Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Centrix Vigilis
Emperor
Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Makkah is the oldest city in the world? Posted: 27-Oct-2012 at 20:29 |
Excellent resource...and synopsis.
Edited by Centrix Vigilis - 27-Oct-2012 at 20:33
|
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
S. T. Friedman
Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'
|
|
Baal Melqart
General
Joined: 28-Mar-2011
Location: UK
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 869
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Oct-2012 at 20:50 |
Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis
Excellent resource...and synopsis.
|
yep... The problem with Muslim tradition (won't call it history) is that it is full of wishful thinking and major logical fallacies. It's very difficult to even believe that such tradition was actually used to give Makkah its historical prestige. Anyhow, it's clear that there is a substantial lack of historicity for the entire region pre-dating the 7th century.
|
Timidi mater non flet
|
|
Centrix Vigilis
Emperor
Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Oct-2012 at 21:50 |
Agreed but this Baal old son...is the fate of all tradtionalists and pedantic fundamentalists....be they from where ever or adherent to whatever faith. I got creationists just down the road who believe the geologic record is bunk and the planet is only 7000 years old.
And their not Muslims. Be well.
Edited by Centrix Vigilis - 27-Oct-2012 at 21:51
|
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
S. T. Friedman
Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'
|
|
balochii
Colonel
Joined: 23-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 699
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Oct-2012 at 21:34 |
Originally posted by Baal Melqart
Are you serious? Pomegranate, grapes, olives and figs only grow in the mediterranean... It is impossible for these plants to grow in Makkah or anywhere near for that matter! Nor has nayone witnessed the growth of such plants in the region in the past 14 centuries.
Well, I have never seen or heard of these ''biblical cities with ancient churches''. Got any pictures?
Where is the destroyed people of Lot, you agree that they are in Palestine, right? Also don't forget that the Quran made them an Ayah (sign) for the people of the prophet and for everyone for that matter. Why does Abraham who is supposedly living 1200km away from Lot (for whatever unknown and very questionable reason btw) talk about the town of Lot by addressing it with ''Hathihi-al-qarya'' (this town) which in Arabic is clear that the place is close and cannot be used for something far away otherwise Abraham would have said ''Tilka-al-qarya'' (that town).
Also, I would like to see you explain how the people of the prophet pass by the destroyed town of Lot by day and by night... Notice that the arabic verb used is ''Tamurrun'' which insinuates something one does daily and not after a journey. This is evident from the use of the verb in the Quran. I'll show you an example:
١١:٣٨ ويصنع الفلك وكلما مر عليه ملا من قومه سخروا منه قال ان تسخروا منا فانا نسخر منكم كما تسخرون
And he constructed the
ship, and whenever an assembly of the eminent of his people
passed by him, they ridiculed him. He said, "If you ridicule
us, then we will ridicule you just as you ridicule.
the verb is the same in the singular form ''yamurr'' which means to pass by something. The people of Noah passed by him regularly and they surely didn't do this after travelling 1200km.
The Quran doesn't say Palestine because it doesn't need to, this should be quite evident and was quite evident to the people addressed by Muhammad. It should also be to everyone who is studying the Quran with an open mind.
|
Then why are those things mentioned in hadiths? and why did the prophet eat them as part of his diet? it is very well depicted The area between Madinah and Makkah is very fertile, every thing grows there, I have seen this by my own eyes The rest of argument is again bogus, you have no proof to disprove what I am saying
|
|
Baal Melqart
General
Joined: 28-Mar-2011
Location: UK
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 869
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Oct-2012 at 09:53 |
Originally posted by balochii
Originally posted by Baal Melqart
Are you serious? Pomegranate, grapes, olives and figs only grow in the mediterranean... It is impossible for these plants to grow in Makkah or anywhere near for that matter! Nor has nayone witnessed the growth of such plants in the region in the past 14 centuries.
Well, I have never seen or heard of these ''biblical cities with ancient churches''. Got any pictures?
