Interesting dicussions on destruction of Makkah

[PakistaniAtheist]

Loooool, wrong Albani Kabulzada/parsiwaan.

You've failed to substantiate your CENTRAL claim, which was that the black rock was an object of worship.

1. Kissing something does not connote worship. For instance, when a grandfather kisses his grand daughter or when that Canadian Imam that was beat down in Saudi kissed the Canadian soil, he was not calling it The God, or a god. For that matter, when you kiss the grave site of Mossoud in Panjshir that does not mean you worship him. As to licking... that seems to be your forte.

2. Your statement regarding torah biblical law supposedly never showing instances of stone use to mark places or worship made you look even dumber with the reference we gave above in regards to Jacob.

3. Your moronic request of referencing anyone else stating it was an Abrahamic house of worship is assinine. BECAUSE no one else except the Bani Israel and the Arabs ascribed existence to Abraham except these two people and that is true to this day. Arabia was isolated to the point where even Alexander did not conquer it. The majority of the sources are Arab sources. Even then, we have the following from Guillame discussing Ishaq's biography of the Prophet:

"They [the rabbis] told that the sole object of the tribe was to destroy him and his army. ‘We know of no other temple in the land which God has chosen for Himself, said they, and if you do what they suggest you and all your men will perish.’ The king asked them what he should do when he got there, and they told him to do what the people of Mecca did: circumambulate the temple, to venerate and honour it, to shave his head, and to behave with all humility until he had left its precincts. The king asked why they too should not do likewise. They replied that it was indeed the temple of their father Abraham, but the idols which the inhabitants had set up round it, and the blood which they shed there, presented an insuperable obstacle. They are unclean polytheists, said they - or words to that effect."

4. Your comparison of the Kabaa to other houses of worship in the surrounding area with these mysterious nonexistent stones is empirically idiotic even in a secular sense as the stone of the kabaa is suspected to be meteorite. In fact, literature from antiquity shows the Kabaah superceded ALL the other supposed equivalents you claim in Arabia:

Gibbons writes:
"The genuine antiquity of Caaba ascends beyond the Christian era: in describing the coast of the Red sea the Greek historian Diodorus has remarked, between the Thamudites and the Sabeans, a famous temple, whose superior sanctity was revered by all the Arabians; the linen of silken veil, which is annually renewed by the Turkish emperor, was first offered by the Homerites, who reigned seven hundred years before the time of Mohammad."

5. Your attempt to read guilt into Omar's statement is nonsensical. Thats why he confirms that Muhammad (S) did not view it as a diety. In fact by the Prophet Muhammad's passing, the canonical form of worship was codified. That is why your attempt to gloss over the Muslim manner of worship and treatment of the stone in its absence is laughable at best and pitiful at worst in terms of your poor scholarship. Omar already knew how to worship Allah (S).

6. There were 360 some idols in the Kabaah that were destroyed by the Prophet. In no annals anywhere is there commentary that the stone itself was one of the idols.

Sorry, compadre, time for you to jump back across the Amu Darya and go here:

http://tajikam.com/

Hi you did not answer anything instead again being hyperactive like a frustrated child calling me names as well further digging your self a hole. Let us look at what you have said.




1.

kiss/kis/
Verb:
Touch with the lips as a sign of love, sexual desire, reverence, or greeting

Above is definition of kiss. When a grand father kiss his grand daughter all of the above apply but we know that a grand father does that as a sign of love. Now Mohammad kissed the stone to show love or to have sex with the stone or to greet the stone or it was act of reverence. You can say Mohammad kissed stone to show love but why would Mohammad love a stone. We know Mohammad cant have sex with stone so that is out of question. You can say Mohammad kissed the stone to greet it then the question is why would Mohammad greet a stone. The last act is to revere it.

rev·er·ence

Noun:
Deep respect for.
Verb:
Regard or treat with deep respect.
Synonyms:
noun. respect - veneration - esteem - obeisance - regard
verb. venerate - respect - honour - honor - esteem

The only difination here applies is of reverence. Mohammad showed deep respect for a stone. Mohammad venerated the stone just like an idol is. Your argument that it is just an symbol contradicts the way Omar felt about it. If Omar didnt find it odd to kiss a stone he would not have mentioned it. He clearly said he is only doing this because Mohammad did. Why would Mohammad kiss a black stone that was respected venerated by the pagans of Arabia before Islam which is clear from the story of Mohammad placing the stone on a rug and making the pagan tribes carry it together. It was a special stone. Respected venerated stone by the pagans. In other words it was idolized it is an idol. Why Mohammad would do such a pagan thing.


Let us ask Ashia:


Narrated Aswad: Ibn Az-Zubair said to me, "Aisha used to tell you secretly a number of things. What did she tell you about the Ka'ba?" I replied, "She told me that once the Prophet said, 'O 'Aisha! Had not your people been still close to the pre-Islamic period of ignorance (infidelity)! I would have dismantled the Ka'ba and would have made two doors in it; one for entrance and the other for exit." Later on Ibn Az-Zubair did the same. Sahih Bukhari 1:3:128

According to this hadith it is clear that Mohammad incorporated pagan elements in his religion to please his people including the kabba and black stone. This is why Omar said what he said. You said it your self that it holds no such importance then what is the rational being there if it wasnt to please the pagans. Why would Mohammad not destroy the kabba this stone if it is not important and means nothing. Why leave it there and continue a pagan act. Answer is simple according to Aisha sahi hadith he did it to please the pagan ignorant arabic people and today everyone is doing this pagan ignorant arabic act because Mohammad did which is an act of showing respect to a rock which is an act of venereation which is an act of idioltry and so i said to Al hanif Taliban should blow it up using his logic. You will not do that even when you know from all these facts that it was left there and is there to please the arrogant pagan arabic tribes since now this pagan ritual is part of your so called monothestic religion.




