Peace on truth seekers. If you consider yourself a humanist like secularists claim, I would request you to add me for a richer dialogue.
Anja Jovic accepted your request.
As for the Ummayad were the traditionalists, praying towards Petra, while the Abbasid were the reformers, changing qiblas to Mecca. I strongly urge you to at least watch the video from 1h 03 minutes for a few minutes to understand the dispute
Done iftar. After modernity, there is a lot of communication gap. I try to bridge that for a peaceful Middle East.
Umayyads were very cruel and semi-Godless people, so it makes sense that they did not care much about accurate direction. The main researcher is a Christian and they are always jealous of Ishmael and Hagar and the city they built.
Now this is one perspective of the dispute. The Abbasids of Kufr (the city) majored in driving out the Ummayads from the middle east and consequently changed the directions of the qiblas. If the Ummayads did not care about the direction as you say, how come all their qiblas are clearly directed at Petra? And if it was so clear that only Mecca was the correct direction, how come 1. Mecca is only named one time specifically in the quran, 2. doesnt fulfill the descriptions of the quran and 3. all other, non-involved muslim regions had their qiblas directed towards Petra, but changed them to go directly in between Petra and Mecca later to avoid being drawn into the conflict?
So, you think Abbasids wre wrong and Umayyads right? I hate both because they killed Prophetic descendants both of them
This isn’t about either one of them being wrong, but rather, the truth. This is so important for all muslims in the world since they want to follow the quran and their prophet completely. The abbasids had an interest in changing the birth city of islam from petra to mecca, whilst mohammed and the khalifs did pray to petra. The direction matters clearly and also, do not forget hajj and similiar
It would not matter iif it wasnt for the significance in the islamic religion itself
and that we have indeed the ability to proof this (and it can be proven by anyone with a brain, this is not depending on who is who), why should we not? Allah also enabled this
What was the motive of Abassids? Umayyads were distant relatives of Prophet(p) while Abbassids were nearer relatives of Prophet(p)
The dispute between them was the reason. While the Ummayads regarded Petra and the Kaaba there as the forbidden gathering place /haram al masjid and therefor claimed to be the rightly suceeding group, the Abbasid were claiming that title for themselves. They attacked Petra which was also called the ‘becca’ (due to the frequent earthquakes there that cost many people theirr lives) and threw huge stones with catapults at all old islamic worship places, destroying much, but not all of it
They made sure however to destroy the Kaaba completely and move whatever they could gather to Mecca to make sure everyone knows their claim is correct and their city was the city which was chosen by allah
But dispute among them was political in nature. They agreed about religion.
The centre of Abassids was not Makkah but Baghdad
No, their religious outlooks differed a lot. Ummayads had a rather lenient outlook and considered Petra the holy city, Abbasids were stricter and considered Mecca to be correct
that is true, but they still held Mecca high as the holy city
what is interesting is how easy the word becca (weeping) can be changed to mecca in arabic, though there was no reason to associate mecca with weeping
Is Petra in Syria because Umayyads were based in Damascus
Bakkah means weeping because sinners weep there
Because Abraham and Ishmael lived before Islam
They wept there
Ishmael means God hears. They prayed and wept and God heard them
Abraham prayed that O God make this city peaceful and fruitful.
Even Bible mentions well of Hagar which is Zam Zam.
But pilgrims bring fruits and there are many dates there like Ajwa. I have eaten that
Checking old routes of carvhans and having a look at the soil show how nobody travelled there because it was of no interest before the Abbasids build it up to become the holy city
That is true, but the holy city is described to be full of trees and grass
nothing like this was found though
It was not an economic site but a spiritual site so only pilgrims went there not businessmen
it is also described as between 2 mountainish walls, with a river flowing in between
Mecca of today is not fulfilling this
There is no Meccan river mentioned in Quran. I have read Quran a lot. Only well of Zam Zam.
and what about the stones that circle the haram al masjid, how come all of them are gone whilst in Petra, theyre half destroyed, but still there
Really? Then how come it is said that mohammed used to walk up to the haram al masjid though the river
I never heard of a river. Maybe some pond.
Are you talking about black stone?
I’m talking about the haram al masjid. Going there, it is written that he went through the river and many wondered what river was meant since there is no river in Mecca
Can you tell a Quranic verse or Hadith about that?
