The Quran is hilariously wrong and contradicts itself about the construction of the Kabba

[recai iskender]

dnr bc you can't read?

No because im too high iq for you and it would be unfair for you if i actually read

 

[Deleted member 119732]

No because im too high iq for you and it would be unfair for you if i actually read

let that sink in

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

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.

It also gets the temple (2nd Jewish temple that was destroyed in 70AD) wrong and says Mohammed visited it and prayed there with the prophets 622AD

The same Islamic sources admit that it was Umar that took over the city and prayed there 50 years later and that it became a Al aqsa mosque in 691 AD

Quran MAKES MANY MISTAKES but guys like @Numb The Pain have to cope.

Still I read the Quran yesterday and I admit it’s not all terrible I enjoy how Muslims revere god in every way. Just a shame it’s the wrong god

 

[HostSamurai]

Mohammed was an ugly manlet with a shrimpdick.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

@Numb The Pain i respected the Quran I said nice things and you still rage react me

I literally said I like parts of book and it’s not that bad I was happy reading the Quran I won’t deny it it Makes me happy the reverence for god as god should be loved and yet you rage at meeeeee

 

[Ogionth]

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.

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.

 

[Rabbi]

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.

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.

 

[Ogionth]

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.

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 and the mosque built 40 years after it"

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?

 

[Rabbi]

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?

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.

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. Also that hadith does not say expansion of Al-Aqsa it merely refers to Solomon finishing its contrusction.

 

[Ogionth]

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.

The first human prayed to Allah,

guess where he'd pray,

yes yes, you get it, 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.

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.

Also that hadith does not say expansion of Al-Aqsa it merely refers to Solomon finishing its contrusction.

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

 

[Rabbi]

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

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.

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].

There is no reason to believe anyone other than Abraham laid any foundation found in the text and laying of the foundation of the mosque is not built by hand through anyone like Adam it is built on piety it is not something physical.

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

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?

Where in this verse does it state that someone else laid the foundation. It is states here that he asked his Lord to make this a City of Peace which granted which God agreed to, not that it already pre-existed as a site of worship.

You can insert your own interpretations all you want, the point still stands you have no attestation to it being Adam, you are splicing up the words laying/raising foundations and then inserting him there.

Your words directly grate against Ibn-Kathir

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)

If you know more than one of the most authoritative exegetes of Islam feel free to let me know.

 

[Ogionth]

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.

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

Splicing up the words

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"

 

[Rabbi]

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.

But 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
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.
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.

 

[Ogionth]

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.

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?

But lets assume I am wrong, my major points still stand.

You are wrong and I've proved you wrong

1. There is no textual reference to Adams hand in the building in the Mosque whatsoever

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.
‎

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

 

[Rabbi]

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.

The verse that talks about the 40 year gap speaks about the construction, the laying of any foundation is not found in that text.

 

[Ogionth]

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.

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.

The verse that talks about the 40 year gap speaks about the construction, the laying of any foundation is not found in that text.

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?

 

[Ogionth]

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?

Btw, even IBN kathir's position clarifies the supposed contradiction.

Ibn kathir stated that the most credible opinion was that Abraham set it.

BUT do you know what is another one of his position?

Ibn Kathir (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

According to the People of the Book, Jacob (Ya‘qub – peace be upon him) was the one who laid the foundations of al-Masjid al-Aqsa, which is the masjid of Aelia, the masjid of Bayt al-Maqdis, may Allah honour it.

."(Al-Bidayah wa’l-Nihayah 1/375).

So according to him, Abraham built Al Haram (presumably at the end times of his life) and 40 years later his grandson Jacob put the foundations of Al Aqsa.


Now whether the opinion of some other scholars (adam/sons) built them both

or his opinion (Abraham/Jacob) and some scholars

either of these does clarify the "contradiction" , whichever one is true - does not impact the teaching and are not self contradictory

IT IS COMPLETELY OVER FOR YOU BOYO

 

[Rabbi]

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.

It was translated at construction, I can’t read Arabic so I might be wrong idk.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Ogionth]

The 40 year gap is a Hadith verse or number? I don’t know what you call it.

Just Hadith.

It was translated at construction, I can’t read Arabic so I might be wrong idk.

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..

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.

"We don't fundamentally disagree"
You thought I was an average opponent, who would fall for your red herrings and attaching random verses out of context but now that I've dismantled your argument of self contradiction, you're trying to change the subject.

You mentioned Ibn Kathir, he says Abraham and Jacob, align with the 40 year mark.

Other scholars mention Adam/His Sons, that too aligns with it.

THERE LITERALLY IS NOT A SINGLE AMBIGUITY LEFT BUT THERE IS SOMETHING LEFT, that is HYPOCRISY within your heart regarding rejecting the TRUTH.

How hard is it to just say that you were mistaken instead of making excuses?

Your argument has been embarrassed, if it were a person, I'm sure it would have enmity with you because of how badly you have structured it.

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.

Ok? How is this relevant to the argument anymore?

Because I already clarified how even Ibn Kathir's view does not create a self contradiction.

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.

"Ad hoc rationalisation".

Are you ragebaiting or ragebaiting? (Yes, it is intentional)

The sources lacking consensus has no relevance to the argument of self contradiction as BOTH THE VIEWS (which covers 99% of the Ummah) do not HAVE the self contradiction.

Whether it was Abraham or Adam - does not make a difference in the original argument, do you know what a self contradictory statement is?

You've been badly embarrassed and I'm shocked at how you still want to keep on going despite your argument being DISMANTLED, your red herrings being EVISCERATED and your lack of basic English comprehension being made EXTREMELY VISIBLE to the masses.

 

[TheBlackpilledOne]

religion.org