2/3.


Here is what I said


first

///No where in bible torah it is mention of any stone ever by monotheist god placing it. It is only part of Islam out of all the 3 Abrahammic religions because of relations and importance of it to pagan Arabic people of mohammad tribe.///

second

///Since you like to quote independent sources show me from none muslims sources that gives evidence that the kabba hajj and the stone were placed by abraham or his sons as later claimed by muslim historians to justify these pagan practices which are completed rejected by the bible torah scriptures.///

I said give me a none Muslim source putting Abraham his sons and this hajj practices there as part of their rituals. I didnt ask for you to quote me none muslims QUOTING MUSLIM sources. Idiot! The quote of jacob is irrelvant to what I was asking. You quoted one jewish christain contradiction to support a muslim contradiction.






4.


Classical Islam: a history, 600 A.D. to 1258 A.D. By Gustave Edmund Von Grunebaum

The 'white stone' in Ka'ba of Al-Abalat (near Tabala south of Mecca) and in the 'black stone' of Mecca itself

page 24



The rites not described in the Koran, created an easy transition to the new religion by sanctioning such ancient practices like kissing the black stone

page 47



A "red stone" was for the deity of the south Arabian city of Ghaiman, and there was a "white stone" in the Ka'ba of al-Abalat (near the city of Tabala, south of Mecca). Worship at that time period was often associated with stone reverence, mountains, special rock formations, or distinctive trees.


Grunebaum, G. E. von (1970). Classical Islam: A History 600 A.D. – 1258 A.D.. Aldine Publishing Company. p. 24.


We have the story of Mohammad placing the rock in rug so the tribes could carry it to show that this stone existed before Islam and it was venerated held in high esteem by the pagan tribes. Only muslims later claim that this stone was in fact placed there by Abraham which can not be proven idependetly but we can prove from Muslims sources that this stone was worshiped venerated by pagans. We have the hadith of Omar to show that even he knew that the kissing of this stone was an action he wouldnt do but he only did it because Mohammad did. We have the hadith of Aisha to show that Mohammad incorporated pagan elements in islam to please the pagan Arabic people. The statement of Omar is not of guilty but absurdity and confusion. He doesnt understand why he is doing it he is only doing it because Mohammad did. You so that this stone has no powers but Muslims from around the world worship it some call it the right hand of god others believe it can cure illness and according to muslim sources touching will remove your sins. Salafi Wahabi dont like it when Sufis show same kind of respect to their amirs it is considered shirk but in heart of muslim belief this major shirk exist and you trying to justify it with only digging deeper holes.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Hi you did not answer anything instead again being hyperactive like a frustrated child calling me names as well further digging your self a hole. Let us look at what you have said.




1.

kiss/kis/
Verb:
Touch with the lips as a sign of love, sexual desire, reverence, or greeting

Above is definition of kiss. When a grand father kiss his grand daughter all of the above apply but we know that a grand father does that as a sign of love. Now Mohammad kissed the stone to show love or to have sex with the stone or to greet the stone or it was act of reverence. You can say Mohammad kissed stone to show love but why would Mohammad love a stone. We know Mohammad cant have sex with stone so that is out of question. You can say Mohammad kissed the stone to greet it then the question is why would Mohammad greet a stone. The last act is to revere it.

rev·er·ence

Noun:
Deep respect for.
Verb:
Regard or treat with deep respect.
Synonyms:
noun. respect - veneration - esteem - obeisance - regard
verb. venerate - respect - honour - honor - esteem

The only difination here applies is of reverence. Mohammad showed deep respect for a stone. Mohammad venerated the stone just like an idol is. Your argument that it is just an symbol contradicts the way Omar felt about it. If Omar didnt find it odd to kiss a stone he would not have mentioned it. He clearly said he is only doing this because Mohammad did. Why would Mohammad kiss a black stone that was respected venerated by the pagans of Arabia before Islam which is clear from the story of Mohammad placing the stone on a rug and making the pagan tribes carry it together. It was a special stone. Respected venerated stone by the pagans. In other words it was idolized it is an idol. Why Mohammad would do such a pagan thing.


Let us ask Ashia:


Narrated Aswad: Ibn Az-Zubair said to me, "Aisha used to tell you secretly a number of things. What did she tell you about the Ka'ba?" I replied, "She told me that once the Prophet said, 'O 'Aisha! Had not your people been still close to the pre-Islamic period of ignorance (infidelity)! I would have dismantled the Ka'ba and would have made two doors in it; one for entrance and the other for exit." Later on Ibn Az-Zubair did the same. Sahih Bukhari 1:3:128

According to this hadith it is clear that Mohammad incorporated pagan elements in his religion to please his people including the kabba and black stone. This is why Omar said what he said. You said it your self that it holds no such importance then what is the rational being there if it wasnt to please the pagans. Why would Mohammad not destroy the kabba this stone if it is not important and means nothing. Why leave it there and continue a pagan act. Answer is simple according to Aisha sahi hadith he did it to please the pagan ignorant arabic people and today everyone is doing this pagan ignorant arabic act because Mohammad did which is an act of showing respect to a rock which is an act of venereation which is an act of idioltry and so i said to Al hanif Taliban should blow it up using his logic. You will not do that even when you know from all these facts that it was left there and is there to please the arrogant pagan arabic tribes since now this pagan ritual is part of your so called monothestic religion.




2/3.


