How Did it Come to This? (Part 1)
-
Peace IPM
There is no evidence for a town named Mecca before the 8th century.
The only reason people would believe in Mecca is because it is mentioned in the quran. Since 'mecca' in the quran is a common noun and not a Proper name of a city, we conclude that there was no town called Mecca during the time of the prophet and the sectarians later renamed a town (whether it had a shrine or not) after a common noun found in the quran. People fell for it and that's how Mecca became the center of Islam today.
The opposing argument to the above is
Although there is no evidence that Mecca did exist, there is no evidence that it did not exist. Even if it is not mentioned in any document, it still COULD have existed.
But they do agree that what the sectarians claim about Mecca is wrong. It's probably not mentioned in the quran and we aren't supposed to face it or anything like that.
But my question to the opposition is... why call a town "destruction?"
i know that when names of old cities are established, people don't think of the meaning of the name anymore, but people who establish the town do name it for a reason. New England was named New England by the puritans because they wanted to create a new England in the New World. There is always a reason for naming towns. Even the town Nameless, Tennessee.
The only thing that was doubtful about Ayman's argument was that the non-existence of Mecca could not be PROVEN. But when we look at the MEANING of Mecca (along with the meaning of masjid, masjid al haraam, kaaba, etc), it becomes pretty clear that this was a conspiracy of some sort. After that, there is no reason to BELIEVE that there was a town called Mecca during the prophet's life.Thank you for your excellent summary. You are exactly right. There is no reason to believe that there was a town called Mecca during the prophet's time no more than there is reason to believe that there were shrines called Al-Masjid Al-Haram or Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa or Kaaba. Those are all common nouns that were hijacked and given to things that sectarians built themselves long after the prophet's time.
I disagree about the need for a sort of conspiracy. I think that the natural law of supply and demand negates the need for a conspiracy. People demand shrines/idols to gather around and socialize (2925). Such shrines ranging from the cross to the stone cube and any such symbol is liked and demanded by superficial people because it brings them together. So when there is demand, this will create the supply. Similarly, when people demanded Hadiths, their number multiplied. When people later demanded Isnad (chains of transmission) for those Hadiths, perfect Isnads magically appeared. It is demand and supply. It is why as long as there are drug users there will be drug dealers. It is not a conspiracy.
Peace,
Ayman
-
peace Ahmed,
Peace
what evidence are all those articles based on?
The best type of evidences, it is called the logical evidences
oh yes, the Muslim texts, what they call the Hadith (the sayings of the Holy Prophet Muhammad).
Oh come on , you made this up hey
but now give me one logical reason why those westerners are conspiring with the tradtionalist?
remember "Logical", not non sense
Salam
-
To all,
I'm convinced of the fact that Mecca was not an important site before the 8th century. However, everyone should know that Makkah doesn't only mean destruction and I've stated that twice already. It can also mean 'sucking dry' or 'one that is sucked dry.' explaining the aridness of the this region and serving as a nickname that the Arabs gave to the site. I don't see it as a contradiction at all for there to be a coincidence between the name of this town and this word being used as an adjective in the Quran (only one of its meanings is destruction). There is no need to go into the babylonian roots of the word either. To those who didn't know that Arabic came from Babylonian, now you know or atleast that is what they say. But just like explaining the origin of an English word from Old, Old English or high german doesn't explain what the word means now or even 300 years ago in English. Trying to explain Arabic through its mother language is illogical. Hey its cool and its interesting to know but it has no bearing on the meanings of Arabic words that are already explained to us. This rebellious church girl thing is really starting to get to me. brickwall fftopic
Anyway, its possible that there was some conspiracy to rename this town to Mecca because of the Quran. It is possible that Muhammad really didn't live there but the Arabs of that area who became the power of the day made it seem like that. It is possible that the prophets name wasn't even Muhammad and that this is just an adjective used in the Quran. It's possible that the Quran was fabricated and the Arabs of Muhammad's day didn't speak Arabic but Nabatean. It's possible that Muhammad was from Petra or even Jerusalem. How about Egypt or Abyssina. Millions of things are possible but if we don't have indications of these things what is the point of trying to doubt what there is already evidence for only to try to make up some alternative story. I'll tell you this, I may not think that the Hadeeths should be followed as religious guidance and I may think that they are full of rumor, but if you know anything about history, even oral traditions can be true, and even rumor can be true. Those few Hadeeths that say 'don't write anything down from me except the Quran' etc, etc. Those hadeeths that contradict themselves, and the Quran itself help us understand that we are not obligated to follow everything that any prophet did in his or her life, because that would include following their mistakes. They're examplary examples are in their fulfillment of what God wanted from them, their spreading of God's book, etc., etc. Overall, we are told that Muhammad was told to follow the Quran and he told others to do that. When he died he left the Quran, not his own opinions or a log of 'what he would do' about anything. Knowing this nullifies the power of the Hadeeth, the written rumors, to misguide us. We don't need to follow them. But there is no need to totally reject them either. THe Quran wasn't given to us to verify history, only to clear us up on what we need to be cleared up on for our guidance, historical clues are added benefits.
