
recai iskender
6’8 dinarid+pontid shitskin
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2024
- Posts
- 7,837
- Reputation
- 14,215
No because im too high iq for you and it would be unfair for you if i actually readdnr bc you can't read?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
No because im too high iq for you and it would be unfair for you if i actually readdnr bc you can't read?
let that sink inNo because im too high iq for you and it would be unfair for you if i actually read
It also gets the temple (2nd Jewish temple that was destroyed in 70AD) wrong and says Mohammed visited it and prayed there with the prophetsThis is Ignoring the fact that the only attestation we have to it pre-Islam is being a pagan relic with zero oral, written or traditional attestation to Abraham whatsoever prior to Muhammad but we will leave that aside.
The Hadiths claim that Solomons temple and the Kaaba were built 40 years apart
Lets figure out who built Al-aqsa
Important to note that Bait Al-Maqdis and Al-Aqsa Mosque are used interchangeably, Bait Al-Maqdis can be referred to the area where al-aqsa resides
Ok so who built the Kaaba?
According to Islam it was Ibrahim/Abraham who built the Kaaba?
And when did Abraham exist?
In the Quran Abrham argues with a Babylonian king presumably Nimrod putting him around 2000 BC but either way the quran states that David and solomon long descendant from Abraham mean
All Abrahamic traditions maintain that he was the father of Jacob who was the father of the 12 tribes of Israel, from there David or Dawud in Islam is the descendant of the tribe of Judah and King Solomon is his successor. Most genealogies put at the very least 14 generations if not more and logistically at the very least 1000 years between Abraham and David.
David is historically attested to outside of any biblical texts, see the Tel Dan Stele inscribing the House of David. David existed in the early 11th century BC and Solomon his successor must have existed after that.
Again a 1000 year difference in lifetimes yet apparently the buildings were made 40 years apart.
Either Abraham lived for hundreds of years and continued building or Muhammad saw a pagan building and made shit up.
Now some islamic scholars are smart and they'll say that "NOOOO PROPHET SULAIMAN DID NOT BUILD AL-AQSA HE MERELY RE-BUILT IT!!!" They will then proceed to claim that it was actually Adam who built it and Solomon was merely restoring it.
This is despite he fact that there is zero historical or even islamic source to this claim in the hadith or the Quran, it is arguing backwards after realising how absurd the 40 year claim is.
But lets take it at face value shall we.
Adam was the first of man to exist which would again make him well over 10,000 years old any gap between him and Abraham is magnitudes greater than the gap between Abraham and Solomon. Even if we were to presume a young Earth which is stupid as fuck but why not, Adam and Abraham existed 4000 years apart. Adam was the first of man him, Idris and Nuh according to Islam were notable figures and prophets that existed many years before the flood supposedly, then you have Hud and Saleh who existed after the flood, then much after you get Abraham.
Hence if Adam really built it you once again get a period that is far greater than 40 years and it is clear that Muhammad was just making stuff up as he went.
1. The title is misleading, the "supposed" contradiction that I'm about to eviscerate isn't even from the Quran but from the "Hadith".This is Ignoring the fact that the only attestation we have to it pre-Islam is being a pagan relic with zero oral, written or traditional attestation to Abraham whatsoever prior to Muhammad but we will leave that aside.
The Hadiths claim that Solomons temple and the Kaaba were built 40 years apart
Lets figure out who built Al-aqsa
Important to note that Bait Al-Maqdis and Al-Aqsa Mosque are used interchangeably, Bait Al-Maqdis can be referred to the area where al-aqsa resides
Ok so who built the Kaaba?
According to Islam it was Ibrahim/Abraham who built the Kaaba?
And when did Abraham exist?
In the Quran Abrham argues with a Babylonian king presumably Nimrod putting him around 2000 BC but either way the quran states that David and solomon long descendant from Abraham mean
All Abrahamic traditions maintain that he was the father of Jacob who was the father of the 12 tribes of Israel, from there David or Dawud in Islam is the descendant of the tribe of Judah and King Solomon is his successor. Most genealogies put at the very least 14 generations if not more and logistically at the very least 1000 years between Abraham and David.
David is historically attested to outside of any biblical texts, see the Tel Dan Stele inscribing the House of David. David existed in the early 11th century BC and Solomon his successor must have existed after that.
Again a 1000 year difference in lifetimes yet apparently the buildings were made 40 years apart.
Either Abraham lived for hundreds of years and continued building or Muhammad saw a pagan building and made shit up.