Here is what I said


first

///No where in bible torah it is mention of any stone ever by monotheist god placing it. It is only part of Islam out of all the 3 Abrahammic religions because of relations and importance of it to pagan Arabic people of mohammad tribe.///

second

///Since you like to quote independent sources show me from none muslims sources that gives evidence that the kabba hajj and the stone were placed by abraham or his sons as later claimed by muslim historians to justify these pagan practices which are completed rejected by the bible torah scriptures.///

I said give me a none Muslim source putting Abraham his sons and this hajj practices there as part of their rituals. I didnt ask for you to quote me none muslims QUOTING MUSLIM sources. Idiot! The quote of jacob is irrelvant to what I was asking. You quoted one jewish christain contradiction to support a muslim contradiction.






4.


Classical Islam: a history, 600 A.D. to 1258 A.D. By Gustave Edmund Von Grunebaum

The 'white stone' in Ka'ba of Al-Abalat (near Tabala south of Mecca) and in the 'black stone' of Mecca itself

page 24



The rites not described in the Koran, created an easy transition to the new religion by sanctioning such ancient practices like kissing the black stone

page 47



A "red stone" was for the deity of the south Arabian city of Ghaiman, and there was a "white stone" in the Ka'ba of al-Abalat (near the city of Tabala, south of Mecca). Worship at that time period was often associated with stone reverence, mountains, special rock formations, or distinctive trees.


Grunebaum, G. E. von (1970). Classical Islam: A History 600 A.D. – 1258 A.D.. Aldine Publishing Company. p. 24.


We have the story of Mohammad placing the rock in rug so the tribes could carry it to show that this stone existed before Islam and it was venerated held in high esteem by the pagan tribes. Only muslims later claim that this stone was in fact placed there by Abraham which can not be proven idependetly but we can prove from Muslims sources that this stone was worshiped venerated by pagans. We have the hadith of Omar to show that even he knew that the kissing of this stone was an action he wouldnt do but he only did it because Mohammad did. We have the hadith of Aisha to show that Mohammad incorporated pagan elements in islam to please the pagan Arabic people. The statement of Omar is not of guilty but absurdity and confusion. He doesnt understand why he is doing it he is only doing it because Mohammad did. You so that this stone has no powers but Muslims from around the world worship it some call it the right hand of god others believe it can cure illness and according to muslim sources touching will remove your sins. Salafi Wahabi dont like it when Sufis show same kind of respect to their amirs it is considered shirk but in heart of muslim belief this major shirk exist and you trying to justify it with only digging deeper holes.

LOOOOL parsiwaaan you're such a joker. I think your Amu darya is filled with too much liquer and that is why you are drowning today.

Once again, you prove yourself wrong idiot when referring the primary texts of Islam itself. Take the kabaah for instance. The early Muslims in massive numbers, obeyed the IMMEDIATE command to pray toward Jerusalem. In fact that was the first qiblah. That is codified in the Quranic text itself by the mentioning of the switch to what the Quran called the first house. And yet, the Quranic textus receptus describes this as a momentous challenge for the Muslims because they had grown to love the first direction of prayer.

You also conveniently dismiss the other inherent meanings behind the hadith of Aisha and connect dots that do not exist.

For instance, the more sound hadith that goes back to your wiki fest, which is exactly where your sources trace shows this hadith that you conveniently left out:

Narrated Ibn Abbas: When Allah's Apostle arrived in Mecca, he refused to enter the Ka'ba while there were idols in it. So he ordered that they be taken out. The pictures of the (Prophets) Abraham and Ishmael, holding arrows of divination in their hands, were carried out. The Prophet said, "May Allah ruin them (i.e. the infidels) for they knew very well that they (i.e. Abraham and Ishmael) never drew lots by these (divination arrows). Then the Prophet entered the Ka'ba and said. "Allahu Akbar" in all its directions and came out and not offer any prayer therein.
—Sahih Al-Bukhari, Book 59, Hadith 584

This is a precursor hadith to the one you mention. Note that you conveniently ignore the most important part of the hadith:

Muhammad (S) was diplomatic enough to understand that the paganesque mentality of his people had not 100% abated and that they might attach an immense amount of shrine like important to it that he OBVIOUSLY realized it did not deserve beyond that of a simple mosque. It seems that your literacy level is poor because you miss the part where he said he would alter its design ... and subsequently Zubair (a close companion and early Muslim) did so! So the hadith VALIDATES what I was saying before fool. Not only does it confirm how hyperacute the Prophet's attention was toward avoiding any form of idolatry, but also confirms that his sahabah rose to his challenge and extinguished it by new architectural designs of their sacred house.

You fool, you've never read the Bible. Beyond stones, there were tabernacles and the ARK OF THE CONVENENT itself! This merely shows your inadequate breath and depth of teh subject matter.

Moreover, the worship of Baal in the holy land the erection of multiple temples that competed with the central temple in Israel was what led to a series of writings and laments in the Old Testament. Islamic theology views the spread of teh Arabs and the loss of the original Abrahamic faiths in a mirror way.

Regarding kissing and veneration, you obviously are stretching it here to make your argument and everyone sees that. Veneration, even in the English language does not mandate worship. Merely you saying its worship does not make it so foolish mongoloid.

Oooooh silly parsiwaan/albani zada you wet back, dont you understand that you cannot swim across the river into Pashtun lands and win??? You never have and never will. even if you were to show that there were green stones, rainbow stones, etc, your references still dont show that these stones were EQUIVALENT to godheads or even worshipped. In fact, they confirm that they were merely markers of the primary temple.

