How Did it Come to This? (Part 1)

ayman

HOW DID IT COME TO THIS? (PART 1)

http//img202.imageshack.us/img202/1198/stone11vv.jpg http//img435.imageshack.us/img435/6402/animtawaf2fg.gif http//img202.imageshack.us/img202/5639/wall10sx.jpg http//img202.imageshack.us/img202/2245/blackstone14iw.jpg

http//img209.imageshack.us/img209/9688/blackstonekaaba1rl.jpg

INTRODUCTION

Guide us the straight path, the path of those You bestowed Your favor on, those who have not earned anger at them and not the strayers.

In the article entitled Language Barrier we have seen how even important events in Sira (the biography of the prophet) are problematic, for example, when the prophet was born and where he lived. There is no evidence of a pre-quranic town named Mecca and the evidence shows that the common noun "mecca" (destruction) in 4824 was appropriated after the great reading was revealed. So naturally, the question arises, where did the prophet really live?

Before we try to answer this question, let me say that I don't believe that it is necessarily an important question in itself. Had the answer been important then we would have been given a precise map in the great reading to find it. However, a possible value to answering this question is dispelling some of the traditional myths that surround the prophet's biography. This in turn may help us in some way or another to more clearly understand some aspects of the great reading.

WHERE DID THE PROPHET REALLY LIVE?

In our quest to find the region where the prophet really lived, we will use a somewhat different approach to previous attempts. We will use an approach based on the orthography of the great reading. In the same way that one can recognize if a scribe is British or American from the style of a person's English hand writing, the use of certain vocabulary and the spelling of certain words, we will try to use orthography to identify where the great reading was originally descended. As we saw in the article Language Barrier, Arabic was an informal common people language and not a prestigious religious or literary language of the elite. As a result, archeologists have found that up to the Islamic era and the appearance of the great reading, Arabic inscriptions were written in various scripts and there was no specific script associated with the language. Arabic writers simply used the script of prestige of the geographic area where it was written. The script of prestige was the script associated with the language of prestige in the area. In the pre-Islamic era, there were two main scripts used to write Old Arabic

The Nabataean Aramaic script. This is the script of the Nabataean Aramaic language.
The Musnad script. This script is also called Ancient South Arabian and Sabaic script and it is the script associated with the Sabaic language.

While the Musnad script became extinct shortly after the Islamic era, the Nabataean script became the Arabic script that we are all familiar with today. The following map shows the location of Old Arabic inscriptions in the Nabataean script (in red) and Musnad script (in green).

http//img329.imageshack.us/img329/7758/map18ty.jpg

In northern Arabia, southern Syria and southwestern Iraq, up to the fourth century CE, Aramaic was the language of prestige. Thus, we find that the important religious texts were in Aramaic. The distribution in the north of the Peninsula of Old Arabic texts suggests that speakers of the Old Arabic dialect were present throughout the areas where Aramaic had come to be the prestige language. It was therefore natural that when Old Arabic came to be written in these regions, the Nabataean Aramaic script was the chosen vehicle. However, unlike the Ancient South Arabian Musnad script, the late Nabataean script only had twenty-two letters to represent the twenty-eight phonemes of Arabic and thus was largely inadequate for the expression of Arabic. For example, the "B" and "T" are indistinguishable and so are the "Kh", "7a", and "J" and the "Z" and "R". Moreover, letters such as the "B", "Y", and "N" are indistinguishable in the initial and medial positions. Thus, dotting was sometimes used to resolve ambiguities. Despite those major inadequacies, the prestige of the Nabataean Aramaic script outweighed other considerations.

While the script of prestige in Northern Arabia was the Nabataean script, the script of prestige in Central Arabia and South Arabia was the Musnad script. Thus, in the Central Arabian town of Qaryat Al-Faw we find that Arabic inscriptions (see example below) were written using the Ancient South Arabian script. We also see the same phenomenon is the South at places such as Najran and Haram.

http//img344.imageshack.us/img344/9586/faw18cz.jpg
Arabic inscriptions found in Central Arabia such as the above use the Musnad script.

The prestigious script in central Arabia as demonstrated at Qaryat Al-Faw is Sabaic. So the orthography of the great reading negates a central Arabian origin. In central and south Arabia, the Sabaic script remained the prestige script until the Islamic era when it was displaced by the Nabataean Aramaic script of the great reading.