Now some islamic scholars are smart and they'll say that "NOOOO PROPHET SULAIMAN DID NOT BUILD AL-AQSA HE MERELY RE-BUILT IT!!!" They will then proceed to claim that it was actually Adam who built it and Solomon was merely restoring it.
This is despite he fact that there is zero historical or even islamic source to this claim in the hadith or the Quran, it is arguing backwards after realising how absurd the 40 year claim is.
But lets take it at face value shall we.
Adam was the first of man to exist which would again make him well over 10,000 years old any gap between him and Abraham is magnitudes greater than the gap between Abraham and Solomon. Even if we were to presume a young Earth which is stupid as fuck but why not, Adam and Abraham existed 4000 years apart. Adam was the first of man him, Idris and Nuh according to Islam were notable figures and prophets that existed many years before the flood supposedly, then you have Hud and Saleh who existed after the flood, then much after you get Abraham.
Hence if Adam really built it you once again get a period that is far greater than 40 years and it is clear that Muhammad was just making stuff up as he went.
This may be a plausible reconciliation, I cant comment on the Arabic for laying/raising the foundations.1. The title is misleading, the "supposed" contradiction that I'm about to eviscerate isn't even from the Quran but from the "Hadith".
2.
Adam/his sons built both Masjid Al Haram and Masjid Al-Aqsa with a 40 year gap, this is what the Hadith has talked about.
After the flood, the foundations of Masjid Al Haram remained there but the Masjid was mostly destroyed.
Which then Ibrahim in his own time rebuilt.
And Suleiman expanded Al Aqsa in his own time.
How do we know?
Qur’anic Verse:
> "And [mention] when Ibrahim and Ismail raised the foundations of the House..."
(Surah Al-Baqarah 2:127)
The phrase "raised the foundations" (يَرْفَعُ قَوَاعِدَ الْبَيْتِ) suggests that the foundations already existed, and Ibrahim was rebuilding or restoring them.
How can you use that phrase in Arabic for "laying the foundations", those are two completely different phrases if you knew Arabic.
Your argument was based upon "Ibrahim laid the foundations" which is not true thus your argument does not hold anymore whether or not there is a Hadith saying that "Adam or his sons" specifically built the Mosque.This may be a plausible reconciliation, I cant comment on the Arabic for laying/raising the foundations.
The issue you run into is that there is no Surah or Hadith that claims that it was Adam or his sons that had any hand in the two structures.
The only prophets that are linked to their construction by Name are Abraham and Sulaiman.
This statement does not stand, just because Adam prayed to Allah does not mean he built the first mosque and then the kaaba the two most important sites in Islam when there is zero textual attestation.Your argument was based upon "Ibrahim laid the foundations" which is not true thus your argument does not hold anymore whether or not there is a Hadith saying that "Adam or his sons" specifically built the Mosque.
It was already built, according to "raising the foundations" and the only plausible logical deduction to "it was the first ever mosque" is Adam because he was the first human, he prayed to Allah - and those were built for that purpose.
And the Hadith about Suleiman also clearly states "expansion" and further rebuilding rather than "LAYING" the foundations, and no muslim scholar believes that suleiman laid the foundations of al aqsa, HAVE YOU NOT READ THE HISTORY OF MUQADDIS?
"OMG, THE FIRST EVER prophet who PRAYED to Allah built the FIRST EVER mosque"
this statement SURELY needs many HADITH for it to be true innit?
Are you really arguing to find the truth or arguing for the sake of argument?
The first human prayed to Allah,This statement does not stand, just because Adam prayed to Allah does not mean he built the first mosque and then the kaaba the two most important sites in Islam when there is zero textual attestation.
I can't believe my own eyes because I clearly told you, that for the first human to pray properly - it would be in a place of worship - and that place would indeed be the "first mosque".You cannot assert that Adam or his sons where the first to build these structures to rectify the error of them being built 40 years apart.
Does it state that he laid the foundations of Al Aqsa? No.Also that hadith does not say expansion of Al-Aqsa it merely refers to Solomon finishing its contrusction.
This’ll probably be the last response because it seems that we don’t fundamentally agree.The first human prayed to Allah,
guess where he'd pray,
yes yes, you get it, THE FIRST MOSQUE.
I can't believe my own eyes because I clearly told you, that for the first human to pray properly - it would be in a place of worship - and that place would indeed be the "first mosque".
LET'S JUST FORGET THIS ACTUALLY, BECAUSE YOUR SILLY BRAIN CANNOT COMPREHEND IT.
Let's forget the reality and absolute truth that Adam built the first ever masjid,
The Hadith would then be refering to someone who built the masjid before Ibrahim correct? (As Ibrahim later "RAISED" the foundations)
But we don't know that someone (according to you, because you cannot comprehend basic logic).
