How Did it Come to This? (Part 1)

ayman

Peace JM, all,

I had saved your post before the forum lost data. Here is my reply.

For me, it is not a proof.
OK, there is no (archeological) proof of the existence of the pre-quranic town Mecca.
But, there is also no proof of its non-existance.

There are many pre-quranic and early post-quranic inscriptions and manuscripts that mention ancient towns in Arabia both large and small and NONE mention this allegedly all important town called Mecca. No one in Arabia or outside it ever mentions this supposedly all important Mecca until the 8th century CE.

Also, it is not just archeological proofs. We have the evidence from the great reading and Classical Arabic dictionaries, which clearly point to the word "maka(t)" in 4824 being a common noun.

Here is Yusufali's translation of 4824

And it is He Who has restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of Mecca after that He gave you the victory over them. And Allah sees well all that ye do.

Here is a translation of 4824 using Classical Arabic dictionaries and the context of war from the verses to translate the common description "maka(t)"

And it is He Who has restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of destruction after that He gave you the victory over them. And Allah sees well all that ye do.

Is it a coincidence that the translation of the word "maka(t)" perfectly fits in the context of 4824? I don't think so. It is clear that the common noun was hijacked to given legitimacy to that location.

So as you see, there are plenty of proofs against the historicity of Mecca and none to prove that a town called Mecca existed in pre-quranic times.

Maybe, tomorrow, we will find in Mecca an inscription in the Nabataean Aramaic script, dating of 15-16 centuries ago.
We can not exclude this; can we?

It is not just the script. It also has to be in Old Arabic.

Maybe, in Mecca 15-16 centuries ago, the Nabataean script was just appeaing.
OK, we have no proof of it, but we cannot exclude it anymore. Am I not right?

But the burden of proof is on those who make extraordinary claims. As you said, we have no proof of the historicity of what was supposedly the most important town in Arabia.

Why is it difficult for me to accept that the quran was revealed in an other place than Mecca?

I don't think it matters where the great reading was revealed.

What matters is that people should not claim that it was revealed in Mecca without any proof and then build a whole man made religion around Mecca.

Let's assume it was revealed in Hegra. So, one day, the "muslims" should have invented stories to state that is was in Mecca. Do you not think that there would have been some people who would have refused to endorse these obvious lies?

But there are many people who don't believe in the historicity of Mecca as the place where Abraham went and invited them to go. It is ONLY sectarian Muslims who believe in Mecca. All Christians and Jews don't endorse such obvious lies and this is a major difference between them and sectarian Muslims. Yet we don't hear in the great reading a passage correcting the Christians and Jews and telling them to go to Mecca and there is no evidence of such discourse in the great reading.

Also, keep in mind that a Christian will similarly say the following

"Let's assume that Jesus was not the son of god. So, one day, the "Christians" should have invented stories to state that he was the son of god. Do you not think that there would have been some Christians who would have refused to endorse these obvious lies?"

I hope that you can see that such logic doesn't hold water. The lie about Mecca is much easier to manufacture than the horrendous lie about Jesus. Or do you think that sectarian Muslims are not generally the same kind of humans as Christians by virtue of birth right?

The question that you need to ask yourself is not whether or not such lies happen but is "how do those lies happen?"

At any rate, I ask you to please have patience. In part 2, I will be addressing the issue of how this (and all such lies) happened. I actually started off writing this article as solely this part 1 but as I progressed, I realized that the "what happened" is not as important as fundamentally "how it happened". When the complete article is written, unless The God wills otherwise, I hope that one will see that it is not about the location at all.

I hope this helps for now.

Peace and all best wishes,

Ayman

The_Sufi

I appologise for my use of the word certainly. I know strong words like this should be used sparingly. It is simply one of thee unconscious idioms of my speech.

BTW I was not criticising your point about who the Nasaari were. That is not in question you are right they were monophysites -traditionally the ones who supported the title Mother of God for Marym and out of whom many gnostic sects came making Marym into a god.

But the point about Nestorians being Mushrikun because they worship a human god and reject the divine is pure misinformation from start to finish.

With regards to your explanation of Plural and Singular, I do not think the classical arabic agrees with the contemporary. 2111, 2135, 2140, 514, 582 all seem to be adjectives to me.