Or you believed because a Christian said that
Ill try to find it. And the description of Mecca to mohammeds times doesnt fit mecca either
Not only was there no trees and grass, it was a big merchant city, not just for some pilgrimage
Are those descriptions in Hadith?
The city rose thousands of soldiers for war
but is not on any caravan route?`Nobody knew about it? Isn’t that odd
and no, I read about that before, but did not pay closer attention
Soldiers can fight anywhere even in deserts and mountains
Naturally people care more about business and caravans than about God.
Do you hate deserts and love cities like Newyork ? Isn’t being closer to nature better than being closer to machines
That isn’t of relevance, is it? Once you say it is not normal that ‘a small city like Mecca is only visited by pilgrims’, yet when described as a huge city with soldiers, markets etc you say that goes for mecca as well
If it is indeed a merchant city as described in islamic narrative, how come it was on no merchant and carvan route?
Where does Islam say that Makkah was centre of trade. There was only a small market called Ukaz.
People went to Syria for trade like the caravan of Khadija went to Syria.
Are you Turkish? I am Pakistani
No, I am not turkish and I’m collecting hadiths on it. It is a very interesting topic but I also just realised that there are muslims having an interest to not have this revealed
If it was true and becca was petra and not mecca it would (perhaps) make prayers invalid (though I doubt unknowingly praying wrong directions would be invalid), the pilgrimage would be invalid and most of all, saudis would lose a huge source of power and income
Traditional Muslims are too sacred of sexual revolution that they refuse to engage with modernists even intellectually. However, I try to engage with all liberal even if they ban me from their groups.
If you are shia then please stay safe. I have heard of enough sources how shias are treated in sunni-majority countries
And muslims in the west engage in all kinds of sexual activities, yet would never engage in discussions …
But Quran 2:115 states that your heart is more important than facing East or West.
and 3. Why did the Abbasid saw a need to burn all documents from the Ummayah they could lay their hands on
I love both Saudis and Jordanians. If Petra were Qiblah, I would not hate if my money goes to Jordanians. Even Jordanians do not hate that money does to Saudis. The Jordanian king is a Hashimi and his DNA is related to the Prophet(p).
I did not say that direction is useless as it is a source of spiritual unity but even if the direction is within 45 degrees prayer will not be invalid due to human error. God says man in weak and can make errors.
But Jordanians are not secular and they do not hate Makkah. Jordanians are Sunnis in common with Saudis.
They may fight for oil but no one hates pilgrimage.
I like Yemeni Shia because they are moderate compared to Iranian extremist Shia.
But even Yemenis love Makkah and pilgrimage.
I am not saying they are not and I agree, Jordan is a place welcoming sects a lot more. But in that whole respect I find it curious as to how nobody is paying attention to the details and blindly accepting certain contradictions. If you look at how the quran is not chronological (means the sura order is not the same as they were revealed), the meccan/petran suras are a lot more peaceful than the medinan suras(especially sura 5 and 9).
There is the theory that the Abbasids changed mohammeds suras into more violent ones whilst abusing the power of abrogation. I know you probably do not believe in that since quran is meant to be protected by allah, but I thought you might be curious about some parts people discuss
And I hope that you know not many are just historically curious. Not everyone who is not muslims has some sort of religious motive, in fact most are atheist or agnostic or simply irreligious. It is just that the islamic history is very rich and very interesting to analyse.
According to Odin text research even the Medinan Surahs are less violent than Bible. No state can be established without use for force. Even secularism and democracy spread through sword of British and US colonialism. Being free from sexual revolution is necessary for spiritual peace.
The old testament is incredibly violent I agree, whilst I dont think the gospel is. But could you explain to me what you mean with sexual revolution?
sex outside marriage? Or something more?
But Umayyads were more interested in conquest. Umayyads conquered Spain while Abassids built libraries in Baghdad.
Sex outside marriage always existed, but I am more worried about its global propagation and publicity so that even pre-teens start watching porn.
Gospel also says: I am not sent to bring peace on earth, but sword. In Islamic eschatology he will kill pseudo-Jewish Antichrist.
Yes he does, but this is metaphore if you read the context. He will use a sword to divide people into his followers and those not following him. It is not about killing anyone or teaching followers to kill anyone, either
This is enough. Even some secularists are against sexualising children.
