, where pilgrims can walk inside between the two rocks that are known today as Ṣafa and Marwa. This description fits Petra perfectly.

You are right to say they passed by those remnants. But, they should have been able to do this 'Day and Night.' This is physically impossible on camels with the modern Mecca, and Yathrib would be hard enough. The Hejaz has some of the world's toughest terrain(Desert, Volcanoes). The Quran tells us they had 2 covenants, which Allah changes to only the Ka'ba. Could this be Al-Ula and Petra? They are close enough and have biblical documentation.

Crone states: “Mecca was a barren place, and barren places do not make natural halts, and least of all when they are found at a short distance from famously green environments. Why should caravans have made a steep descent to the barren lands of  Mecca when they could have stopped at Ta’if?" Taif is well documented.

I said the Quraish are successors to these nations because each chronological story tells the Quraish to look around them and they can see the clear signs of Allah's wrath. It is the strongest argument the Quran makes, and compares with Sodom and Gomorrah.





Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Wakas on January 21, 2013, 02:13:40 AM
Dear Joseph,
w/salaam,

Thank you for the reply, it is very much appreciated. And I agree that we share many views in common, more so than where we differ.

I accept most of what you said, but I wish to clarify a few points:

You said, Re: 18:21:
Quote
Therefore, your appeal to something being incongruent with the Quran’s message is respectfully, non sequitur.
My statement was clearly referring to the traditional translations/tafsirs/view, wherein a majority of them see nothing wrong with building a shrine/building in someone's memory, and try to justify it. Please see the link I share in my article wherein you can read some traditional tafsirs/etc.

You said:
Quote
‘yattakhidhu’ simply means to take something which does not need to imply a pre-existing thing. It can imply taking something after it has been 'created'. For example, in the following verse, the intoxicants are a derivative product that is created afterwards which did not 'pre-exist'.

‘Wamin thamarati-nakhili wal-a’nabi tattakhiduna min’hu sakaran wariz’qan hasanan’ or loosely translated, “And from fruits (and) the date-palm and the grapes, you take intoxicants and a provision. (16:67).

The examples I gave of verb form 8 usage were all the ones I could find to do with some sort of building. I never analysed the non-building occurrences. Interestingly, on a provisional checking of all occurrences just now, I only found 16:67 as a reasonable candidate, out of 128. I find 16:67 interesting in the sense that it says "from/min it" implying a part/component of it.
Upon reading the occurrences I noted that the connotation of building/creating is not present. Perhaps in a handful of cases one could slot it in and make it work.

In any case, it is a FACT the vast majority of usage is to do with a pre-existing thing.

I said:
Thus, the evidence is weighted in favour of a pre-existing thing.
You said:
With respect, I find your conclusion non-sequitur, in at least what has been presented hitherto.

The "weight" of each side is simple to show: out of 128 occurrences how many occurrences show a newly created/built usage, and how many show a pre-existent thing usage?


Quote from: Joseph Islam
Dear brother Wakas, with respect, for me to even consider an alternative rendition of a well established word of a language, or any theological concept, I have to be absolutely, unambiguously and unequivocally convinced / certain that a problem exists in the first place. I am sure you will at least, appreciate this sentiment. This is long before I embark upon an intricate journey of surveying possible alternative meanings and theological positions.

Hence why I have, with respect sought direct input from you to show me where the problem even exists. I really would like to be convinced so that I may assess the matter for myself with sincerity. At the moment, I humbly find that there is no justification in conducting a study to survey possible alternative meanings as the difficulties you have with the verses you cite are based on your problematic assumptions which are not allowing you to reconcile the verses appropriately.

Let us be very clear, in this instance, you only tackled my comments on 18:21 and 2:187. These two verses are by no means the ones I found to be most problematic overall. This can be seen from the language I use in my articles. The more problematic ones were to do with "al masjid al haram", quote:

Quote
'The Sacred Mosque' fares most poorly in 17:1, 2:142-150, 2:217, 9:28, and relatively poorly in 2:196, 22:25, 9:19. Also, please note that traditional commentators (e.g. Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, Al-Jalalayn, Ibn Abbas) frequently switch their understanding of AMAH depending on verse, e.g. it can mean 'the sacred site/area of prostration' in 17:1, 'kaaba (cuboid)' in 2:144/2:149/2:150, 'the sanctuary / Mecca' in 2:196, 2:217, 22:25, 9:28. Usually, when one forces an incorrect understanding into AQ it will  result in inconsistency/variance/contradiction, see the important test of 4:82. If the problems discussed in this work can be answered then it recommended for those advocating such a view to put forth their answers.