Where is the destroyed people of Lot, you agree that they are in Palestine, right? Also don't forget that the Quran made them an Ayah (sign) for the people of the prophet and for everyone for that matter. Why does Abraham who is supposedly living 1200km away from Lot (for whatever unknown and very questionable reason btw) talk about the town of Lot by addressing it with ''Hathihi-al-qarya'' (this town) which in Arabic is clear that the place is close and cannot be used for something far away otherwise Abraham would have said ''Tilka-al-qarya'' (that town).
Also, I would like to see you explain how the people of the prophet pass by the destroyed town of Lot by day and by night... Notice that the arabic verb used is ''Tamurrun'' which insinuates something one does daily and not after a journey. This is evident from the use of the verb in the Quran. I'll show you an example:
١١:٣٨ ويصنع الفلك وكلما مر عليه ملا من قومه سخروا منه قال ان تسخروا منا فانا نسخر منكم كما تسخرون
And he constructed the
ship, and whenever an assembly of the eminent of his people
passed by him, they ridiculed him. He said, "If you ridicule
us, then we will ridicule you just as you ridicule.
the verb is the same in the singular form ''yamurr'' which means to pass by something. The people of Noah passed by him regularly and they surely didn't do this after travelling 1200km.
The Quran doesn't say Palestine because it doesn't need to, this should be quite evident and was quite evident to the people addressed by Muhammad. It should also be to everyone who is studying the Quran with an open mind.
|
Then why are those things mentioned in hadiths? and why did the prophet eat them as part of his diet? it is very well depicted
The area between Madinah and Makkah is very fertile, every thing grows there, I have seen this by my own eyes
The rest of argument is again bogus, you have no proof to disprove what I am saying
|
I think you have basically burried your head in the sand Balochii. I don't care what a couple of hadiths attribute to Mohammad, this remains an Islamic claim which can be disproven by a child. Neither grapes, pomegranate, olives nor figs EVER grew in Makkah nor will they before the day of judgement comes. Makkah is NOT a fertile place. Only with modern technology were the Saudis able to plant things like Tomato and potatoes around the vicinity of the Hijaz. Either way, the things I mentioned can only grow along the Mediterranean, not the Hijaz, that's impossible. My argument is bogus? How convenient, lol. I basically proved without a shadow of doubt that Makkah never even existed before the 7th century. If you wish to burry your head in the sand then it is not my arguments which are void but you are unwilling to perceive. This is not a fertile place and I don't see any olives or pomegranate Let me quote to you from the Quran a passage which I believe totally sums this matter: ٧:٥٨ والبلد الطيب يخرج نباته باذن ربه والذي خبث لا يخرج الا نكدا كذلك نصرف الايات لقوم يشكرون ''And the good land - its
vegetation emerges by permission of its Lord; but that which
is bad - nothing emerges except sparsely, with difficulty. Thus
do We clarify the signs for a people who are grateful.''
|
Timidi mater non flet
|
|
Cheops
Immortal Guard
Joined: 20-Sep-2012
Location: netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Oct-2012 at 03:52 |
I also doubt the existance of Mecca as one of the very first cities in the world. I rather think cities as Ur, Jericho or Uruk are more likely to be given the title: first city in the world.