Riz

Wow, excellent post Ayman. A few questions though.

The Quran was revealed in Arabic and not Nabatean or any other semetic language. This the Quran confirms. The Quran was revealed for the masses not just for the elite, so it is completly possible that it wasn't written in nabatean.

Also, when you speak about the origins of Muhammad, you are talking about the original city he was in before he migrated right? The Quran does mention Yathrib (3313). So if Muhammad really was from one of the diverse cities you mentioned, why would he have had to migrate?

And what of the Quraysh? They are also mentioned. Would this imply that they were not actually from Mecca either?

Prince

Excellent read this Ayman.

When will you post the part 2 up??

Look forward to it.

PEACE

ayman

Peace Riz,

Wow, excellent post Ayman. A few questions though.

Thank you for your kindness brother.

The Quran was revealed in Arabic and not Nabatean or any other semetic language. This the Quran confirms. The Quran was revealed for the masses not just for the elite, so it is completly possible that it wasn't written in nabatean.

The script is not a big issue when it comes to understanding. An English speaker will not know what the word "kitab" means despite it being written in English script. On the other hand, most Arabic speakers will have no difficulty knowing what it means. If you ever watched two Arabic speakers who don't know English converse on instant messaging, you will know that the foreign script is not a hindrance. Some ambiguity will arise as a result of some of the Arabic sounds not being present in English. For example, there will be ambiguity with the word "hajr". Does it mean migration or stone? Since there is no equivalent in English to the letter "7aa" in Arabic, the speakers might use a standard such as putting two dots next to the "h" for "7aa" so it would be "hajr" in the case of stone. The same types of issues happened with the Nabataean script and this is why dotting was introduced to resolve ambiguities.

Also, when you speak about the origins of Muhammad, you are talking about the original city he was in before he migrated right?

Yes.

The Quran does mention Yathrib (3313). So if Muhammad really was from one of the diverse cities you mentioned, why would he have had to migrate?

As for Yathrib in 3313, the prophet possibly immigrated there later or it was the scene of a certain standoff or where some of the allies of the prophet came from but it was not where the great reading was originally revealed.

And what of the Quraysh? They are also mentioned. Would this imply that they were not actually from Mecca either?

The word "quraysh" is probably a common noun. Please see

http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4775

I hope this helps.

Peace,

Ayman

ayman

Peace 2Pac,

Excellent read this Ayman.
When will you post the part 2 up??
Look forward to it.

I hope that I will be done with Part 2 in a couple of weeks, unless The God wills otherwise.

Peace,

Ayman

wildguest1956

Peace JM, all,

I had saved your post before the forum lost data. Here is my reply.

Thanks a lot !

For me, it is not a proof.
OK, there is no (archeological) proof of the existence of the pre-quranic town Mecca.
But, there is also no proof of its non-existance.

There are many pre-quranic and early post-quranic inscriptions and manuscripts that mention ancient towns in Arabia both large and small and NONE mention this allegedly all important town called Mecca. No one in Arabia or outside it ever mentions this supposedly all important Mecca until the 8th century CE.

Could you provide me your references, so that I can check it ?

Also, it is not just archeological proofs. We have the evidence from the great reading and Classical Arabic dictionaries, which clearly point to the word "maka(t)" in 4824 being a common noun.

Here is Yusufali's translation of 4824

And it is He Who has restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of Mecca after that He gave you the victory over them. And Allah sees well all that ye do.

Here is a translation of 4824 using Classical Arabic dictionaries and the context of war from the verses to translate the common description "maka(t)"

And it is He Who has restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of destruction after that He gave you the victory over them. And Allah sees well all that ye do.

Is it a coincidence that the translation of the word "maka(t)" perfectly fits in the context of 4824? I don't think so. It is clear that the common noun was hijacked to given legitimacy to that location.

So as you see, there are plenty of proofs against the historicity of Mecca and none to prove that a town called Mecca existed in pre-quranic times.

Your argument is not logic.
OK, it is possible that makka (in ) means "destruction".
But this is proving nothing about the historicity of Mecca !

A question What is Yatrib (in ) according to you ?
Do we have archeological evidence of a town named Yatrib ?