Rumor can be true and except where the Hadeeth contradict the Quran I actually believe the history of the Hadeeth about Muhammad. I don't believe he was an orphan when he recieved the Quran because the Quran contradicts this hadeethic story. I don't believe that I have to make pilgrimage to Makkah because that's the Hadeeth not the Quran and the only importance that Mecca would have according to Quranic standards is that the sanctuary in it was cleansed of idolatry and dedicated to God, qualifying as a house of God and therefore a place of pilgrimage. You see, my religion is all in the Quran, and I appreciate those clues that point to the fact that the Hadeeth are rumor, and where this rumor is wrong. But God will only clear up the rumor that needs to be cleared up and I'm fine with that, because the rest is plausable and its validity is possible. So if I find more contradictions in the Quran against the Hadeeth then I will fix my understanding of the events that really went on. But I will not make up stories or imply conspiracies without real evidence. I will not defy the Hadeeth just to defy it. That is non-sense. All history is based off of rumor and conjectures. When you find a few pots in an area, you study the area and you conjure up a logical story. It may be true but it is what "most likely" happened, you'll never know what really happened because you didn't witness it. I think that alot of the things that Ayman brings up are important in helping us understand what really went on back then, but it is not up to us to conjure up stories just to try to prove the total unreliablity of the hadeeth. We already know that it is a book of rumor but there is no need to make up things to undermine it more. And our conjectures are on the same level as the conjectures of the Hadeeth. If we make up things what makes it more reliable then when they made up things in the past. It is more likely that their stories are closer to the truth as long as they don't contradict with artefactual or Quranic implications
So do I believe that Mecca was a city before the 8th century and after the 1st century and that it was called Mecca? Yup. There is no need for me to follow conjectures that are not based on the Quran and just put forth to undermine the Hadeeth and Islamic history out of rebelliousness. Do I believe that becca is mecca? No. Because this connection has to be forced, and you can see it being forced in the Hadeeth. Becca doesn't come from the root to cry and that is so obvioius I'm shocked the Muslim scholar couldn't see the mistake of the hadeeths that mention this. Even the people of the time of the Hadeeth didn't use Becca for Mecca. That was an obvious conspiracy, that failed.
The Quran didn't say that the town that Muhammad was in wasn't Mecca. THe Quran never said that the place it was revealed in wasn't Mecca. And just because the word can be understood as a noun in the Quran does't mean that Mecca didn't exist. On top of that the word can also mean the city Mecca and both meanings are just as valid. So for that reason I believe that the passage can say BOTH In the midst of Mecca and In the midst of destruction. So to me the verse is telling me that the recievers of the Quran were in a very tense situation in Mecca, and it tells me that when God's faithful find themselves surrounded by destruction that it is God that will restrain the hands of agression. So it served as a double meaning for the people in Mecca and as the universal meaning for God's believers everywhere and at anytime. I'm not as myopic to try to pidgeon hole the meaning of this passage to either extreme. It's just two sides of the same coin. So everyone can see now why I think that putting an utimatem to the Quran about the words that it uses, in this case Mecca, is unnecessary and extreme. So the issue of a conspiracy doesn't mean the wieght of an atom to me.
It just has no bearing from the way that I see this issue.With all that said you can say that I don't believe in the Quran or that I take the word of sectarians over God's word, etc. etc. Call me an infidel if you want or an apostate (like JM mentioned) and declare the spilling of my non-muslim blood legal. voodoo But I'm sure of my faith in the Quran and in God and I know the true place that the Quran and the Hadeeth really hold, how the hadeeth should be understood and its complete inferiority to the Quran. This may sound really sunni to you, but take it from someone who at one time was willing to deny identifying the Quran with Islam at all because I understand the fact that the Quran never promoted the name Islam as a religon. I only accept it now, because of what it really means to the modern world, and I hope one day that meaning changes so that I can reject it again and do my best to pull the Quran out of the grasps of the erroneous Islamc world. The intelligent, the Ulool-albaabi, the muzawwajoona bi-hoorin, and the alladheena ya'qiloona mentioned in the Quran will see the truth of what I'm saying.