However, if one were to disregard the mainstream traditional view, or modify it, then some of the above occurrences may not be so problematic. As you have shown with 18:21 and 2:187 - please note, your view on these two occurrences is NOT the mainstream traditional view, which is fine, but what I want to highlight is that they are different and the problems I highlight in my articles are helpful in one's Quran studies.

If/when you have time, feel free to consider the issues I raise with some of the "al masjid al haram" occurrences. I always appreciate your feedback.


With mutual respect and warm regards,
Wakas.
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Joseph Islam on January 21, 2013, 02:21:12 AM
Dear Peaceful,

May peace be with you.

Thanks once again for your comments.

With respect to your comment:

Quote
Modern Mecca was never mentioned in any pre-islamic literature, nor was it's geographic location referred to by the early Greek and Roman historians. They went up and down the Hejaz coast, wrote about hundreds of Arab tribes and cities, but Mecca(nor it's location) was never given any importance/notation. How could it then possibly be the Um-Ul-Qura?

With respect, your views seem to be influenced, informed and underpinned by selective critical scholarship in this area. I also assume this as you cited Patricia Crone. (Please do correct me if I am mistaken dear brother). With all humility and as a pretext to my contention, can I respectfully share that given my own humble efforts of ardent research and background work in this area, I am very familiar with the musings of certain areas of Western scholarship and in particular, Patricia Crone, whose assertions at times,  I still remain quite critical of. 

As I am sure you will appreciate, if we are going to posit certain areas of Western 'critical' scholarship as evidence, we should be willing to critique it (to ascertain credibility) and scrutinise the underlying assumptions that such scholars make. This is no different for traditional scholarship as it is for western scholarship.

In my humble view, they can at times be found to be quite presumptuous, arguments at times from silence / absence of evidence, swept with generalisations and despite being buried with supporting scholarly notes, the basis of their arguments can often be reliably contested. There are well known western scholars that still remain highly critical of scholars of the ilk you have cited.

As you have noted, this is why I have predominantly made my arguments from a 'Quranic perspective' and not like quite a few critical scholars do, from silence or a dearth of corroborating evidence.

I highly recommend reading pages 51-59 of Neil Robinson's scholarly book below which in my view, quite convincingly critiques some of the underlying assumptions that scholars such as Crone and Cook often make [1] . It is really worth a read. An external link to the whole book in PDF can be found below [2], but I highly recommend purchase of this book.

http://www.youquran.com/DISCOVERING-QURAN-Robinson.PDF


You shared:

Quote
All 3 cities had a vibrant past and were well documented.

As you have made an assertion appealing to extraneous sources, please can I kindly request that you direct me to any unequivocal supporting evidence / scholarly sources of evidence which categorically prove that either sites at Petra, Mad'ain Saleh or Al-Ula (all places I have visited for academic scrutiny in person [3],[4]), had a vibrant Islamic community at the time of Prophet Muhammad's life, ministry and immediately before.

With respect, to satisfy my humble enquiry, such evidence would be required to corroborate the Quranic need for an existing vibrant Arab community in established dwellings cradling the onset of the Prophetic ministry.

My own research through literary academic sources and on the ground does not yield to such an unequivocal conclusion.

You state:

Quote
The Ka'ba stands exactly between the two mountains. (These mountains are so small that they are included INSIDE the mosque) They are at the ends of the long walkway on the right side, where pilgrims can walk inside between the two rocks that are known today as Ṣafa and Marwa. This description fits Petra perfectly.

With respect, I do not follow your argument to the conclusion you have offered “This description fits Petra perfectly”. Please can you kindly clarify. Today the Kaaba does not sit in-between Safa and Marwa, but adjacent to it.

In the end of course, we can always agree to disagree as brethren in faith  :)

With utmost respect,

Your brother in faith,
Joseph.