Maybe, tomorrow, we will find in Mecca an inscription in the Nabataean Aramaic script, dating of 15-16 centuries ago.
We can not exclude this; can we?

It is not just the script. It also has to be in Old Arabic.

Maybe, in Mecca 15-16 centuries ago, the Nabataean script was just appeaing.
OK, we have no proof of it, but we cannot exclude it anymore. Am I not right?

But the burden of proof is on those who make extraordinary claims. As you said, we have no proof of the historicity of what was supposedly the most important town in Arabia.

Maybe Mecca did exist, but was not the "most important" town in Arabia.
Do you really think that the rituals practiced today in Mecca have been fully invented ?
I would rather think that they have been adapted from rituals already existing before the advent of the prophet.

Why is it difficult for me to accept that the quran was revealed in an other place than Mecca?

I don't think it matters where the great reading was revealed.

What matters is that people should not claim that it was revealed in Mecca without any proof and then build a whole man made religion around Mecca.

Let's assume it was revealed in Hegra. So, one day, the "muslims" should have invented stories to state that is was in Mecca. Do you not think that there would have been some people who would have refused to endorse these obvious lies?

But there are many people who don't believe in the historicity of Mecca as the place where Abraham went and invited them to go. It is ONLY sectarian Muslims who believe in Mecca. All Christians and Jews don't endorse such obvious lies and this is a major difference between them and sectarian Muslims. Yet we don't hear in the great reading a passage correcting the Christians and Jews and telling them to go to Mecca and there is no evidence of such discourse in the great reading.

The historicity of Mecca (and of the revelation of the quran in this town), and the coming of abraham to Mecca are 2 different points.
What is bakka (in ) according to you ?

Also, keep in mind that a Christian will similarly say the following

"Let's assume that Jesus was not the son of god. So, one day, the "Christians" should have invented stories to state that he was the son of god. Do you not think that there would have been some Christians who would have refused to endorse these obvious lies?"

I hope that you can see that such logic doesn't hold water. The lie about Mecca is much easier to manufacture than the horrendous lie about Jesus. Or do you think that sectarian Muslims are not generally the same kind of humans as Christians by virtue of birth right?

The question that you need to ask yourself is not whether or not such lies happen but is "how do those lies happen?"

I expected you would answer me that way.

Well, there are lies that are easy to make people beleive in, and lies that are not.

Assume you were a follower of Jesus, and that some of your companions would begin to claim "Jesus in the son of God".
You would certainly reply "No, Jesus is not the son of God, he is only a messenger of God".
Then, your companions would certainly boo you, and accuse you of being a liar and not loving Jesus.
Agreed ?

Assume now you were a follower of Muhammad, and that some of your companions would begin to claim "We have to imitate all what Muhammad did".
You would certainly reply "No, we have only to follow the quran".
Then, your companions would certainly boo you, and accuse you of being a liar and not loving Muhammad.
Still agreed ?

Lastly, Assume you were a follower of Muhammad, and that you would begin to claim "Muhammad did not live in Hegra, he lived in Mecca".
Your companions would certainly reply "No, he lived in Hegra !".
In that case, who would be booed, and accused of being a liar ? You, or your companions ?

At any rate, I ask you to please have patience. In part 2, I will be addressing the issue of how this (and all such lies) happened. I actually started off writing this article as solely this part 1 but as I progressed, I realized that the "what happened" is not as important as fundamentally "how it happened". When the complete article is written, unless The God wills otherwise, I hope that one will see that it is not about the location at all.

OK, I will wait for part 2, but in the meantime, 2 questions

In your article "The language barrier", you wrote

Until recently, archeologists thought that there were two unrelated people using two different languages that lived in that area, the Nabataeans and the Arab nomads. An inscription found near the Negev region changed all that. When the subject of the inscription changed from formal religious/royal matters to the common people's explanation of why they loved their king, so did the language. It shifted from Nabataean to Arabic. The conclusion that can be drawn from this is that there weren't two people living in the same region who were using two different languages. They were one people all along who simply used two languages for different purposes. They used Arabic as an informal language for common everyday matters and Nabataean as a language for religious and formal affairs. Most commoners would not have understood the religious language of the elite and this helped the religious and political elite to monopolize power.

Now, in this above article, there is not mention of this inscription in the Negev anymore, and you seem to assume that the 2 languages did not mix.
Have you changed your mind on this point ?