And to ipostmanure, stop trying to use my arguments against me. Ad hominem doesn't work here. Thank you for pointing out the similarity, atleast I know you are a thinking man. handshake But having a sick heart means that one's ability to make good and consice arguments or to even see the point of what is being argued is corrupted or deficient. It has nothing to do with a bias about a certain opinion. But whatever I have to say to Ayman I've already said to him. You work out what seems to you to be a logical failure here. If you think hard arbout it you'll get it. confused
Godbless to all,
Anwar -
peace
I think Progod's got a point. Although we have no reason to believe that there IN FACT was a town called Mecca, we don't have much reason to believe that there was not. But...
is it just a coincidence that the word used in the quran was also a name of a town that became so important to Islam and the verse even makes sense if we use mecca as a proper noun? too much of a coincidence it seems like.
But then again, we shouldn't get carried away in degrading the sectarians and I think we should leave this whole Mecca thing at
"Mecca is not mentioned in the Quran as the name of a town and all the sectarians claim about it's importance is Horse manure." -
Peace All
Let me start off by stating I haven't followed the flow of this thread for quite some time (I stopped somewhere around page 4 of the thread). I just read Bro ProGod's last post, and I must say, very well put. I 100% agree with your analysis of this whole situation. Excellent post. Let us not delve into irrelivent arguments that will never benefit us in any way.
But those who strive against Our Signs, to frustrate them, - for such will be a Penalty - a Punishment Most humiliating.
Let us hold fast not to be like those mentioned in this aya. I don't believe anyone on this thread has a bad intention to purposely do this, but we must consciously be aware of the energy and messages we're putting out, even if it wasn't our true intentions. I believe we should focus on the unviersal messages of the quran rather than history or archaeology that mean nothing to us today in our deen, as bro ProGod rightfully mentioned.
May God Bless you all and increase you in knowledge
-
Peace Anwar,
So do I believe that Mecca was a city before the 8th century and after the 1st century and that it was called Mecca? Yup.
In all your ramblings, you never gave any evidence as to why you believe in Mecca being a city before the 8th century so it is just blind belief in what sectarians believe. But even sectarians can't give any evidence. The only reason that you kept hanging on to the self-deceiving straw of subtly changing the spelling in English of MAKKA to sound similar like MAKKAroba is that you know that this laughable conjecture is the best evidence you have. Sectarians know it too. Hence, the only reason they bring Macroba up is that they know that there is ZERO evidence for Mecca.
What is next? Are you going to claim that the rumors/hearsay in sectarian pious fiction (Hadith/Sira) is logical evidence like Ahmed Bahgat did? I am telling you man, you have really regressed. I hope that you can find your footing again soon.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Hello all
we need at least one compelling evidence to why the non muslims wasterners are conspiring with the tradionalists?
just bloody one compelling evidence not loads of non sense
Salam
-
how are westerners conspiring with the traditionalists? what exactly are you talking about brother Ahmed?
what I'm talking about is simply all the westerners who wrote about Mecca as I showed above, why they took the word of the tradtionlists for granted regarding Mecca?, how they have been fooled and done like the rest of the muslims in the world?
I need a logical answer otherwise better not
Salam
-
It's because they are giving you the BELIEFs of muslims. Not archeological facts.
Haha, that's was really funny
so the westerners are just a bunch of idiots hey?
But I have to say what you said is very compelling, thanks
Cheers
-
Peace,
In investigating such matters one has to look no further than the "Masjid-al-Aqsa" which was built more than a hundred years after the death of the prophet to know that terms from the reading were stolen/borrowed etc to name physical places.
This my friends is the smoking gun...
It proves without doubt that the Mecca is post hoc theory holds water. The Mecca defenders have nothing except tradition and blind belief.
-
Peace IPM,
how are westerners conspiring with the traditionalists? what exactly are you talking about brother Ahmed?