Let's just assume it was X, and the hadith refers to it, now what? where's the contradiction? what's the problem? we don't know "who" the hadith refers to because someone's silly brain cannot comprehend basic logic but what's the contradiction though?
The "CONTRADICTION" was only because you assumed that Ibrahim built the mosque which is incorrect thus your point is COMPLETELY eviscerated.
Does it state that he laid the foundations of Al Aqsa? No.
Do almost all Muslim scholars agree that he expanded it? yes.
But why are you even arguing this anymore? it doesn't help you
Surat Al Taubah 108
Never stand you therein. Verily, the mosque whose foundation was laid from the first day on piety is more worthy that you stand therein (to pray). In it are men who love to clean and to purify themselves. And Allah loves those who make themselves clean and pure (i.e. who clean their private parts with dust [i.e. to be considered as soap) and water from urine and stools, after answering the call of nature].
If the foundation is laid through Piety why do we assume that it was segregated into Adam laying a foundation and building a prototype mosque which Abraham then rebuilt?Remember We made the House a place of assembly for men and a place of safety; and take ye the Station of Abraham as a place of prayer; and We covenanted with Abraham and Ismail, that they should sanctify My House for those who compass it round, or use it as a retreat, or bow, or prostrate themselves (therein in prayer). And remember Abraham said: "My Lord, make this a City of Peace, and feed its people with fruits, - such of them as believe in Allah and the Last Day." He said: "(Yea), and such as reject Faith, - for a while will I grant them their pleasure, but will soon drive them to the torment of Fire, - an evil destination (indeed)!" And remember Abraham and Ismail raised the foundations of the House (with this prayer): "Our Lord! Accept (this service) from us: For Thou art the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing." S. 2:125-127
The following commentary on S. 22:26 is taken from Tafsir Ibn Kathir, abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri, Darussalam Publishers & Distributors:
Building of the Ka’bah and the Proclamation of the Hajj
... Many scholars take this as evidence to support the view that Ibrahim WAS THE FIRST ONE to build the House and that IT WAS NOT BUILT BEFORE HIS TIME... (Tafsir Ibn Kathir-Abridged Volume 6 Surat Al-Isra', Verse 39 to the end of Surat Al-Mu'minun, first edition July 2000, p. 554; italicized and capital emphasis ours)
The most credible of statements is that Abraham, al-Khalil, "the true friend", peace be upon him, was the first who built it, as reported above. Simak b. Harb so related, from Khalid b. 'Ar'ara back to 'Ali b. Abu Thalib who said, "Then it collapsed, was rebuilt by al-'amaliqa [the Amalekites], 'the giants', fell down and was built again by Jurhum; thereafter it collapsed and was rebuilt by Quraysh." (Ibn Kathir, The Life of the Prophet Muhammad (Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya), translated by Professor Trevor Le Gassick, reviewed by Dr. Ahmed Fareed [Garnet Publishing Limited, 8 Southern Court, south Street Reading RG1 4QS, UK; The Center for Muslim Contribution to Civilization, 1998], Volume I, p. 119)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA YOU'RE A LIAR AND NOW YOU'VE FALLEN INTO A VERY BIG TUNNEL.This’ll probably be the last response because it seems that we don’t fundamentally agree.
You are making the claim that there has to be a delineation between laying and raising the foundations for a mosque I am saying there is no such need, in fact the Quran states that the foundation of a mosque is laid on the first day of piety.
Just say that you're so retarded that you dont even know how to use google to differentiate between two arabic phrases, yu retarded fuck just fucking type "Translate these two phrases into ArabicSplicing up the words
Yes I know that this is referring to a specific Mosque but it states that the foundation is built on the first day of piety, I cannot find another reference to laying the foundation of a Mosque in any other context than this one.HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA YOU'RE A LIAR AND NOW YOU'VE FALLEN INTO A VERY BIG TUNNEL.
THAT VERSE is
لَّمَسْجِدٌ أُسِّسَ عَلَى التَّقْوَى مِنْ أَوَّلِ يَوْمٍ أَحَقُّ أَن تَقُومَ فِيهِ
(Verily, the Masjid whose foundation was laid from the first day on Taqwa is more worthy that you stand therein (to pray).) in reference to the Masjid of Quba'.
ALSO THE WORD "FOUNDATION" HERE DOES NOT EVEN REFER TO A PHYSICAL FOUNDATION AND IT IS ONLY IN SPECIFICITY TO THIS MOSQUE RATHER THAN ALL.