REFERENCES:

[1] ROBINSON, N, Discovering the Quran, A Contemporary Approach to a Veiled Text, Second Edition, SCM Press, Part Three: Morphology, Structure and Coherence, 6: The Formal Elements of the ‘Early Meccan’ Surahs, 6.10 Messenger sections, Pages 51-59
[2] External Link: http://www.youquran.com/DISCOVERING-QURAN-Robinson.PDF, Accessed [20th January 2013]
Disclaimer - This is an external link in the public domain uploaded by someone unknown to me. Therefore, no copyright infringement is intended. I highly recommend the purchase of the book.
[3] PETRA, JORDON
http://quransmessage.com/travelogues/petra-jordan%20FM3.htm
[4] MADA'IN SALEH - THE QURANIC ZIYARAH (VISIT) OF PETRA'S SISTER SITE
http://quransmessage.com/travelogues/ziyarah%20FM3.htm

 
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Peaceful on January 22, 2013, 01:36:41 AM
I understand your sentiments with P. Crone. From a Quranic perspective, I can only offer the following evidence:

1. Sūra 5:90
O you who have believed, indeed, intoxicants, gamblingstone alters, and divining arrows are but defilement from the work of Satan, so avoid it that you may be successful.

Gambling
-There are no records of Games of Chance recorded as being used in or around the modern city of Mecca. However, in Petra there are many ancient game boards carved in the rocks all around the city.
-At the Second Conference on Nabataean Studies held in Petra, Jordan, October 2002, Dr. Bilāl Khrīsat and Ṭalāl ’Akasheh presented a paper called Gaming Boards from the Nabataean Capital City of Petra: Documentation and Study.
-"Arrows that the Arabs used, and dice that the Persians and Romans used in gambling.” (The Meaning and Explanation of the Glorious Qur'ān, Volume 2, Muḥammad Saed ’Abdul-Raḥmān, MSA Publication Ltd., 2007 page 362)

Stone Alters
-Today, in Mecca there is no evidence of idols, neither idol bases nor inscriptions.
-There is, however, the bases of ancient idols and high-place altars on 2 mountains in Petra.

2. Pilgrimage (Hajj and Umrah)
Sura 2:158
Indeed, as-Safa and al-Marwah are among the symbols of Allah . So whoever makes Hajj to the House or performs 'umrah - there is no blame upon him for walking between them. And whoever volunteers good - then indeed, Allah is appreciative and Knowing.

-"Beside the tombs ...gather twice a year to eat a memorial meal. This twice yearly event is born out by a 2nd century AD Nabataean zodiac which portrays Allat, the female goddess of fertility among other Nabataean deities."

Doctor Avraham Negev of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey suggests that much of the Arab graffiti found throughout the Negev and southern Jordan was written by people on pilgrimage to Petra. In his detailed study he notes the variety of names that occur in Thamudic, Safaitic, and other early Arabian dialects. (Negev, 1991)

3. Churches
The Quran speaks of protecting Churches, Synagouges and Temples in the Area. Mecca has no evidence of any of these. The cities do have a Christian history.
Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Joseph Islam on January 22, 2013, 03:32:21 AM
Dear Peaceful,

May peace be with you.

I must thank you for your citation of supporting verses in request for Quranic evidence. I do sense we are now drawing to a respectful conclusion of our theological positions on this matter.

Not withstanding the many areas we potentially agree with as brethren in faith, may I therefore respectfully summarise our discussion to reach an agreeable understanding where we possibly differ on this particular matter.

I kindly asked for Quranic evidence. You respectfully shared verse 5:90 with the following elucidation:

Gambling
-There are no records of Games of Chance recorded as being used in or around the modern city of Mecca. However, in Petra there are many ancient game boards carved in the rocks all around the city.
-At the Second Conference on Nabataean Studies held in Petra, Jordan, October 2002, Dr. Bilāl Khrīsat and Ṭalāl ’Akasheh presented a paper called Gaming Boards from the Nabataean Capital City of Petra: Documentation and Study.
-"Arrows that the Arabs used, and dice that the Persians and Romans used in gambling.” (The Meaning and Explanation of the Glorious Qur'ān, Volume 2, Muḥammad Saed ’Abdul-Raḥmān, MSA Publication Ltd., 2007 page 362)

Stone Alters
-Today, in Mecca there is no evidence of idols, neither idol bases nor inscriptions.
-There is, however, the bases of ancient idols and high-place altars on 2 mountains in Petra.

