The Historical Makkah - An African Empire
-
In the Name of Allah, the Almighty, the Merciful.
I would like to offer to the community here some information they may find very interesting. I have devoted considerable time to trying to better understand the historical reality of what took place during the formative centuries of Islamic history and have come to some rather shocking conclusions. Much of what I have found out over the years has already been discussed here, this site certainly raises the bar for objective exegesis, so there is little point in going over what is already being explored elsewhere on the site. I will instead focus on one issue in particular, that of the location of the historical Makkah.
Allah, in His Revelation, speaks of what seems to be a place named Makkah, it is only mentioned once, but this is the Word of the Lord. My personal research leads me to believe that Mohammed had no connection to Makkah, Saudi Arabia, and probably never even went there. Instead, I have him growing up as a trader on the routes around the Holy Land, primarily the King's Highway between Cairo and Damascus. I believe that Mohammed and his closest allies travelled much deeper into Africa, maybe on two or three occasions, so as to avoid persecution by religious and secular authorities centred in Jerusalem. I believe that it was the tales of these adventures into Africa that formed the basis for the traditionalist accounts of migration to Abyssinia, a fiction design to accommodate the facts.
If you travelled south, along the Nile from Cairo, fourteen hundred years ago, you would have come across a city named Dongola, a city built on the banks of the Nile in modern day Sudan. The modern city of Dongola is not the original city, but the original site remains and is now known simply as Old Dongola. Old Dongola during Mohammed's times was the capital city of a somewhat unorthodox, Christian kingdom, known to modern historians as Makuria.
It is conventional for place names to be retrospectively given the suffix 'ia' or more classically 'ea'. We can see examples of this with the Khazars and Khazaria or even the Arabs and Arabia - it is very common. If we assume that this is true of the Kingdom of Makuria, then we need only remove the suffix to arrive at the Kingdom of Makur.
The supporting evidence for the position I'm presenting is often indirect and, as such, can not be readily summarised. I will however offer this According to traditionalist accounts, the Muslims first meet the Makurians a short while after Mohammed's death. The traditionalists go on to inform us that a bact, a peace treaty, was signed and relations between the two empires were good. Historians can confirm this treaty was signed, it is a matter of historical record. What neither the historians nor the traditionalist offer is an explanation as to why Makuria was treated so differently to every other state that the Arabs encountered. It was not conquered, it didn't even pay tax. The Arabs, without any practical need, signed and honoured a treaty that was exceptionally tolerant of this Christian kingdom, but no other. It is worth noting that this treaty lasted many centuries, Makuria going on to enjoy the Makurian Golden Age right on the Arab's doorstep. What did Makuria do to deserve such continued tolerance and respect from the various imperial dynasties that went on to rule over the Empire? I believe that Mohammed had travelled there with a relatively small number of followers so as to avoid persecution. A small army was sent by certain authorities in Jerusalem to kill the Prophet, ensuring he never returned to the Levant. However, this army was unsuccessful due to the refusal of the Makurian king to cooperate. The small army was no threat to Makuria, so with the king's refusal to allow the killing, the army had no choice, but to return to Jerusalem unsuccessful. It was this action by the king that earned Makuria the favouritism it enjoyed for many centuries after the king's reign.
As I indicated, there is much more evidence to support the position that the Makkah of the Quran is the historical Kingdom of Makuria, but it is deep and complex and, as such, better discussed than summarised. I post this in the hope of initiating that discussion.
May the Lord have Mercy and guide us to a straight path. Glorified is He above all things.
-
Peace Abd r Raheem
Great post. It was interesting to read your post.
Thanks for sharing this information with us.
-
-
So who shifted it to Saudia Arabia at its present place and when?
all the predictions of Allah in Quran are wrong? or simple the Quran was also re-written as was the history by Muslims.May Allah guide us not to fall in the trap planned against him.