THIS IS A TITLE TO THIS SPECIFIC MASJID BECAUSE OF THE CONTEXT YOU FUCKING ABSOLUTE RETARD.
WHICH IS IN OPPOSITON TO WHAT HAS BEEN SAID BEFORE, "RAISING THE FOUNDATION" WAS PHYSICAL AND LITERAL IN THAT VERSE REGARDING MASJID AL HARAM, I CAN SEE YOUR HYPOCRISY THAT YOU'VE NOW RESORTED TO BLATANT LIES.
HAHAHAHAHA "RAISING THE FOUNDATION" ALSO REFERS TO INCREASING THE PIETY?HAHAHAHAHAHA
Just say that you're so retarded that you dont even know how to use google to differentiate between two arabic phrases, yu retarded fuck just fucking type "Translate these two phrases into Arabic
1. Lay the foundation.
2. Raise the foundation"
Yes I know that this is referring to a specific Mosque but it states that the foundation is built on the first day of piety, I cannot find another reference to laying the foundation of a Mosque in any other context than this one.
You are wrong and I've proved you wrongBut lets assume I am wrong, my major points still stand.
1. There is no textual reference to Adams hand in the building in the Mosque whatsoever
How does that have anything in relation to what I said?2. Abraham specifically asked the lord to make it a sacred place of worship, there is no evidence of it having importance prior to Abraham.
DO NOT TAKE IBN KATHIR'S WORDS OUT OF CONTEXT, "many scholars" does not mean all scholars or "most scholars"3. Your major scholars, specifically Ibn Kathir directly state it was Abraham who built it, It'll take a while but I'll find it there are more reasons why he holds this position of Abraham being the primary builder.
I dont have time to respond to the whole thing but re-read my part about ibn Kathir, you omitted the second quote, the first was to show many scholars agreed with this interpretation the second is Ibn Kathir confirming he holds the position himself that he was the first who built it.So if you cant find it doesn't mean you can just lie, what the fuck?
Do you not know what the foundation of a building is?
You are wrong and I've proved you wrong
AS I TOLD TOU, BASIC LOGICAL DEDUCTION WOULD REACH TO IT AND EVEN IF YOU IGNORE IT, EVEN IF WE DON'T KNOW THE PERSON.
YOUR ARGUMENT IS BASED ON "IBRAHIM BUILT IT" WHICH I PROVED WRONG SO IT'S OVER.
Ibrahim rebuild Al-haram from pre-existing prophet (Adam but you can assume it anybody).
Suleiman rebuilt Aqsa.
X built Al Haram
Y built Al Aqsa
We don't know who they are but there was a 40 year difference, the answer to X and Y would be Adam and his sons if it is assumed Adam and if it isn't assumed then it would be someone close to one another in 40 years, that's it, where's the contradiction?
Why should we assume that Suleiman "BUILT" Aqsa? Why should we assume it even tho it has no evidence?
STOP FUCKING IGNORING MY ARGUMENTS AND BRINGING VERSES OUT OF CONTEXT MAKING THE ARGUMENT SEEM LIKE A PUZZLE FOR NO REASON WHEN IT IS SIMPLE BUT YOUR LOGICAL CAPABILITIES ARE SO FUCKED THAT U CANT COMPREHEND IT.
How does that have anything in relation to what I said?
Does laying the foundations of a place necessarily need to be made sacred?
lets just forget that it even was a mosque, we all agree there wasn't a building before but it had a foundation thats my point, no relevance to the sacred place point before if we for the sake of argument had ignored it being the first mosque even tho it clearly is stated.
DO NOT TAKE IBN KATHIR'S WORDS OUT OF CONTEXT, "many scholars" does not mean all scholars or "most scholars"
REGARDING THIS MATTER, there is no consensus of ALL SCHOLARS.
AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE BELOW tafsir from Al QURTUBI
View attachment 3664053View attachment 3664054View attachment 3664055
there are multiple other texts saying the same and i could link them
THERE IS NOT A 100% COMPLETE CONSENSUS on one matter, the consesus is agree to multiple possibilities.
AND AS A MUSLIM, I will subscribe to the most logically plausible possibility that I explained earlier.
You have failed in every single attempt of changing the subject, bringing verses out of context and running away, when are you gonna accept the truth?
I dont have time to respond to the whole thing but re-read my part about ibn Kathir, you omitted the second quote, the first was to show many scholars agreed with this interpretation the second is Ibn Kathir confirming he holds the position himself that he was the first who built it.
1. That's not a verseThe verse that talks about the 40 year gap speaks about the construction, the laying of any foundation is not found in that text.