|
In peace sons bury their fathers, in war fathers bury their sons. -Herodotus
|
|
Ollios
Chieftain
Joined: 22-Feb-2011
Location: Diyar-ı Rum
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1130
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Oct-2012 at 13:39 |
Talking about the oldest city is a bit populist issue. There is no way to proof. Example: the oldest hand made object. You can make a test (C14) and you can find it(but it gives interval time, not exact date). However term city is more complicated. I don't believe Mecca is the oldest one but I don't agree with Baal [QUOTE=Baal Melqart] Are you serious? Pomegranate, grapes, olives and figs only
grow in the mediterranean... It is impossible for these plants to grow
in Makkah or anywhere near for that matter! Nor has nayone witnessed the
growth of such plants in the region in the past 14 centuries. [QUOTE] past 14 centuries = past 1400 years = 600 AD. Won't we talking about the oldest city(10000BC?) ? You should know the climate changes and how does it work in dry contions. For example wine in Britain, Romans have been growing it for many years but in Middle ages, it had nearly ended because of cold climate change. Now it started again. However returning previous times is not easy in dry/half-dry climate. When you lost your change, the enviroment started to be desert. Central Anatolia was full of Oak forest in Hittites times, but now and also climate change in ancient egypt is also a sample. [QUOTE=] Arabia is a vast desert today. But times change all things and ages ago the climate was milder and wetter...[QUOTE] http://www.enn.com/sci-tech/article/44333
|
Ellerin Kabe'si var,
Benim Kabem İnsandır
|
|
Baal Melqart
General
Joined: 28-Mar-2011
Location: UK
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 869
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Oct-2012 at 14:21 |
Thank you for your reply Ollios.
I am actually well aware of climate change and how drastic it can be. Yet it seems you are a little bit confused as to the geological time this change requires. We are talking about at least 10,000 years or more for a very slight change to occur. It would not be reasonable nor scientifically accurate to claim that in 1400 years Makkah changed from being fertile into being a desert. It might have been semi-arid some time before 20,000 years or more, perhaps, but not in the past thousands of years.
Secondly, the produce mentioned can only grow around the Mediterranean basin even if we assumed that your claim was true. For example, Yemen is semi-arid and contains a few rivers and oases which allow for planting of various plants. But olives, pomegranate, figs and grapes never grew in that region.
Thirdly, all historical records assure us that Makkah was as deserted and arid as it is nowadays. So why should we assume it wasn't when there is enough evidence that it wasn't fertile at all? That's not an academic research, that is wishful thinking. Proof against your claim is found in all the accounts I have previously mentioned which described the region as being arid and desolate. This is one of the main reasons why the Roman campaign into Arabia failed, it was due to lack of water and supplies from nearby towns and villages.
I would also like to quote from the link that you provided which is actually quite interesting might I say.
''In the new project, a multidisciplinary team of researchers will study
the effects of environmental change in the Arabian Peninsula over the
last two million years. The systematic study of the Pleistocene to
Holocene periods will be unique in its length and level of detail.''
''Once the Arabian peninsula was a verdant place where rivers flowed and
giant prehistoric animals flourished. Among these animals was an
ancestor of the elephant — a mammoth creature with four tusks. And in
the desert sands of present day Abu Dhabi, Dr Mark Beech found a tusk
from one of these ancient animals.'''
This is referring to much older geological periods than the one I am discussing...
|
Timidi mater non flet
|
|
Arthur-Robin
General
Joined: 23-Feb-2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 937
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Nov-2012 at 06:22 |
From my past and present research I would conclude that the oldest (continually inhabited) "city" of (post-Flood world) would be in the Syria/Armenia/Iran/Mesopotamia area. (It is reckoned that Damscus is the oldest continually inhabited city. Armenians claim Medzaomor or Nakhicevan.)
A very rough survey order of list goes 1syria-palestine/mesopotamia/armenia/iran 2egypt/greece/turkey/iran 2china 2java 2peru[Atlantis] 3sinai/israel/iraq 3indus 3europe
This agrees with Biblical that (oldest pre-flood site is Eden and city Enoch, and) oldest post-Flood site is Ararat and city is Babel and Ur.
Claims for oldest city not-continually-inhabited according to evolutionist dating include Catal Huyuk, Jericho, Tiahuanaco/Valdivia, Knossos, Tepe Gawra, Elam/Susa, Atlantis, valley of Mexico, Sphinx?.
I've also added Bahu and Makeda to Mecca the candidates (Mafkat, Mithkah, Magan).
|
|
Gabrial
Immortal Guard
Joined: 31-Jan-2015
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 31-Jan-2015 at 20:03 |
If you are Christian and believe that Abraham existed search for where he headed when he left his tribe with his wife and child
|
|