Do you believe the quran has been fully preserved from its revelation to now ?

What do you think of that

Evidently the Quran underwent a transformation during the 100 years following the Prophets death. Recognisable quranic writings appear on coins and on the Dome of the Rock during the reign of Abd al-Malik from 685 AD, but they differ from the official quranic text today. The Quran cannot then have been canonized during Muhammads lifetime, but must have undergone a process of evolution. Indeed the earliest reference to a book called the Quran fr a sanctuary located not in Mecca, but in northern Arabia or even Jerusalem, until the early 8th century.
http//isaalmasih.net/archaeology-isa/quran-archaeology.html

Peace,

JM

ayman

Peace JM,

Could you provide me your references, so that I can check it?

The following is an example of an inscription that mentions several towns and valleys in Central Arabia

http//www.mnh.si.edu/epigraphy/e_pre-islamic/fig04_sabaean.htm

The inscription commemorates the expedition of Abraha into Central Arabia.

Towns such as Turban (present day Al-Turaba about 100 Kilometers east of present day Mecca) and Halban which is further away northeast of present day Mecca are mentioned. Valleys in Central Arabia such as Zu Markh and Manha are also mentioned. Ironically, Mecca which was supposed to be Abraha's destination is not mentioned at all or even alluded to. In fact, if you trace a line connecting the locations mentioned by the inscription, you can see that Abraha took a northeasterly direction that totally bypasses present day Mecca as if it wasn't there.

Even in post-quranic times we hear detailed listing of the towns of the Arabs but nothing about this Mecca. For example, here is what a Chronicler of Khuzistan wrote circa 660 CE

"Hasor, which scripture calls "head of the kingdoms" (Joshua xi. 10), belongs to the Arabs, while Medina is named after Midian, Abraham's fourth son by Qetura; it is also called Yathrib. And Dumat Jandal , and the territory of the Hagaraye, which is rich in water, palm trees and fortified buildings. The territory of Hatta, situated by the sea in the vicinity of the islands of Qatar, is rich in the same way; it is also thickly vegetated with various kinds of plants. The region of Mazon also resembles it; it too lies by the sea and comprises an area of more than 100 parasangs. So too the territory of Yamama, in the middle of the desert, and the territory of Tawf, and the city of Hira, which was the seat of king Mundar, surnamed the "warrior;" he was sixth in the line of the Ishmaelite kings."

What is interesting here is that the final words of the author demonstrate that he viewed the post-quranic Arab kings ruling in his day to be a continuation of pre-quranic Lakhmid rule. The Lakhmid capital was the city of Hira in present day southwest Iraq.

We do not hear any reference to Mecca until the mid 8th century CE. The earliest reference is in Continuatio Byzantia Arabica after 740CE.

I provided references from both pre and post-quranic times. I know that you can't provide any reference to a town called Mecca prior to the mid 8th century CE. Had there been any reference to Mecca earlier than that, sectarians would have been boasting about it by now.

Your argument is not logic.
OK, it is possible that makka (in ) means "destruction".
But this is proving nothing about the historicity of Mecca !

So is it purely coincidental that the common name fits perfectly in 4824 while 4824 is the ONLY argument that sectarians use for proving the historicity of Mecca? I don't think so.

A question What is Yatrib (in ) according to you ?
Do we have archeological evidence of a town named Yatrib ?

Yes, there was a town called Yathrib. Please see my response above to brother Riz.

Maybe Mecca did exist, but was not the "most important" town in Arabia.

So do you think that The God is exaggerating when He calls it "umm al-qura"? I don't think so. Again, the burden of proof is on those who make extraordinary claims.

Do you really think that the rituals practiced today in Mecca have been fully invented ?

No. They were already preexisting pagan rituals that were simply appropriated into the new religion.

I would rather think that they have been adapted from rituals already existing before the advent of the prophet.

I agree.

The historicity of Mecca (and of the revelation of the quran in this town), and the coming of abraham to Mecca are 2 different points.

No they are not. The whole sectarian religion is built around Mecca and it being the place of revelation of the great reading and the place where Abraham established some kind of shrine. If you take one of those points out, the other collapses.

What is bakka (in ) according to you ?