Don't worry too much about this nonsense. Any intelligent person can see that Westerners such as in "Why is Mecca the Religious Center of Islam? By Lisa Federico '02" were simply reporting what Muslims believe. This is no different than reporting that Muslims believe that Al Mahdy will return to save them. It doesn't mean that Westerners believe this and it certainly doesn't make it true. I think that Ahmed is just suffering from a case of the well known "Westerner complex" (Arabic "3uqdat Alkhawajat". It is a kind of inferiority complex that some people in the Middle East have and as a result appeal to Westerners as proof for anything. This is why in places like Saudi Arabia, Westerners get 10 times more money as Middle Easterners who have the same exact qualifications as per their labor laws. ;D
There is no Christian or Jew that believes that Mecca was built by Abraham and there is no evidence of any Christian or Jew ever believing this. No Jew or Christian ever even mentions Mecca. Despite those indisputable facts, traditionalists imagine that people from all over the ancient world performed pilgrimages to Mecca uninterrupted from the time of Abraham until now. Traditionalists of course can't explain why none of the Jews and Christians know any shrine in Mecca or even Mecca itself at all, let alone as they know their own sons. Perhaps Ahmed and traditionalists think that The God is exaggerating in 2144-146 per their interpretation of it.
Peace,
Ayman
-
To ipostmanure,
is it just a coincidence that the word used in the quran was also a name of a town that became so important to Islam and the verse even makes sense if we use mecca as a proper noun? too much of a coincidence it seems like.
Is anything a coincidence in life? No. God creates coincidences as moments for us to reflect and think. It is a coincidence that God intended, not the Arabs. It is a coincidence that God used to test the Arabs of that day and anyone who understands the implications of the word in this passage and can see that it has two meanings. In a nutshell, God did this on purpose. The intelligent have understood and will always understand that there is no reason to put an ultimatum to the word and say, "it has to Makkah or Destruction, it can't mean both." The implication of this passage when we logically conisder both of its meanings to be correct is 1. Muhammad and his followers at one time were in Mecca and they had enemies there & 2. If any of us find ourselves surrounded by eminent and even mortal danger (i.e. in the midst of destruction) it is God who will protect us from our enemies.
To Ayman,
In all your ramblings, you never gave any evidence as to why you believe in Mecca being a city before the 8th century so it is just blind belief in what sectarians believe. But even sectarians can't give any evidence
First of all, I guess I should say thanks for reading my "ramblings" as you so kindly put it. whatever
The evidence is in the Hadeeth. Like I said, rumor can be true and unless the Quran plainly contradicts the Hadeeth or artefactual evidence plainly contradict the Hadeeth then it is more likely that that rumor is correct then anything that I, or you, can conjure up over 2000 years later. The Quran never said and doesn't imply that there was some conspiracy to rename this town Mecca and you have no artefactual evidence to suggest that either. So what is the basis of your conjecture? It's not the Quran and its not artefactual evidence. The only artefactual evidence that you gave was that there is no mention of Mecca before by non-Islamic sources until after the 8th century. You stated in an earlier postFor example there is a 6th century BC inscription which comemorates king Nabonidus's conquers of Arabian cities. The inscription is in the city of Harran and lists all the major ancient Arabian cities in the area of Hijaz including Yathrib and Khaybar but no Mecca.
So your objection is really that Mecca was not a major city. We can see that up until the 500's Mecca was not a major city. That's fine. I'm sure there were plenty of other small towns, with shrines, that weren't mentioned either, because they weren't worth mentioning. But that doesn't mean that they didn't exist. And if Mecca only became popular after the 500's after Muhammad preached his message then what is so wrong with that? There is no proof artefactually or Quranically to imply that Mecca didn't exist. It would be more logical to admit that it did exist and that it was an insignificant town and only gained its significance because Muhammad hailed from this town, and because of tribal or religio-political reasons. Hey, afterall Muslims didn't even stop adding in the thirteenth month into the year until after Muhammad either, and they still stuck to the Jewish calendar they had before instead of going through the Quran to find a suitable answer. That's why the Islamic calendar is all jacked up.
What is next? Are you going to claim that the rumors/hearsay . . . (Hadith/Sira) is logical evidence . . .?