The middle East and north Africa , were under zorostarian rule for 500 years, and after that, another 300 years under turkish zorostarian rule, in between, all books were burnt, "by mongolians according to their history records"
so 800 years, and add , the frensh, italian, british who colonised all the muslim countries, is more than enaugh to create 10 mekkahs in saudi arabia or wherever they wanted to.
muslims started speaking in the 19th century, under the religion or zoroastre, by nicknames sunnah and shiaa.Arabic dictionaries are all written by persians, 100% of them
Ahadith are written all by persians, all of them
arabic grammar was made by persians , all of the arabic language rulesthere is no coincidence here, the history of Mohamed was altered 1000% , we know about mohamed only what is written in the quran. even the quran that we read, we understand it backward, we don't read it straight, a satanic intrution in the arabic language, and ahadith to cover the verses of the quran, history side is easy, they just write books of history and they're done.
exemple
Nassakh, wich means in the quran Record/write, became Erase
Dhouhourihim, wich in arabic mean their back, in the quran means their apprearance.people still believe in a multiple meanings words, and this is the real trick satan inserted in the minds, there is no multiple meaning of any word. every word has a one meaning only. it just can be used in different contexts.
I don't mean "Abd r Raheem al Haq" is right of what he posted, but he could be at least partly right,
-
My question is still there and you as usual reply it through different stories read, I am interested in solid evidence. Let us see how the author of this thread answers it.
I have noticed two basic problems in your posts, one depending too much on hearsay and second claiming too big on those assertions.
Just to mention one from your many erroneous claims
Ahadith are written all by persians, all of them
Who was Abu Abdullah Mlik ibn Anas ibn Mlik Ibn Ab 'mir Ibn 'Amr Ibnul-Hrith Ibn Ghaimn Ibn Khuthail Ibn 'Amr Ibnul-Haarith?
-
My question is still there and you as usual reply it through different stories read, I am interested in solid evidence. Let us see how the author of this thread answers it.
I have noticed two basic problems in your posts, one depending too much on hearsay and second claiming too big on those assertions.
Just to mention one from your many erroneous claims
Who was Abu Abdullah Mlik ibn Anas ibn Mlik Ibn Ab 'mir Ibn 'Amr Ibnul-Hrith Ibn Ghaimn Ibn Khuthail Ibn 'Amr Ibnul-Haarith?Maik ibn anas ibn--->------------->------------------> ibn anas ibn Malek
Here is the backward of satanic fabrications.
-
That is not the answer to the question asked? Oh! I know why; because it exposes yet again your lie.
Ohh raaajah , why are you taking it this way ? i'm not here to lie, I'm telling you what I learned, what I think also, and my points of views, why calling me a liar ????
respect -
My question is still there and you as usual reply it through different stories read, I am interested in solid evidence. Let us see how the author of this thread answers it.
I have noticed two basic problems in your posts, one depending too much on hearsay and second claiming too big on those assertions.
Just to mention one from your many erroneous claims
Who was Abu Abdullah Mlik ibn Anas ibn Mlik Ibn Ab 'mir Ibn 'Amr Ibnul-Hrith Ibn Ghaimn Ibn Khuthail Ibn 'Amr Ibnul-Haarith?look at this and tell me if you find it normal !!!
Who was Abu Abdullah Mlik ibn Anas ibn Mlik Ibn Ab 'mir Ibn 'Amr Ibnul-Hrith Ibn Ghaimn Ibn Khuthail Ibn 'Amr Ibnul-Haarith ibn Mlik ibn Anas ? -
look at this and tell me if you find it normal !!!
Who was Abu Abdullah Mlik ibn Anas ibn Mlik Ibn Ab 'mir Ibn 'Amr Ibnul-Hrith Ibn Ghaimn Ibn Khuthail Ibn 'Amr Ibnul-Haarith ibn Mlik ibn Anas ?Yes it is very normal for Arabs! but any how Where is the answer? let me make it easier for you
Who is Imam, Malik ibn Anas?