I don't know and I don't care to know. Bakka if it was a town, is merely the location of the first house, nothing more.

I expected you would answer me that way.
Well, there are lies that are easy to make people beleive in, and lies that are not.
Assume you were a follower of Jesus, and that some of your companions would begin to claim "Jesus in the son of God".
You would certainly reply "No, Jesus is not the son of God, he is only a messenger of God".
Then, your companions would certainly boo you, and accuse you of being a liar and not loving Jesus.
Agreed ?
Assume now you were a follower of Muhammad, and that some of your companions would begin to claim "We have to imitate all what Muhammad did".
You would certainly reply "No, we have only to follow the quran".
Then, your companions would certainly boo you, and accuse you of being a liar and not loving Muhammad.
Still agreed ?
Lastly, Assume you were a follower of Muhammad, and that you would begin to claim "Muhammad did not live in Hegra, he lived in Mecca".
Your companions would certainly reply "No, he lived in Hegra !".
In that case, who would be booed, and accused of being a liar ? You, or your companions ?

Anyone who objects to the lie of Mecca would have 4824 stuck to his face and would be called a "rejecter of the quran" for objecting to this lie. This is precisely why the common noun was hijacked to silence dissent.

Now, in this above article, there is not mention of this inscription in the Negev anymore, and you seem to assume that the 2 languages did not mix.
Have you changed your mind on this point ?

The inscription near Negev is the one in En Avdat and it is on the map.

Maybe you misunderstood something because I haven?t changed my mind. Nabataean Aramaic was a formal language that was used for religious and political purposes but nobody spoke it at home or on the street. On the other hand, at home and on the street, the common people spoke Arabic dialects such as Old Arabic (al- dialect) and Safaitic (ha- dialect).

To make it easy for you to understand, a somewhat similar situation (but not completely because the script is the same) is happening today with Modern Standard Arabic being the official political and religious written language of prestige that no one speaks at home or on the street while colloquial Arabic dialects are spoken by everyone but rarely written.

Do you believe the quran has been fully preserved from its revelation to now ?

The reminder in it has been preserved.

What do you think of that

The problem with Christian polemists is that they try to compare the great reading to the manmade Bible. Therefore, they assume that like their Bible, the great reading went through a late "canonization" process. There is no evidence that the great reading went through any "canonization" process similar to Hadiths or the Bible. For example, unlike the Bible and Hadiths there is no epigraphic evidence of books or chapters that were excluded. In fact, we don't really know exactly when or how we came to possess this book.

If their thesis is correct and the great reading is an 8th century CE manmade book, then certainly a manmade book would have attempted to deal with the many significant events up to the 8th century or at least show some bias towards those events. We see this phenomenon in the Bible and Hadiths. For example, many passages in the New Testament reflect the kind of political and religious discussions going on around the Nicene (For example "Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesars; and unto God the things that are Gods.). Similarly, many Hadiths talk about the "fitna" (the civil wars) and reflect the kind of discussions going on during the Abbasid era. Had it been manmade, then the fact that the great reading doesn't mention any events of the Arab conquests or civil wars gives it a terminus ante quem date of no later than the 620s CE, which is when the Kingdom of the Arabs began and they started the rapid expansion into Persian and Byzantine territory. The great reading must be judged not based on dating but based on the criteria that it sets for itself, namely internal consistency and the message it is conveying.

Another problem with modern day Christian polemists is that they don't study the work of early Christian polemists who were much closer to the fact such as John of Damascus 730CE, etc. For example, none of early Christian polemics against the great reading criticize the text as "unstable" and still evolving or being manipulated by the Umayyad or Abbasid. In fact, quite the contrary, they inadvertently support the stability of the text by their time because they always say that it was made up long ago by a guy named Mohamed. Moreover, in their own polemics they specifically quote and reference chapters from it. So if even the Christian polemists of the early 8th century (who were not very familiar with the text) are able to do so, then this tells us that the text was quite well established at the time.

The well-founded points that they make (such as the absence of a town named Mecca and the continuation of the alliance of the Arabs and the Jews well into the Umayyad dynasty) have no bearing on the great reading being from The God. They only have bearing on Mecca and the pious fiction about the prophet being disassociated from the great reading.

Peace,

Ayman

wildguest1956