Now come on try again, so that we can at least tell people you made a valiant effort!

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Oh and in regard to references from solid sources about Abraham, his involvement with Kabah, and concurrent existence that circulated in the preislamic peri islamic time period, here you go Parsiwaan:

http://books.google.com/books?id=O69...page&q&f=false

Firestone's Journey in Holy Lands: The Evolution of the Abraham Ishmael Legends

"The Islamic Abrahamic cycle remains UNIQUELY islamic..." he goes on to discuss how the earliest Islamic exegates, including Ali Ibn Abu Talib CONCURRENTLY viewed the actual birth place of monotheism as in the Hijaz, in Mecca, prior to even the evolution fo Jewish thought. (page 65)

Meaning in the least, even viewing the evolution of Islamic thought processes through a secular anthropological analysis, the early Muslims themselves, in the eyes of Western Orientalism were so concerned with putting a monotheistic face on all prior practices that they associated these practices, whether they were Pre Islamic or not, with Abraham. The key example being the running between safa and marwa which the tribes had done. It became an article of BELIEF that the early Muslims held that this was in reverence to the running Hajjar Bibi did to look for water for her infant.

So once again, you lose. Neither the Prophet Muhammad or the early Muslims viewed the religion as requiring elements of paganism or worship. Rather the belief system incorporates the required article of faith that the Muslims view their religion as being, as the Quran says, the religion of Abraham!

An example of this is the sajdaah act itself. In history, others have recieved sajdaah including Kings. So by your logic, this is another pagan incorporation and act of worship. In fact, the theology disputes this and views it as DIVINELY ordained.

Basically you nitwit, it comes down to a belief system. Its no different than alleging that the early Christians fed off the Magi legends to write the three wise Magi into the Bible. Its a theological belief the Christians had that the Magi, whether they were pagan, or not by Christian standards per their fire worship, still fortold the coming of Christ.

[PakistaniAtheist]

Hi as expected more name calling but little evidence. Allah first ordered muslims to pray towards Jerusalem then Allah switched it on them as a trick to see what they will do. Which Allah already knew what they will do but did it anyway. Also hadiths are independent in nature they are not quranic verses that they go in an order. What do you mean it was a precursor just because one comes after the other. Digging the hole deeper as we go. Mohammad was now a diplomat when it came to getting rid of paganism. Why would Mohammad need diplomacy towards falsehood if Allah was on his side. It would make sense if he stood firm on the truth instead of paying lip service to pagan arabic people and their pagan rituals. This from your own source "The Islamic Abrahamic cycle remains UNIQUELY islamic...". It remains uniquely Islamic as in no other sources but Islamic sources mention Abraham being there building the kabba. You dont make sense all you do is dish utter nonsense and insults. Grow up or ask someone else to come defend this shirk at the heart of islamic beliefs.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Hi as expected more name calling but little evidence. Allah first ordered muslims to pray towards Jerusalem then Allah switched it on them as a trick to see what they will do. Which Allah already knew what they will do but did it anyway. Also hadiths are independent in nature they are not quranic verses that they go in an order. What do you mean it was a precursor just because one comes after the other. Digging the hole deeper as we go. Mohammad was now a diplomat when it came to getting rid of paganism. Why would Mohammad need diplomacy towards falsehood if Allah was on his side. It would make sense if he stood firm on the truth instead of paying lip service to pagan arabic people and their pagan rituals. This from your own source "The Islamic Abrahamic cycle remains UNIQUELY islamic...". It remains uniquely Islamic as in no other sources but Islamic sources mention Abraham being there building the kabba. You dont make sense all you do is dish utter nonsense and insults. Grow up or ask someone else to come defend this shirk at the heart of islamic beliefs.

Wrong again Parsiwaan. The concept of a precursor means that the acquisition of Mecca took place BEFORE the discussoin between husband and wife and then the discussion with Zubair. Hence the breaking of the idols and THEN the changing of doors and MUhammad's suggestion of it after the Muslims had control of the Kabaa. No where in the literature is teh black stone mentioned as an idol or venerated as a godhead.

Regarding the qiblaah change, thats a belief system issue. In Islamic theology its demonstrated that Islam stood apart as a new religion.. hence God's verse "This day I have perfected my religion upon you.." and named it Islam.

For the Yathrib tribes it demonstrated their allegiance to this concept as they had primarily utilized jewish foretellings of the Prophet to take his side.

Uniquely Islamic means, by the author, in relation to the discussion of Islamic practices and ritual and even the sacrificial son you illiterate, uneducated, surface gleaning bottom feeder.

Half your insights are pre answered questions that, had you even done a cursory reading in a "For Dummys" book on Islam, you would not have asked them.

So go back to Tajikaam and have them send over someone whose a bit better than you at debating.

[PakistaniAtheist]

Wrong again Parsiwaan. The concept of a precursor means that the acquisition of Mecca took place BEFORE the discussoin between husband and wife and then the discussion with Zubair. Hence the breaking of the idols and THEN the changing of doors and MUhammad's suggestion of it after the Muslims had control of the Kabaa. No where in the literature is teh black stone mentioned as an idol or venerated as a godhead.

Regarding the qiblaah change, thats a belief system issue. In Islamic theology its demonstrated that Islam stood apart as a new religion.. hence God's verse "This day I have perfected my religion upon you.." and named it Islam.

For the Yathrib tribes it demonstrated their allegiance to this concept as they had primarily utilized jewish foretellings of the Prophet to take his side.

Uniquely Islamic means, by the author, in relation to the discussion of Islamic practices and ritual and even the sacrificial son you illiterate, uneducated, surface gleaning bottom feeder.