You seem Christian and I love Christ(p) and keep his commandments. Like him, I am circumcised and do not eat pork.
To me surprise I fully agree with you. Though I think you use a very unfortunate word for your view. When you say sexual revolution, it sounds as if you are against 1. female rights and 2. people’s rights to choose an own sex-partner and 3. enjoy sex. Idk how much you know about it, but prior to the sexual revolution in the west, women had very little rights regarding their own body and it was seen as shameless if someone enjoyed sex (even within marriage). It was just an act to produce children and showing any form of joy was frowned upon strongly, making people feel guilty for procreating in the first place.
The isa of islam is a completely different person from jesus from the bible. And I am not exactly a religious person and I would not call myself christian in that sense. Rather someone strongly inspired by Jesus
According to Ezekiel 18:20 no one can die for sins of another. We believe in animal sacrifice because son of Abraham(p) was replaced by a heavenly ram.
It says no man can die for another, but jesus was no man in the christian perspective, he is the son of god
You are a secular Christian torn between Middle Eastern Yeshua and Greco-Roman polytheistic secularism.
I am a secular individual inspired by jesus, not more not less. Religion belongs to the mind of the individual, not politics or the public room
Bible has other sons of God as well
But Jesus is called a King not a monk in Bible
Simon the disciple believed in revolt against Caesar like Maccabees.
It sure does, but that is what comes with translations. They dont accurately depict all variants. For example it depends which version of the greek word for son is used – if it is a literal son or a metaphorical son
it all reflects his perspective
Even metaphorical son isn’t anthropomorphism? Bible says God is not a man.
and then Simon followed his political agenda. Jesus said to give what is due and more. Give God what is his and give Cesar what it is
No, it depends on the context. Indeed, God is not man, but God can take the form/body of man for a purpose
And ever since prophesised in the Torah, there was a Messiah to come and he would free the Jews of the burden of laws
He submitted to Caesar because he was powerless. But in the second advent, God will empower him through Islam as a true King and then Jews cannot reject him, because they expect a king.
But he still did not sin once
(unlike man does)
ofc, it is said he performed miracles etc
but the point is, despite all temptations, he did not sin and this is what no man can copy
Wasn’t Jesus harsh to his mother when they talked at the wedding?
According to Bible
He ressurected people, gave blind men sight etc..in the gospel, it is multiple times said if he wanted, he would call all his father’s angels to come and wipe out everyone if he wanted
But that is not what he came for
Obviously up for criticism
As for Cesar and others, he never fought them and he urged all of his followed to not fight, but offer the other cheek (for another hit). Obviously almost nobody follows/can follow this.
Many secular Christians are rejecting miracles, but we believe in miracles of Jesus(p) even more than many secular Christians
I think you need to differ a lot there. When you say Christian, who do you adress? Many muslims say: You christians in the west…Who here is christian? They belong to a church, but almost nobody believed in god, much less in any religion
Would you turn your cheek for a Muslim who wants to setup kingdom for Jesus(p).
There is an underlying christian culture, inspired by chrisianity , but no christian belief for the vast majority. People are rather agnostic/atheist pagans, celebrating random mixed traditions
(which makes it very questionable when muslim men marry women in europe since theyre not real christians at all)
Middle Eastern Christians are better and I may marry a Middle Eastern nun if she liked.
Nuns are catholic and ‘married to God’ (metaphorically) as in: They reject marriage and live only to pray and serve God
What if a gay Christian believes in trinity?
Isn’t a Muslim better than trinitarian gay Christian?
Also, what is interesting is, you cannot marry an actual christian. The logic is flawed, because a ‘real belieivng’ christian is not ‘allowed’ to marry a non-christian (no matter if female or male). If she does marry a non-christian, she is not a real believer. If she is a real-believer, she wont marry a muslim/jew etc. Now if you, as a muslim, marry a christian, she is not a real christian believer, either…
You see where I am going, this is not logically working out (though most dont care and any christian marrying non-christians is not religious/agnostic/ etc)
But she will be a real Abrahamite like Jesus and Mary.