You got it! bravo Because even rumor and hearsay can be true. Unless there is artefactual evidence or Quranic statments that can go contrary to these rumors, it is more likely that these rumors could be true than some conjured up story that we can make up that is not fully based on evidence. The artefactual evidence that you have supplied has cleared up the hadeeth in the aspect that we now know that Mecca's importance as a city doesn't go beyond the the Islamic period of Arab conquests. However, the Quran's mentioning of Mecca can confirm that Mecca was the residential area of Muhammad at one time, so the Hadeeth's story that Muhammad hailed from Mecca is most likely right. The word Yathriba can also have Arabic meaning in addition to the town of Yathrib (through the root th-r-ba) but that doesn't mean that Yathrib didn't exist or that Muhammad wasn't associated with it. Because it has been an important town for along time it is mentioned in non-Islamic sources, but hopefully it is understood that there is no reason to put an ultimatem to the words used in the Quran and that the Quran can mean more than one thing at the same time, with the universal meaning being the most important meaning that incorporates all other meanings. That is the beauty of how God has utilized the Classical Arabic language in this book, helping us to expand our minds a little more.
I am telling you man, you have really regressed. I hope that you can find your footing again soon.
I've always had my footing, or atleast I think so. confused But your idea of progression which makes you think that I've regressed is based on
alot of conjured up ideas and the rejection of some basic principles of logic and the science(knowing) of history. You're not the only one, even scientists fall victim to prejudices that make them take huge jumps in their logic (that's why they all can't agree all the time). That's why there are so many athiests scientists, that's why there are Egyptologist out there who still don't want to admit that the ancient Egyptians were black, despite real evidence (Herodotus even said it). What all these mistaken scientist have in common is that they will undermine or make jumps in logic just because they don't like what is being said or implied. Some do it on purpose and some do it on a more subconscious level.I can give you the Macaroba and Makhorba connection, so there is no reason for you to keep harping on that. I'm not arguing that any more. I was pretty much convinced the first time you mentioned Makhorba, that is if you were being honest about this. But if you think I've regressed I think that your disillusion with the Hadeeth and Islamic science has caused you to swerve off of the path of intellectual integrity and just logic. Hate me if you want for not agreeing with you, and just consider my posts ramblings as you already do. If you don't want to understand I hope atleast others who are reading these posts will. But it is my hope that you will see what I'm saying here and stop getting so bent out of shape just because I don't agree with you. peace
and Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace Anwar,
The evidence is in the Hadeeth.
Thank you for your honesty and for confirming what I have been saying here all along about why people believe in Mecca. It is certainly your right to believe as you wish. I don't think that I need to say more.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Don't worry too much about this nonsense.
LOL Ayman, back to your old trick when you face a damn simple yet complicated question you resort to your rants, I can see how intelligent you are bro
Any intelligent person can see that Westerners such as in "Why is Mecca the Religious Center of Islam? By Lisa Federico '02" were simply reporting what Muslims believe.
Thanks for making my point that the westerners are nothing but a bunch of dumb bums
This is no different than reporting that Muslims believe that Al Mahdy will return to save them.
And what the Mahdi has to do with it?
Well that is another technique you have which is when cornered with a damn simple question you resort to confusing the subject
It doesn't mean that Westerners believe this and it certainly doesn't make it true.
So all the western encyclopaedias put stuff in there about Mecca that is wrong or not been confirmed?
Who you are trying to fool exactly bro?
I know, you are trying to fool the fools, LOL
I think that Ahmed is just suffering from a case of the well known "Westerner complex" (Arabic "3uqdat Alkhawajat".
LOL, that was funny bro, so I guess I need to see a Doctor?
It is a kind of inferiority complex that some people in the Middle East have and as a result appeal to Westerners as proof for anything.
Haha, wrong guess mister smart, donlt you know that I donlt live in the middle east no more, Haha that was funny
But please tell me, you are an Egyptian like me and live abroad like me, why I have this disorder and you don?t?
This is why in places like Saudi Arabia, Westerners get 10 times more money as Middle Easterners who have the same exact qualifications as per their labor laws. ;D
But I don?t live in SA, sorry however, what that has to do with it?
Oh I know
Confusing the subject
You are a professional bro
-
Orientalists of the past respected the historical works and apparent historical rigor applied to the Hadeeths and Islamic history. They didn't conspire. They were overwhelmed with respect and just accepted. Remember that in the era of the orientalists Europeans didn't have a well founded idea of the science of history, etc. etc. It was through studying Islamic law systems and the Islamic historical sciences, through the orientalists, and then applying them without the Islamic bias that the Western world became so good at the Academic and Legal Sciences. Of course now they are subject to Western biases which limits them, but they took the foundations of the first Islamic sciences and applied them without the Islamic biases or hang ups that had developed in the Islamic Academic world and haulted its progression. Even then you had some orientalists who pointed out the inconsistencies and doubt in the Islamic histories and sciences, but Orientalism soon became known for its enfatuation with the Islamic world, not its scrutiny and analysis of the Islamic world and its sciences. That's why now you have two extreme camps, the traditonalist ones who believe everything in Islamic Histories and the ones who try to undermine Islamic history and sciences at all costs. The Judeo-centric orientalists even take it to such an extreme to veiw Aramaic and Hebrew as valid ways to interpret Arabic words, which is pure none-sense.