In the Roman affiliated Ghassanid provinces of northern Arabia, Greek increasingly became the prestige language of politics and religion starting around the mid fourth century CE and thus took over as the prestige religious script. This is confirmed by two pre-quranic leaves of parchment bearing a part of the Septuagint text of Psalm 78 (LXX, 77) with an Arabic explanation written in Greek script. On the other hand, in southwestern Iraq and the border areas of Northern Arabia, the Lakhmid provinces continued to use Nabataean Aramaic as the script of prestige for writing Arabic.

Given the physical archeological evidence above and the fact that there was no specific script associated with Arabic, the great reading was simply written in the script of prestige of the region where it originated. In the late sixth century CE, the Nabataean Aramaic script was the script of prestige in the Northern Arabian Lakhmid provinces and border towns, just as the Musnad script was in central Arabia. So this completely negates that the great reading was originally written in a central Arabian town such as present-day Mecca otherwise it would have been written in the far more suitable Musnad script, which was the script of prestige for that region. This also completely negates that the great reading was originally revealed in a Roman town such as Jerusalem or the Ghassanids towns around it where Greek was the prestige script. The only logical conclusion based on the evidence is that the great reading must have originated in a north Arabian Lakhmid province where Nabataean Aramaic was the prestige script.

As an interesting side note, we see in the great reading Nabataean idols such as Manat spelled using the Nabataean spelling with a medial "waw" ("mnwt") as opposed to the Arabic spelling ("mnt"). This further supports that the great reading was revealed in an area where Nabataean Aramaic was the prestige script and hence the scribes adopted the foreign Nabataean spelling of the proper name that they are used to instead of the Old Arabic spelling, which matches the Arabic pronunciation.

By connecting the locations of Old Arabic inscriptions in the Nabataean script on the map (see figure below), we get an idea of the general area where the great reading could have been originally written. Given that by the late sixth century CE, the upper parts of that area, such as Avdat and Umm Aljimal would have been under strong Roman influence and Greek would have become the prestige language, this leaves us with towns in the lower part of that area as the most likely candidates for where the great reading originated. This would be somewhere between Hegra and Hira, including towns such as Domat-Al-Jandal, Tabuk, Tayma, etc. Unlike the isolated and insignificant town later named Mecca, all those towns were significant towns on major trade routes and had diverse multi-faith populations. Thus, any of them would fit much better the description given in the great reading as "umm al-qura" (an expression akin to "mother of settlements" or "the cradle of civilization").

http//img344.imageshack.us/img344/4117/map28wx.jpg

Any of those towns in the Lakhmid provinces and border areas would also fit much better the clearly multi-faith environment where the great reading was revealed. Between the fourth and sixth century CE, Roman Christians have been persecuting other faiths such as Jews and even other Christian sects that they viewed as heretic such as Nestorians and Monophysites. As a result, those groups increasingly moved to the Lakhmid areas were they were tolerated and welcomed as a result of their opposition to the Romans. Thus, unlike Roman Christians, the Nasara are never described as being Trinitarians. In 572-73 we see that the term Nasara doesn't occur. The passage condemns as unappreciative/rejecters/"kuffar" Monophysites (572) and Roman Trinitarians (573). On the other hand, 930-33 describes the Nasara as "mushrikeen" (setting up partners) for claiming that Jesus is son of The God. The Nestorians fit this description because they rejected the Trinity and emphasized the humanity of Jesus. We know from archeological evidence that the Lakhmid areas were the main center for Nestorians.

Unlike the Roman provinces where intolerance towards other religions was rampant, it seems that paganism as well as a multitude of faiths were tolerated and continued to flourish under the Lakhmids. This plus the Christian and Jewish scholarship in the area provides the context of the multi-faith environment that the great reading was revealed in (see 2217). The area where the prophet originally lived was likely a cosmopolitan north Arabian trading border town that maintained a somewhat neutral disposition and tolerant attitude for commercial reasons. This way, they could serve as a hub and trade with the Persians, the Romans, and any other political entity in the region. Business came first.

This cosmopolitan influence is clear and hence we can see loan words into the Arabic of the great reading that have been borrowed directly from Middle Persian. Some examples are

"istabraq" brocade (7621)
"kanz" treasure (935, 934, 1112, 1882, 258, 1882, 2658, 2876)
"dirham" silver coin (1220)
"jund" army/soldiers (3628, 3675, 3811, 4424, 6720, 1975, 37173, 484, etc.)