Half your insights are pre answered questions that, had you even done a cursory reading in a "For Dummys" book on Islam, you would not have asked them.

So go back to Tajikaam and have them send over someone whose a bit better than you at debating.

Hi black stone being placed there is already established by the story of mohammad helping the pagan tribes to decide who should place it in the kabba. The Aisha hadiths mentions that mohammad was conforming to pagan beliefs otherwise he would have dismantled the kabba. The later hadith only further proves my point that once mohammad was in control the kabba was not dismantled rather changed the doors and left the most important idol the black rock and incorporated it as part of his new religion including many of the hajj rituals that were pagan where no evidence except muslim apologetic explanations that mentions Abraham or his sons every performing any of it. You havent proved anything instead you give your frustrated attempts to justify a major shirk in the heart of muslim belief. A black stone being kissed venerated idolized even though it is not suppose to be. My point that Taliban should blow it up stands from authentic islamic perspective. Omar knew this but couldnt do anything about it since mohammad participated in this pagan ritual himself.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Hi black stone being placed there is already established by the story of mohammad helping the pagan tribes to decide who should place it in the kabba. The Aisha hadiths mentions that mohammad was conforming to pagan beliefs otherwise he would have dismantled the kabba. The later hadith only further proves my point that once mohammad was in control the kabba was not dismantled rather changed the doors and left the most important idol the black rock and incorporated it as part of his new religion including many of the hajj rituals that were pagan where no evidence except muslim apologetic explanations that mentions Abraham or his sons every performing any of it. You havent proved anything instead you give your frustrated attempts to justify a major shirk in the heart of muslim belief. A black stone being kissed venerated idolized even though it is not suppose to be. My point that Taliban should blow it up stands from authentic islamic perspective. Omar knew this but couldnt do anything about it since mohammad participated in this pagan ritual himself.

Wrong Parsiwaan. Once again, your inadequacy and lack of depth to suit your lack of breath shows. Muhammad had the tribes hold ends of a sheet and he himself placed the stone. Also, the hadith DOES NOT prove your point because you cannot build doors to a nonexistent house you mentally slow wet back. It was not Muhammad's intention to crush and destroy the Kabah, but to improve upon its design. Instead, he was chiding the fact that there was still superstition attached to doing such a common sensical thing in the setting of his having brought the new religion that invalidated this view. And the kicker is that Zubair redeemed the companions by doing the redesign. So you just keep proving my point for me.

Moreover, the hadith never addresses the black rock fool. Thats where the precursor hadith comes into play. It was not amongst the 360 idols. But illiterates like you with an agenda gloss over that.

Regarding the Abrahamic connections, thats a belief system requirement. In the eyes of the secular world, it matters not whether Christ or Abraham even existed. The question is: what did the original Muslims BELIEVE and what does Islamic theology teach. On both counts, you failed to demonstrate the alternative theological viewpoint from either the Quranic textus receptus or the hadith cannon.

This is not in essence, as the example of the Christmas tree of the celebration of Easter, an accepted later innovation in the theological framework. It is a theological underpinning (i.e. Muhammad believed) that these rituals, and that the kabaah itself, were abrahamic. The secular analysis cares not whether Abraham really existed or not you fool. It merely considers what the belief system of these men that were a part of the original religious heirarchy believed.
That is all that matters in terms of theological disputes you mongoloid baby.

Finally, the fact that no punishment existed for the breaking of the stone in the literature (which was done) nor was Hajjaj Bin Yusuf punished by the Caliph for attacking on its premesis and even damaging the Kabah. So even in light of the early Islamic years, your theory falls flat on its face in exection of logic.

Frustrated? Im enjoying making you look like a full retard when in your mind you were a semi retard. Try again.

[PakistaniAtheist]

Wrong Parsiwaan. Once again, your inadequacy and lack of depth to suit your lack of breath shows. Muhammad had the tribes hold ends of a sheet and he himself placed the stone. Also, the hadith DOES NOT prove your point because you cannot build doors to a nonexistent house you mentally slow wet back. It was not Muhammad's intention to crush and destroy the Kabah, but to improve upon its design. Instead, he was chiding the fact that there was still superstition attached to doing such a common sensical thing in the setting of his having brought the new religion that invalidated this view. And the kicker is that Zubair redeemed the companions by doing the redesign. So you just keep proving my point for me.

Moreover, the hadith never addresses the black rock fool. Thats where the precursor hadith comes into play. It was not amongst the 360 idols. But illiterates like you with an agenda gloss over that.

Regarding the Abrahamic connections, thats a belief system requirement. In the eyes of the secular world, it matters not whether Christ or Abraham even existed. The question is: what did the original Muslims BELIEVE and what does Islamic theology teach. On both counts, you failed to demonstrate the alternative theological viewpoint from either the Quranic textus receptus or the hadith cannon.

This is not in essence, as the example of the Christmas tree of the celebration of Easter, an accepted later innovation in the theological framework. It is a theological underpinning (i.e. Muhammad believed) that these rituals, and that the kabaah itself, were abrahamic. The secular analysis cares not whether Abraham really existed or not you fool. It merely considers what the belief system of these men that were a part of the original religious heirarchy believed.
That is all that matters in terms of theological disputes you mongoloid baby.

Finally, the fact that no punishment existed for the breaking of the stone in the literature (which was done) nor was Hajjaj Bin Yusuf punished by the Caliph for attacking on its premesis and even damaging the Kabah. So even in light of the early Islamic years, your theory falls flat on its face in exection of logic.

Frustrated? Im enjoying making you look like a full retard when in your mind you were a semi retard. Try again.