I therefore understand that the main gist of your argument is asserting evidence for a position from silence. I respectfully would feel that this does not satisfy my request for unequivocal proof and I would question the validity of a position formed from 'argumentum a silentio'.

After all, for it simply may be plausible, that after the conquest of Makkah (48:1-3, 24, 27) and the establishment of the Holy sanctity of the locale, such evidence was intentionally removed from the main city of Makkah. After all, the Holy sanctuary and its locale was to become the centre of monotheistic activity for the new believing community.

One only has to see the modern day approach of those governing the Haram today and their oft eagerness to remove historical relics. Wider still, it is not unusual to see conquering people to remove / deface former relics.

Therefore, I would have to humbly conclude that absence of evidence does not amount to evidence of absence.

This is also my contention with the approach of those critical scholars such as P. Crone that often argue from silence.


You further kindly cite verse 2:158 as evidence.

In my humble opinion, your citation of Dr. Negev's observation of Arab graffiti in Southern Jordan et al does not unequivocally preclude the assertion that today's Safa and Marwah in Makkah are not the same Safa and Marwah of the Quran. Once again, this is an argument from silence and a dearth of evidence could have many causes, a possible example of which was cited above.

It is also well known to the Quran that a contingent of the Arabs were also avid travellers. In my humble academic opinion, such evidence is circumstantial and inconclusive.


You kindly mention with regards Churches that:

The Quran speaks of protecting Churches, Synagouges and Temples in the Area. Mecca has no evidence of any of these. The cities do have a Christian history.

With respect, from an academic perspective, I feel that this is the strongest Quranic support you have cited hitherto. However, I would still feel that the gist of the argument still argues from ‘silence’. Lack of evidence of such oratories does not mean that these oratories did not once exist or were not later converted (even if not pulled down as per 22:40).

Furthermore, the Quran does not unequivocally claim that these cities had such oratories within them either. It is in the backdrop of a possible altercation and strife against a people that the Quran simply recalls conditions in the past where He has often (in the histories of a people) had to restrain the hands of those that intended to bring such oratories to ruin. It was a lesson to be learnt for the immediate audience and general wisdom to be extracted for posterity.

No particular people of a particular locale or time can be unequivocally derived from the general sentiment in the verse. This verse also does not imply that no such buildings will ever be destroyed or be converted. Many ancient mosques known today were once churches.

022:040
"...for had it not been for God to check some people by means of others, surely would have been demolished monasteries and churches and synagogues and mosques..."


I also understand that given my request for evidence in the post above, that there may be no evidence to satisfy the following:

You shared:

Quote
All 3 cities had a vibrant past and were well documented.

As you have made an assertion appealing to extraneous sources, please can I kindly request that you direct me to any unequivocal supporting evidence / scholarly sources of evidence which categorically prove that either sites at Petra, Mad'ain Saleh or Al-Ula (all places I have visited for academic scrutiny in person [3],[4]), had a vibrant Islamic community at the time of Prophet Muhammad's life, ministry and immediately before.

With respect, to satisfy my humble enquiry, such evidence would be required to corroborate the Quranic need for an existing vibrant Arab community in established dwellings cradling the onset of the Prophetic ministry.

My own research through literary academic sources and on the ground does not yield to such an unequivocal conclusion.


Even though we may retain differences of an opinion on this particular matter, I trust that you will note my academic contentions with respect and take anything good from it as I will from yours.

As I feel we have exhausted our perspectives with mutual brotherly respect, please accept my post as conclusion of this discussion with you. I trust that you will concur.

Your brother in faith,
Joseph.

Title: Re: Original Sanctuary, Masjid al-Haram and the Qibla Change
Post by: Peaceful on January 22, 2013, 05:15:13 AM
Yes, thank you for respectfully debating me on this issue.  :) I don't have any more supporting evidence for my claim, May God give us both more knowledge on this subject.