Unlike the great reading, pre-quranic inscriptions in the Musnad script use the South Arabian word "jaysh" not "jund" for army/soldiers. Given that the Lakhmids had military alliances with the Persians, this is consistent with the great reading being revealed in a Lakhmid province or border town where Persian influence on the local Arabic dialect in the domain of military lingo would be stronger than central/south Arabian influence.

As we saw above, based on the orthographic evidence from the great reading itself and physical archeological evidence, the great reading must have originated in a north Arabian Lakhmid province or border town and not in a central Arabian area such as the area later known as Mecca. So if Mecca was not the town where the great reading was originally descended and the prophet lived, why did it take on this myth?

WHY MECCA?

To understand what really happened, we need to know that the examples that The God gives us in the great reading are directly relevant to our lives. In all the examples, the majority of people reverted to paganism and their misguided ways after they had received guidance. We know from the great reading that the people of the prophet venerated idols called Allat, Aluzza and Manat (5319-20) and this is confirmed by archeological evidence. We also need to know that there is nothing in the great reading that even remotely suggests that paganism was eradicated in Arabia and the fact that paganism continued to flourish under the Arab kingdom is confirmed by the evidence from manuscripts of independent non-Islamic sources.

With this in mind, let's observe what is going on in present day Mecca. If you go to Mecca, you will see that people are spinning seven times around a stone cube dressed in a black garment ("kiswah"). The focal point of the stone cube is what the pilgrims call the "Black Stone". It is set in the southeast corner of the stone cube precisely facing the winter sunrise. You will see the pilgrims compete to kiss the Black Stone. If you stop any of the pilgrims and ask them why they are performing the above rituals, they will answer that by performing the above rituals, their sins will be forgiven and they will return as if they are newborns.

The precise alignment of the Black Stone with the winter sunrise is not coincidental. Allat, the main idol of the prophet's people, was a fertility goddess and this is confirmed by archeological evidence from Nabataean sites. As typical of such fertility goddesses their symbols and rituals are related to the sun. In this case, the direction of the winter sunrise marks the location where the sun is "reborn". Now if you take a closer look, you will see that the enclosure of the Black Stone is in the shape of a dilated female vulva and the Black Stone is in the shape of the crown of the head of the newborn baby deity as it is coming out of the vulva.

Come closer yet and you will see that people are kissing the head of the newborn baby deity. Kissing the head is an ancient Arab tradition for asking for forgiveness. So kissing the top of the head of the newborn idol as traditionally done to ask for forgiveness, results in the pagan's sins being wiped out as if he or she was a newborn.

Hang around for a while and you will observe that people spin seven times around the Black Stone. A pre-quranic manuscript written by Epiphanius in the fourth century CE describes the ritual of spinning seven times as part of the birth festivals of the Nabataean idols Allat and Dhushara around the winter solstice. The number seven was considered sacred in Arab and pagan symbolism in general because of the five sacred planets plus the sun and the moon that the ancients venerated. To this day many people in the Arab world celebrate what is termed in Arabic Subu', which is a traditional festival that takes place on the seventh day after the birth of a newborn and on the seventh day after a pilgrims' return. Like the pagan pilgrimage that we observed and Epiphanius described, as part of the Subu' birth celebrations, people traditionally go around the house seven times while carrying the newborn baby.

Observe the pilgrims some more and you will see some of them running between two hills. Ask one of them why they do it and he or she will answer that this ritual is symbolic for looking for water for a newborn child. In all the above empirical observations, one can immediately see the strong connection between ideology, rituals and symbols that form concerted pagan celebrations of a fertility goddess giving birth. Those pagan rituals and symbols were simply appropriated into the new popular religion.

As a goddess of fertility, this would make Allat equivalent to the Greek goddess Aphrodite. This would also make her equivalent to the Roman goddess Venus, the Semitic goddess Astarte/Ashtoreth, the Mesopotamian Ishtar, the Vedic goddess Kali, the Anatolian Cybele, and Frigga in the Norse mythos. Such fertility mother goddess was worshipped all over the ancient world under various names. Interestingly, black stones like the one in Mecca are commonly associated with such goddesses. For example, the following picture shows a black stone that was venerated at the Temple of Aphrodite, near Paphos, Cyprus.

http//img322.imageshack.us/img322/9480/aphroditeblackstone12kq.gif
Black stone of Aphrodite

Black phallic stones were also widely associated with the cult of Cybele, the ancient Anatolian fertility goddess; and similar egg-shaped black stones are, to this day, revered in Indian temples to the Hindu fertility goddess Kali, who is also known as Black Mother.