What are you on about. You keep repeating the same nonsense without refuting any single points I raised. The fact that there is a stone venerated by millions of Muslims kissed touched licked believing that it has magical powers to cure illness sins and the fact that this stone was venerated idolized by pagans before the arrival of Islam by pagans as an idol a practice continued by Mohammad questioned by Omar and confirmed by Aisha hadith that Mohammad was conforming to pagans as you say using diplomacy proves that pagan elements exist in islam. It proves that pagan elements were incorporated. All you are saying is that well it looks like that but its not really like that. Well the hadiths says this but what it really means is this. Well Mohammad kissed it but it doesnt represent any thing it just a thing he did and Omar is doing it because Mohammad did it so now every one else is doing it because Mohammad did it we really dont know whats its purpose but its there. AGAIN WHICH MEANS THERE IS A STONE IN THE HEART OF THIS FAITH THAT IS WORSHIPED. Please stop repeating like a parrot in a childish attitude with your typical frustrating dependency on name callings and insults. Anyone looking bad is you. Let me make it simple for you. Did this stone exist prior to islam. yes! Was it idolized by the pagans of mecca. yes! Did it continue to play such a role after Islam. yes! Did omar questioned this shirk. Yes! yet muslims continue to do it. Yes!

[BarakzaiAbdali]

What are you on about. You keep repeating the same nonsense without refuting any single points I raised. The fact that there is a stone venerated by millions of Muslims kissed touched licked believing that it has magical powers to cure illness sins and the fact that this stone was venerated idolized by pagans before the arrival of Islam by pagans as an idol a practice continued by Mohammad questioned by Omar and confirmed by Aisha hadith that Mohammad was conforming to pagans as you say using diplomacy proves that pagan elements exist in islam. It proves that pagan elements were incorporated. All you are saying is that well it looks like that but its not really like that. Well the hadiths says this but what it really means is this. Well Mohammad kissed it but it doesnt represent any thing it just a thing he did and Omar is doing it because Mohammad did it so now every one else is doing it because Mohammad did it we really dont know whats its purpose but its there. AGAIN WHICH MEANS THERE IS A STONE IN THE HEART OF THIS FAITH THAT IS WORSHIPED. Please stop repeating like a parrot in a childish attitude with your typical frustrating dependency on name callings and insults. Anyone looking bad is you. Let me make it simple for you. Did this stone exist prior to islam. yes! Was it idolized by the pagans of mecca. yes! Did it continue to play such a role after Islam. yes! Did omar questioned this shirk. Yes! yet muslims continue to do it. Yes!

No, wrong again parsiwaan. You keep missing the point. You are reading material into the hadith.

Fact: Nothing exists in any literature, Christian, Jewish, Pagan, or Muslim that assigns deity to the stone.

Fact: 360 other idols including hubal are mentioned... yet the stone is not grouped into the 360 idols per the Bukhari hadith.

Fact: Omar himself stated that the stone had no powers and no will nor any ability to hurt him. [Case actually closes here because whatever you think he may have felt, he stated clearly that his belief system defied any additional powers to teh stone]

Fact: Muhammad never THOUGHT he was using diplomacy. You fool, dont you get it? Just as Jesus Christ told his followers: "I have not come to destroy the law (torah) but to fulfill it!" and believed this to be the case...The prophet Muhammad did not believe, or in the least in Islamic theology, Muslims do not BELIEVE that Muhammad incorporated these into Islamic theology to suit pagan diplomacy. He viewed this is a reclaiming of what was a sanctified act under Abraham. The Quran says that "He says nothing of his self" - in reference to the Prophet.

Proof? Muhammad never mentioned to Aisha that he wanted to MODIFY the hajj rites or rituals. All he addressed was a goal of improving on the kabaah's design. In your foolishness you originally claimed he wanted to destroy it until you realized you cannot have doors to a destroyed building. All Muhammad was commenting on was that he wanted a situation where worshippers could walk in, on one end, and walk out on the other. Its you that is reading things into the hadith. You imposed a reading between the lines that doesnt exist.

Fact: There is NO evidence that the tribes idolized the stone. They had idols and they venerated the stone, but there is no proof of its worship. In fact the hadith of it becoming a testament on the day of worship shows it has NO life fool! loooool.

Regarding the stone having powers or not has no issues with diefication. The water of zam zam is also reputed to have healing powers etc. Yet as with the stone, no evidence exists of its worship you idiot.

Do you understand what worship means? Any theological professor would be astounded at your idiocy of your reasoning of how the stone was deified by the early Muslims.

Bottom line is that you have not produced a single piece of evidence that showed Muhammad ever deified the stone or worshipped it as an extension of God.

When a hindu worships a Krishna statue, he believes that Krishna is represented in the idol itself. Therefore, he does not break the idol. He believes the idol to be the god itself as well.

As noted, the stone was broken, the kabah was attacked, and war was even conducted near its premises by Zubair and Hajjaj bin Yusef. They are maligned for doing war there, but they are never creaticized for breaking a part of a Godhead of a diety you fool.

Your frustration with not being able to parsibaan the rest of us here shows. YOu just keep repeating yourself with the hope that we will read the same little additions into the hadith as you made.