Check it and be a gentle man to admit your following mistake like many others you have made while postingAhadith are written all by persians, all of them
-
Yes it is very normal for Arabs! but any how Where is the answer? let me make it easier for you
Who is Imam, Malik ibn Anas?
Check it and be a gentle man to admit your following mistake like many others you have made while postingMalik ibn anas is a myth, that is why no scholar in the muslim world has a copy of Malik ibn Anas older than 200 years. find the original, and than speak of authencity, same as bukhari, the oldest copy is a couple of hundred years old, if not the turks who wrote it.
but , if there is n copy a 1000 years old of Anas Ibn malik, how can you trust , that the original is lost, but we have a 200 years old copy !!!! time when all muslims were colonised.
U want to believe that anas ibnmalik is real, it's your choice. I personnaly , I am sure inmy belief that it's a fabrication, and it's not that old as they say. they wrote books for us and they said these are 240 years after the prophete, and in reality, even bujhari was written no more than 300 years ago. -
Hmmm. -
I'm not sure what I can add to the debate after all that's gone on, but to have a follower of al hadith attack me for being too reliant on hearsay is quiet something. What part is based on hearsay anyway? My assertion is based primarily on the Quran and established historical facts, where it is speculative, I explicitly stated that it is my own personal, original research and it should be clear to any intelligent person that it should be treated as such. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be defending against, it seems you just generally don't like what I've written. Was there something in particular you wanted me to address? -
Right...
So who shifted it to Saudia Arabia at its present place and when?
all the predictions of Allah in Quran are wrong? or simple the Quran was also re-written as was the history by Muslims.No one 'shifted it' to Saudi Arabia. I believe that Ali made a claim to an ancestral right to rule over Mohammed's followers, supported by influential elements in Persia who had been winning converts to their fake Islam even during Mohammed's lifetime, they had even directly fought battles with Mohammed and his generals and were a constant threat. This claim of Ali's was unsuccessful, in part because Uthman had established a proto-dynasty in the Levant. The Persian faction killed Uthman and declared Ali ruler over the western Muslims who prayed facing Jerusalem, as Mohammed had done, and the eastern Muslims which had no continuity from Mohammed and mostly prayed facing the Kabaa. Uthman's people went to war with the Persians, a 200 year war that only ended when the Abbasid dynasty came to power and began systematically creating their brand of Islam, a kind of Persian Catholicism that became traditionalist Islam. By this time they had already long since adopted the Kabaa as a kibla, mainly due to the fact that they had never controlled Jerusalem before that point.
The predictions of Allah? Not sure which predictions you mean exactly?
The Quran was not rewritten, the Quran does not mention anything to do with a new House of God and the history was not rewritten, it was made up freestyle in the first place.
I've done my best to answer your questions, albeit quickly, but if you care to discuss these matters respectfully, I'd be happy to go into a lot more depth.
-
Selam
A kind reminder to people who start a debate or conjecture. If possible please reference your sources so it can be varified when posting historical facts or archaeological finds or alternative views to traditional ones. This will add solidity to arguments/conjectures made rather than appearing that they are plucked from the air. This will also help us in our own research.
May Allah guide us in the right path.
Peace
-
I fully accept the need to validate such controversial claims and I'm happy to do my best to achieve that, but it would take a whole book on the subject. Perhaps one day, Inshallah, I'll write that book, but for now I just wanted to put forwards an original hypothesis regarding the Kingdom of Makuria. I got drawn into a debate with another member, but it was off topic, so I didn't give it proper treatment. I just answered his questions, which regarded my personal opinion, as frankly as I could. I'm much more interested in discussing the post I opened the thread on and any relevant matters other members raise, but I feel I should try and answer any questions put to me personally.