Interestingly, according to Greek mythology Aphrodite's beauty is kept in a black cube. Allat has a particularly strong association with Aphrodite because Aphrodite is the Hellenized Allat. In post-quranic times we hear from Roman Christian sources about Aphrodite being worshipped by Arab pagans as late as the 8th century, long after the death of the prophet. So paganism was not eradicated in Arabia as traditions contend but remained and reemerged.

Cyprus, the island of Aphrodite is also home to the highly venerated Hala Sultan Tekke shrine (many consider it the third holiest shrine of Islam). Like the shrine in Mecca, it too has a black rock, said to have fallen as a meteorite as part of the tritholon over the shrine. The shrine is also to a woman named Umm Haram, the alleged foster mother of the prophet.

Another interesting common thread that runs through several of those idols is that they all had association with Friday. For example, Ashtoreth is connected to Friday. So is Venus, where the Romans named Friday after her as "dies veneris". The very name Friday is derived from the Norse goddess, Frigga. When the Germanic tribes invaded England they imposed their goddess upon the day meant to honor Venus. The day was called Frigedaeg, which gradually became "Friday". I don't think that it is a coincidence that Friday also became the "holy day" for sectarians who venerate Allat/Aphrodite and her black cube and Black Stone.

Also another interesting commonality is that such fertility goddesses were often veiled. Like the fertility goddess Cybele's veil, which covered her whole body, Allat's stone cube was also veiled with a black "dress". This practice of veiling the stone cube of the female goddess (and females in general) with a black dress continues to this day.

There is nothing particularly unique or amazing about what I am saying. All prior nations have reverted to paganism to one degree or another shortly after the death of their prophet. We can see this, for example, in Christianity's appropriation of pagan symbols and festivals such as Christmas. This is human nature. To think that we are somehow unlike other humans is nothing more than arrogant denial. This is in line with what the great reading tells us

And the majority of them do not have faith in The God except while they are idolaters.

If we believe in 12106, then we must know that the majority of people who have faith in The God are idolaters who associate idols such as Allat with The God as we saw above. If those idolaters who are the majority wanted to maintain their illogical and indefensible pagan symbols and rituals while avoiding logical criticism, then what better way than to claim that the prophet himself did like they do and that their pagan symbols are mentioned in the great reading? By hijacking the common noun "maka(t)"/destruction in the great reading (4824) an insignificant town with a small pagan temple became the rallying center of paganism. Sometime in the late Umayyad - early Abbasid era is when this location seems to have gained importance and the reintroduction of Allat's beloved pagan symbols and rituals under the guise of the new religion was completed.

How were billions of men and women who profess to trust in The God and the great reading tricked into serving Allat by adoring her stone symbols and performing her rituals? In a twist of irony, as many of those men and women aged and estimated that death is near, they hastened to go to Allat believing that kissing her newborn's stone head or even just waving at it and spinning seven times around her stone cube would make them sinless. They believed that by doing those mindless rituals and honoring those inert objects they were doing something good. They thought that they would die in peace and go to heaven. Alas, in reality they were committing unforgivable idolatry and buying their way to unavoidable hell. Those people are not nameless and faceless. They are most of our forefathers, our grandparents, our parents, our loved ones, us and probably our children. How did it come to this? Indeed, this is the question we need to try to answer next from the great reading so that perhaps we can protect them from a fire whose fuel is people and stones, if The God willed. To be continued...

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER

This is the book no doubt in it, a guidance for the forethoughtful.

This article reflects my personal interpretation of the verses of the reading as of January 5, 2006. I will try to improve my understanding of the great reading and the universe, except if The God wills and perhaps my Lord guides me to what is nearer in rationality. Please verify all information within for yourself as commanded in 1736, and remember that simply "none" is the forethoughtful answer to 456. If The God willed, the outcome of this article will be beneficial.