Now, can you please go take a swim in teh Amu Darya?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

What are you on about. You keep repeating the same nonsense without refuting any single points I raised. The fact that there is a stone venerated by millions of Muslims kissed touched licked believing that it has magical powers to cure illness sins and the fact that this stone was venerated idolized by pagans before the arrival of Islam by pagans as an idol a practice continued by Mohammad questioned by Omar and confirmed by Aisha hadith that Mohammad was conforming to pagans as you say using diplomacy proves that pagan elements exist in islam. It proves that pagan elements were incorporated. All you are saying is that well it looks like that but its not really like that. Well the hadiths says this but what it really means is this. Well Mohammad kissed it but it doesnt represent any thing it just a thing he did and Omar is doing it because Mohammad did it so now every one else is doing it because Mohammad did it we really dont know whats its purpose but its there. AGAIN WHICH MEANS THERE IS A STONE IN THE HEART OF THIS FAITH THAT IS WORSHIPED. Please stop repeating like a parrot in a childish attitude with your typical frustrating dependency on name callings and insults. Anyone looking bad is you. Let me make it simple for you. Did this stone exist prior to islam. yes! Was it idolized by the pagans of mecca. yes! Did it continue to play such a role after Islam. yes! Did omar questioned this shirk. Yes! yet muslims continue to do it. Yes!

lol, and you seriously failed to address the qiblah directionality. So in your estimation, Muhammad still believed in the paganism... yet turned to Jerusalem... and then went back to the paganism??? Yet we have adequate proof that his followers RESISTED turning to the kabaah, not VICE VERSA. Fail parsiwaan... thats why you are drowning in the amu daryaa of idiocy again and again and again here.

[PakistaniAtheist]

lol, and you seriously failed to address the qiblah directionality. So in your estimation, Muhammad still believed in the paganism... yet turned to Jerusalem... and then went back to the paganism??? Yet we have adequate proof that his followers RESISTED turning to the kabaah, not VICE VERSA. Fail parsiwaan... thats why you are drowning in the amu daryaa of idiocy again and again and again here.

Hi I am not going to get a straight answer out of you instead all you are going to do is the typical it doesnt mean what it looks like. What is the need for the stone to be there kissed acknowledged pointed at part of the hajj process. Simple question to ask is was the stone present in kabba before islam yes. Was it important to pagan Arabs. yes. So if it wasnt an idol what was it doing there a decoration peace? come on all you are doing is just diggin in. As for directionality of the qiblah why start with Jerusalem why not start with the first mosque created the kabba. Was Mohammad or Allah confused over the matter that first Muslims were asked to pray towards Jerusalem but later remembered that the first mosque is masjid haram so turn towards that. As you stated that muslims resisted so conveniently a verse came that it was a test of their loyalty. I think the fact that jews refused to recognized mohammad as member of their little club he turned away from their holy site in spite.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Hi I am not going to get a straight answer out of you instead all you are going to do is the typical it doesnt mean what it looks like. What is the need for the stone to be there kissed acknowledged pointed at part of the hajj process. Simple question to ask is was the stone present in kabba before islam yes. Was it important to pagan Arabs. yes. So if it wasnt an idol what was it doing there a decoration peace? come on all you are doing is just diggin in. As for directionality of the qiblah why start with Jerusalem why not start with the first mosque created the kabba. Was Mohammad or Allah confused over the matter that first Muslims were asked to pray towards Jerusalem but later remembered that the first mosque is masjid haram so turn towards that. As you stated that muslims resisted so conveniently a verse came that it was a test of their loyalty. I think the fact that jews refused to recognized mohammad as member of their little club he turned away from their holy site in spite.

Oh Parsiwaan, Mossoud didnt teach you enough when you swam across the amu darya. Maybe when we send you back you will have learned something.

Let us speak in secular analytical terms (but I am afraid your inferior brain cannot make it there)

FACT 1: As noted previously, the onus is on you to prove it was an idol. To date, the only descriptions we have of it, as as a venerated corner stone. Buildings all over the world have corner stones. We have, to the contrary, listed evidence of various idols, including Lat, Manat, Uzza, and Hubal in the Kaba, and the black stone was not listed amongst them.

All you have done is proven that people visited and venerated it; something we already knew and do. Take, as a modern comparison, this site in New York Central Park:

http://www.sodahead.com/entertainmen...al_xlarge.jpeg

Its the Imagine Mural commemorated to Beatles rock star John Lennon. People visit it, people put flowers on it, people kiss it, and people take pictures with it, and people travel thousands of miles to see it.

Now, take a look at the blarney stone in Ireland:

http://www.blarneycastle.ie/pages/ki...-blarney-stone

The Irish and others travel miles to kiss it upside down and fables say it gives you the gift of eloquence.

These actions, of kissing in no way confirm deification you stupid example of genetic waste. Do people then believe the imagine mural is a God? Do people believe the Blarney stone is a God?

For that matter, these structures are in Christian dominant countries. Do they have anything to do with Christianity theologically? Idiot, no.

By the same token, your proof falls short.

FACT 2: We also have a theological belief system set up by the religion in question in which one of its earliest followers, Omar confirms that he will not assign it deity.

FACT 3: Regarding your question of Masjid haram, you turd blossom, it had nothing to do with God forgetting. Just as Daniel, in the Biblical book used to pray 3 timesa day facing Jerusalem, Islam was a continuation of Prophetic literature through God, per its theological belief system. However, per its explained belief system, the turn to the Masjid Haram had nothing to do with it being the initial focal point. The Quran never alleges that Christ, for example, turned to the Kabaah. Instead, it builds the bases for showing Islam's independence of Judaism or Christianity. Christianity cannot stand on its own two feet without the Old testament. Islam on the other hand has no requirements of the other religion for its validation. The Prophetic line shifted to Ismail from Israel's sons, per Islamic theology. In fact, Islams sabaath falls on a Friday as well, separate from the other two religions.

Looool, and Parsiwaan, what is your obsession with licking things? You probably got all sorts of diseases on your nasty ass farsiwaan tongue.