She may or may not, but she is not bound to christian rules then, meaning she may differ in many further aspects that normally christians and muslims have in common. She could believe in multiple Gods, multiple marriages and so on. It really depends on the individual then. As for your other question:
The trinity is a weird outline for how God acts. Inherently, it is not wrong, God is influencing things as the father, the son and the holdy ghost. Theyre just three entities of the same, not three different gods. A person who is gay should, according to christian perspective, not act upon it, but it doesnt make him a worse person. Everyone sins in others ways. A gay guy is not worse than a person who lies about everything, steals from others, rapes women or whatever you can imagine.
We try to love Jesus(p) too.
A muslim is simply misguided since based on what the gospel says, he rejects the greatest gift god ever gave to mankind and all that in favor of a devilish belief. Im not sure as to how aware muslims are aware of this, but islam is devil’s religion according to the Bible since they deny Jesus’s death and position and therefor, leading all their followers to hell
We respect God more by saying God cannot die.
That’s where views differ a LOT. Imagine this: God says- you all fall short in glory, you all sin and deserve hell as per justice. But I will send my son into a man’s body, let him endure everything you, as a man, endure and he will, sinnless, for your sins. All this, because I love you, my children (thats why God= the Father) that much, that I would sacrifice my son for you.
Now, up to the human which he believes or prefers
But it is interesting to see that their belief depends on mental state and personal preference a lot. I know former jews and christians who converted to islam and said: No, I only believe in a strong God, a god who can have a human body and that body dies, I reject that
God is glorious but He also says in Quran that I am closer to you than your jugular vein. He is NEAR us but does not need to incarnate a non-biblical word.
Can a strong God become an idol?
Sure, if humans want to turn him into one
Islam compares love of God to a mother rather than father. Do you love your mother or father more.
Rahman comes from rahm meaning womb.
Rahman means Compassionate God.
neither honestly, but I respect both and I am thankful towards what I was given and try my best to repay them my ways
And that idea comes from Judaism, its in the torah how God’s love is equalled to a mothers love to her child
There are many cruel mothers in the world
If you do not love them, then you do not love Jesus(p) enough.
That may be, not for me to judge. There is the emotional side which cannot be controlled, and there is the rational side which I can control
I dont choose whom I love with feelings
But I can choose whom I show appreciation with deeds and words
But inside womb mothers cannot be cruel except secular women.
Modern culture changes feelings towards parents.
No, I would not say that. It changes the room given to act upon feelings. Within religious families, children are forced to take care of their parents, there is no choice about this, even if they hate them and their parents were horrible. But in more open societies, they are free to either help or leave
It doesnt change the person’s motives though. I know religious people helping their elders, but cold as ice, simply because they have to. And I know atheists lovingly caring for their parents, because they love them.
And even religious women can dislike their child..it is not as easy as generalisation seems it to be.
Truth is more important than feelings. If truth makes you unhappy, the brave should dare to be unhappy. Even if I hated my parents, I would be kind to them even if I am cold. Like Abraham(p) was kind to his pagan father.
Well, truth is subjective. For you that is the truth, for others whatever they believe is true
and forcing your own view on others is called a dictatorship. Just as you dont want to be forced to be atheist, many dont want to be forced to be muslim/christian/you name it
Secularism forces you to be feel ashamed, stupid and backward about faith and commandments in modern world. If someone is dressed in a Middle Eastern way like Jesus(p) and bearded like him, he will be marginalized into self-censorship. So, it is a subtle dictatorship which is more spiritually destructive than visible dictatorship.
Hm, I see where you are coming from. This is a development which took place in the more atheist part of the western world, but what about multi-religious , rather secular societies
singapore is a good example for this
people are free to live their religion (or lack of it) without prejudice and hatespeech is severely punished.
I personally consider it a very good example of how coexistence can work out well. And I am also against the marginalisation of faith or lack thereof – it should neither be made fun of nor attacked.
And I also fully support the desexualisation of the public regarding advertisment and accesible porn etc.
God bless your faith in challenging 21st century and may God make you a knight of Christ like Mary
Thank you very much, same and more on to you, salam 🙂
I would be happier if you overcome your xenophobia to make me your virtual neighbour/fb friend
Abdullah Sameer where we met refuses to add me and many times ignores dialogue. Adding by choice is a right but if I criticize an ideology, I should add them for better dialogue.