As for words in the Quran being taken to name later constructed things, like Masjid al-Aqsaa, which is truth's smoking gun, we have evidence that this mosque was built in the 8th century. So even though we know that there were cases like this here and I'm sure in other situations, it is not intellectually honest or just to assume that because someone stole once from one store that they are guilty of stealing at another store, when there is no evidence to point to that. Just because it was done with one doesn't mean that it was done with the other. It's possible, but the thief has an aliby that fits and there is no evidence, you have to believe the alliby. Anything is possible in this world but that is why following God and his guidance will lead us right. God tells us to use our logic and intelligence and to be just. That means being intellectual just as well. The right way(arrushd) will stand out clearly (tabayyana) from error(al-ghayy). Tabayyun (the noun of tabayyana) is based on bayyinat which is evidence.
Godbless,
Anwar -
peace ProGod,
I think you're missing the point.
Rumors can be correct. But "can" isn't enough. There has to be evidence backing up those rumors, and there is NONE.
Also, these rumors about Mecca come from the same people who distorted many other words in the quran to fit their own beliefs (majid al aqsa, kaaba, etc).
When we look at all those other thing's they have twisted, why couldn't have they done this with mecca?I don't think it's a coincidence put in there by God. I think the people who started those rumors very cleverly used that word from the quran to support their views. To make people worship their false gods.
It becomes even clearer when we find no evidence (except those rumors) that the prophet was in Mecca during his life.
Mecca could've been a small town in arabia, but it even more easily could've been a town called something else, renamed Mecca after those rumors started.
-
progod, it seems like you just don't want to believe Ayman because you think his position is too extreme.
Why not deny the history when it has gotten so many things wrong. People have purposefully distorted the words of the quran to promote their beliefs. And the words of those people is part of Islamic history.peace.
-
Peace All
Most scientists today agree with the theory of evolution. However, there are missing links that have not fully explained the process homo sapiens as well as other creatures undertook. By this premise we cannot believe in evolution because there is no physical evidence of the crucial missing link.
In Egyptology, scientists still have yet to understand the mystery of the pyramid. There are several theories but none fully explain how the Great Pyramids of Giza were built. By this premise, we must believe that the Egyptians couldn't have built it, and instead create a new story that would sound less extraordinary than ancient people with no advanced technology building such a giant feat.
Da Vinci led an otherwise uninteresting life. Sure, he drew beautiful paintings but he was considered an outcast in the Fine Arts realm. Sadly, he only found fame after his death. Since nobody really cared for Da Vinci in his time and only decades later did they take notice of his artwork, by your premise, we can say he may not have lived during the era the history books record today. Instead it was his apprentice and others just hated the apprentice more than Da Vinci so they gave him the claim to fame.
Yesterday, I went to New York. Since there is no evidence I was there i.e., I didn't tell anyone, didn't leave any paper trail of receipts, and others thought I was at the park, - by your premise - I never went to New York.
When we make a claim, we need evidence to prove it. The extraordinary claim my friend, is that the history we've known for 100s of years is fake. The burden of evidence lies on you. If you claim this, you can't just state that there is no evidence to prove OTHERWISE. You must state that there is evidence to prove that you are right and history is wrong. This is practically impossible. Unless you physically find some artifact or ancient text that proves that the area was uninhabited until the 8th century.The fact that nobody mentioned it just proved that (a) it went by a different name, (b) scientists haven't found something that shows that YET (c) there was no reason to mention it because more significant things were happening elsewhere, nothing significant was happening there, or the person who wrote it has seen other cities but not that one. I've been to Egypt many times. I've never seen half the towns there. If you ask me to write about my thoughts on Egypt, I'll most likely tell you about the places I've personally seen. Not finding anything that says Mecca on it is very weak evidence. People simply didn't feel the need to record and file as we do today.
But my question is why is this so important to those of you who believe that Mecca is an innovation? What will it prove and how will it benefit me?
Peace All