[PakistaniAtheist]

Hi there is no more need to entertain your circular degenerate arguments full of insults name calling. Instead I will post some interesting quotes from sources.

"The rites and ceremonies connected with the Hajj and Umrah are exceedingly puerile, and decidedly inconsistent with the spirit of Islam The idolatrous customs of the ancient Arabs, though sanctified by the teaching of the Qur’an and the example of' Muhammad, but poorly comport with the monotheistic teaching of the reformer of Makkah, and come far short of "confirming the former Scriptures." Its sanction by Muhammad is one of the darkest plots on his religion, and shows at the same time how far the politician of Madina differed from the preacher of Makkah. How his apologists fail to see the inconsistency of his conduct and teaching here, not only with the dignity of a prophet of God, but with the character of an honest man, is beyond our comprehension. The kissing of the Black Stone and the Yamani Pillar was so manifestly inconsistent with the doctrine of Islam, that naught but the example of the prophet and the implicit obedience of his followers secured its perpetuation. The fiery Omar, kissing the stone, said, "Verily I know that thou art a stone; thou dost no good or harm in the world, and if it was not that 1 saw the prophet kiss thee, I would not kiss thee." (Mishqat ul Masabih, Matthews, book 11. chapter 4, part 3)


At Mekka, Allah was the chief of the gods and the special deity of the Quraish, the prophet’s tribe. Allah had three daughters: Al Uzzah (Venus) most revered of all and pleased with human sacrifice; Manah, the goddess of destiny, and Al Lat, the goddess of vegetable life. Hubal and more than 300 others made up the pantheon. The central shrine at Mekka was the Kaaba, a cube like stone structure which still stands though many times rebuilt. Imbedded in one corner is the black stone, probably a meteorite, the kissing of which is now an essential part of the pilgrimage." (Meet the Arab, John Van Ess, 1943, p. 29.)


Religious objects, practices, and institutions. Sacred stones. A principal sacred object in Arabian religion was the stone, either a rock outcropping or a large boulder, often a rectangular or irregular black basaltic stone without representative sculptural detail. Such stones were thought to be the residences of a god-hence the term for them employed by Byzantine Christian writers in the 5th and 6th centuries: baetyl, from bet 'el, "house of the god." Of the numerous baetyls, the best known is the Black Stone of the Ka'bah at Mecca, which became the central shrine object of Islam. (Britannica, Arabian Religions, p1059, 1979)


"Before Muhammad appeared, the Kaaba was surrounded by 360 idols, and every Arab house had its god. Arabs also believed in jinn (subtle beings), and some vague divinity with many offspring. Among the major deities of the pre-Islamic era were al-Lat ("the Goddess"), worshiped in the shape of a square stone; al-Uzzah ("the Mighty"), a goddess identified with the morning star and worshiped as a thigh-bone-shaped slab of granite between al Talf and Mecca; Manat, the goddess of destiny, worshiped as a black stone on the road between Mecca and Medina; and the moon god, Hubal, whose worship was connected with the Black Stone of the Kaaba. The stones were said to have fallen from the sun, moon, stars, and planets and to represent cosmic forces. The so-called Black Stone (actually the color of burnt umber) that Muslims revere today is the same one that their forebears had worshiped well before Muhammad and that they believed had come from the moon. (No scientific investigation has ever been performed on the stone. In 930, the stone was removed and shattered by an Iraqi sect of Qarmatians, but the pieces were later returned. The pieces, sealed in pitch and held in place by silver wire, measure about 10 inches in diameter altogether and several feet high; they are venerated today in patched-together form.)" (The Joy of Sects, Peter Occhigrosso, 1996)


It is established from aisha hadith that mohammad conformed to pagan arabic rituals because of the importance to his people. We established that this pagan black stone existed before Islam and was important to pagan Arabic people from the story where mohammad was asked to decide who would carry it. We established that Omar questioned this shirk and said he would never do it but since mohammad conformed to this to please the pagans he is doing it. The burden of proof is on now you to prove from none muslims source to show that this stone was placed by abraham hajj was practice by abraham or anything related to the ritual of hajj to him his sons. As muslim you claim this so prove it. As for the other corner stones even to celebrities they are not part of any religion so we know what they are this stone is special it was part of the pagan rituals now its part of muslim ritual. What is the reason to incorporate this pagan black stone in muslim faith if it is indeed just a corner stone which deserves to be kissed as well. Complete utter none sense.

[Alchemist]

I concur ; we should start having assassination squads in Europe to take out these Wahhabist slaves of Saudi Monarchy like Al Hanif, he says he's against Saudia Arabia but he follows the Saudi belief system.

The same way they deal with others they should be dealt with. After all in Islamic Law we have eye for an eye (qisas)

we should leave their families out of this though, unless they follow his same ideology.

HAAAA!!!!


HYPOCRITE!!!


LOL


See here folks?!


This man is anti Taliban on the premise that: Taliban kill Muslims.


Here he is advocating for the killing of other muslims!


I ask....on what rational does he justify the killing of Saudis or whabbis and looks forward to the murder of Al Hanif?

What is the difference between him and the one he hates when he is advocating for the same actions and has the same mentality?

This is a severe case of projection - he hates the taliban because he sees himself in them but can't accept that aspect of himself, so he projects his hatred towards them instead of himself.

FAIL!!!!

[Alchemist]

Hi Say, "O disbelievers, I do not serve what you serve. Nor do you serve Him Whom I serve: Nor am I going to serve that which you serve, Nor are you going to serve Him Whom I serve:For you is your way of life, and for me is my way of life."