Btw, even IBN kathir's position clarifies the supposed contradiction.He does not say that he holds it himself but that for him specifically, he founds it to be more credible. Many scholars use it however not most and all. I LITERALLY SHOWED FUCKING PROOF FROM AL QURTUBI AND MALIKI. DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT A CONSENSUS IS?
I LITERALLY ATTACHED PROOF AND THERE IS MORE UNDENIABLE PROOF THAT OTHER SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT ALSO HOLD THE SAME VIEW.
Did Ibn kathir say that all scholars must have that view? No
Is there a consensus on different views? yes
Are you scared to accept the truth? also yes.
Why are you repeating arguments?
Your argument is based on two assumptions, both of them - the consensus of most scholars is against and of logic itself, is against, you deny literal arabic translation.
Even if one is true, which they aren't, they don't help you.
It's crazy how you are not able to just say that you've been mistaken and just look for a better argument, you just simply don't wanna accept that your argument wasn't enough.
1. That's not a verse
2. It doesn't talk about the construction, stop pulling shit out of your ass.
3. The laying of foundation is what actually is done when a thing is being built for the first time.
I have dismantled each and every red herring that you've attempted to run from this argument, I've refuted all of your arguments yet you have went on ignoring all of mine - I've eviscerated and exposed how you tried to mistranslate a verse thus misinterpreting it, you even tried to pull a verse out of context.
I am about 90% into certainty, with the belief that you're ragebaiting because you cannot argue with logicality and it's driving me crazy, you've switched your stances so many times now, tried every single method in the book and still losing.
Are you really this bad at comprehending basic English? or is this ragebait -
You have switched your arguments like 5 times now
"Im not gonna read all of it" why? because it exposes how bad your arguments were?
I saw you proclaiming and asking ppl to challenge your so called *Contradiction" what happened now? are you scared?
The 40 year gap is a Hadith verse or number? I don’t know what you call it.He does not say that he holds it himself but that for him specifically, he founds it to be more credible. Many scholars use it however not most and all. I LITERALLY SHOWED FUCKING PROOF FROM AL QURTUBI AND MALIKI. DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT A CONSENSUS IS?
I LITERALLY ATTACHED PROOF AND THERE IS MORE UNDENIABLE PROOF THAT OTHER SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT ALSO HOLD THE SAME VIEW.
Did Ibn kathir say that all scholars must have that view? No
Is there a consensus on different views? yes
Are you scared to accept the truth? also yes.
Why are you repeating arguments?
Your argument is based on two assumptions, both of them - the consensus of most scholars is against and of logic itself, is against, you deny literal arabic translation.
Even if one is true, which they aren't, they don't help you.
It's crazy how you are not able to just say that you've been mistaken and just look for a better argument, you just simply don't wanna accept that your argument wasn't enough.
1. That's not a verse
2. It doesn't talk about the construction, stop pulling shit out of your ass.
3. The laying of foundation is what actually is done when a thing is being built for the first time.
I have dismantled each and every red herring that you've attempted to run from this argument, I've refuted all of your arguments yet you have went on ignoring all of mine - I've eviscerated and exposed how you tried to mistranslate a verse thus misinterpreting it, you even tried to pull a verse out of context.
I am about 90% into certainty, with the belief that you're ragebaiting because you cannot argue with logicality and it's driving me crazy, you've switched your stances so many times now, tried every single method in the book and still losing.
Are you really this bad at comprehending basic English? or is this ragebait -
You have switched your arguments like 5 times now
"Im not gonna read all of it" why? because it exposes how bad your arguments were?
I saw you proclaiming and asking ppl to challenge your so called *Contradiction" what happened now? are you scared?
Just Hadith.The 40 year gap is a Hadith verse or number? I don’t know what you call it.
No no no, you're changing the subject now, we don't need to go back to literal meanings, you used Ibn Kathir and his view still is not self contradictory as you had claimed..It was translated at construction, I can’t read Arabic so I might be wrong idk.
"We don't fundamentally disagree"I think we just fundamentally disagree. From the texts I can find no indication that laying the foundations/raising the buildings was done by two different people.
Ok? How is this relevant to the argument anymore?Maybe I’m illiterate but from the text it reads as Abraham asking it to be anointed as a holy site. Just from the plain reading of the text or at least it’s translation there’s no indication that it holds importance prior to him.
"Ad hoc rationalisation".Im ok with scholarly sources being divided/lacking consensus on who built it because that’s exactly what your expect, it’s an ad hoc rationalisation to reconcile the 40 year period of rebuilding.