That said, your points are still very valid, it is important to back up claims with proper references, but even that can be difficult when the subject is ancient history, a discipline which demands a certain amount of 'filling in the gaps'. Of course, you do it objectively and you do it critically, but you do have to fill in the gaps. This is why historians and archaeologists hate one another. ;D
-
loxbox
U want to believe that anas ibnmalik is real, it's your choice. I personnaly , I am sure inmy belief that it's a fabrication, and it's not that old as they say. they wrote books for us and they said these are 240 years after the prophete, and in reality, even bujhari was written no more than 300 years ago.
I told you, you are too impress with the absurd ideas prevailing on internet, because it seems you read a lot but don't give it time to analyse, what you read.
To many Musa (AS), Issa(AS), and even Muhammad peace is upon him are myths, they never existed; there is plenty of material available on that, same as talking about Hazrat Maryam not being a VIRGIN.
To them every thing is a myth? you mentioned Zoroastrians ruled for specific period of time; I say it is a myth, What is your source for that? think twice before you answer. -
Hmmm. Undecided
I'm not sure what I can add to the debate after all that's gone on, but to have a follower of al hadith attack me for being too reliant on hearsay is quiet something. What part is based on hearsay anyway? My assertion is based primarily on the Quran and established historical facts, where it is speculative, I explicitly stated that it is my own personal, original research and it should be clear to any intelligent person that it should be treated as such. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be defending against, it seems you just generally don't like what I've written. Was there something in particular you wanted me to address?Your assertion is wrong, first no one is attacking you, second I don't see any al-hadith follower here.
What are those established historical facts? and where in the Quran it says that Makkah is some where in North Africa.No one 'shifted it' to Saudi Arabia. I believe that Ali made a claim to an ancestral right to rule over Mohammed's followers, supported by influential elements in Persia who had been winning converts to their fake Islam even during Mohammed's lifetime, they had even directly fought battles with Mohammed and his generals and were a constant threat.
Now if you don't call this hearsay; what else?
hope4
Selam
A kind reminder to people who start a debate or conjecture. If possible please reference your sources so it can be varified when posting historical facts or archaeological finds or alternative views to traditional ones. This will add solidity to arguments/conjectures made rather than appearing that they are plucked from the air. This will also help us in our own research.
May Allah guide us in the right path.
PeaceFair enough, nicely put.
-
-
loxbox
I told you, you are too impress with the absurd ideas prevailing on internet, because it seems you read a lot but don't give it time to analyse, what you read.
To many Musa (AS), Issa(AS), and even Muhammad peace is upon him are myths, they never existed; there is plenty of material available on that, same as talking about Hazrat Maryam not being a VIRGIN.
To them every thing is a myth? you mentioned Zoroastrians ruled for specific period of time; I say it is a myth, What is your source for that? think twice before you answer.You're right, There is no proof zorostarians rules arabs
but I can Assure you one thing, FRENSH rules north africa and british rules the middle east
they're both not christians but fire worshippers
the frensh wrote the Hadiths and Tabry history in Algeria-morocco-Tunisia , and the british wrote some for the middle east.
the Frensh Tabri group are the ones who wrote the whole history of Islam that you know. remember, Arab language was the international language, and every one spoke arabic, and they know the true meanings of the words of the Quran.
the east became west, and the west became east, it is a challenge they did to the LORD ALLAH.they didn't modify the words of the Quran, they couldn't alter the text , or maybe, they did some but couldnt destroy the quran, because too many people had the love of memorising the text, and they did it to protect the book of our LORD AlLLAH. so they attacked the arab tongue, they invented the arabic language with their accomplices christian lebanese and egyptians and middle east BAATH group, they invented dictionnaries for the arabic language, and hadiths to ritualise the principles of the Quran. and therefore, without altering the words, they altered the meanings.
-
the frensh wrote the Hadiths and Tabry history in Algeria-morocco-Tunisia , and the british wrote some for the middle east.
the Frensh Tabri group are the ones who wrote the whole history of Islam that you know. remember, Arab language was the international language, and every one spoke arabic, and they know the true meanings of the words of the Quran.
the east became west, and the west became east, it is a challenge they did to the LORD ALLAH.Time to wake up dear loxbox!