NOTES
MCA Macdonald, "Reflections on the linguistic map of pre-Islamic Arabia." Arabian arch. epig. 2000 11 28?79.
The fragment was first published in Violet B. Ein zweisprachiges Psalmfragment aus Damascus and was recently restudied by M.C.A. Macdonald who has demonstrated that it dates to the pre-Islamic period.
For example, see Hoyland, R., Seeing Islam as others saw it, The Darwin Press Princeton, NJ, 2001 105-106, 485-486.

KGB

Salaam Alleikum Dr. Ayman,

Very interesting as always.

Friday which is believed to be religious day is actually mentioned in Qur'an its not taken from the Pagan religious day.

ayman

Peace KGB, all,

Very interesting as always.
Friday which is believed to be religious day is actually mentioned in Qur'an its not taken from the Pagan religious day.

Thank you for your kind comment. Before the loss of forum data, you had asked the following. Fortunately, I had saved some of the posts to answer them later. So here it is.

There is a verse in Qur'an which is regarding Friday 629 and in this article you are saying that Friday is Pagan religious day. When the call for prayer is called on close your businesses and after prayers we are allowed to go back to the business for the day.
Please clarify this.

The word "jum3a(t)" simply means "assembly". There was no day of the week called Al-Jum3a(t). Even sectarians admit that in pre-quranic times Friday used to be called Al-'Aruba not Al-Jum3a(t).

So "ywm al-jum3a(t)" literally means "the day/time of assembly". It is anytime people are assembled. Such gatherings are simply a good opportunity to remind people by reciting the great reading.

Peace and all best wishes,

Ayman

KGB

Salaam Alleikum Dr. Ayman,

Thank you for explaining "ywm al-jum3a(t)". This makes more sense than gathering once in a week on Friday like Christians Sunday service. When the call for prayer is announced gather for prayers daily.

Thank you again.

The_Sufi

On the other hand, 930-33 describes the Nasara as "mushrikeen" (setting up partners) for claiming that Jesus is son of The God. The Nestorians fit this description because they rejected the Trinity and emphasized the humanity of Jesus.

This is careless misinformation. There are two words for Christians used in the Quran. Nasaari and Nasraani. Nasraani are certainly Nestorians. Nestorians regard Isa (PBUH) as a human with a human Nafs but also a perfect and fully divine element within his Nafs. They worship his divinity not his humanity and objected to the phrase Mother of God used by the Monophysites. The problem with them is that they do not realize that every created system has this divinity (Ruhullah min Allah) in it, not just Isa (PBUH).

Nasaari are the same as the Jewish Notzrim, and must be a general word for all monophysite christians irrespective of denomination i.e. anyone who does not make distinction between the divinity and humanity within a creation but regards them as (eaud ballah mn shaitaan alrajeem) mixed or to put it simply someone who believes that Allah can be a created thing (subahanallah mustafaallah). I literally shuddered to type such a thing, so High exhaulted be Allah (SWT) beyond all they associate with him.

Amyway the point was that ayman's info is inaccurate.

ayman

Peace Sufi,

This is careless misinformation. There are two words for Christians used in the Quran. Nasaari and Nasraani.

The word which is Nasaari/Nsaara with the final Yaa pronounced as a long /a/ (262;111;113;120;135;140, 514;18;51;69;82, 930, 2217) is the plural of the word (367).

Nasraani are certainly Nestorians. Nestorians regard Isa (PBUH) as a human with a human Nafs but also a perfect and fully divine element within his Nafs. They worship his divinity not his humanity and objected to the phrase Mother of God used by the Monophysites. The problem with them is that they do not realize that every created system has this divinity (Ruhullah min Allah) in it, not just Isa (PBUH).

Nasaari are the same as the Jewish Notzrim, and must be a general word for all monophysite christians irrespective of denomination i.e. anyone who does not make distinction between the divinity and humanity within a creation but regards them as (eaud ballah mn shaitaan alrajeem) mixed or to put it simply someone who believes that Allah can be a created thing (subahanallah mustafaallah). I literally shuddered to type such a thing, so High exhaulted be Allah (SWT) beyond all they associate with him.

It is ungrammatical to say that " are certainly Nestorians" because is singular not plural.

It is also contradictory to say that the word means a Nestorian while its plural does not mean Nestorians.

Amyway the point was that ayman's info is inaccurate.

Yes, the info about who the Nasara were could be inaccurate. This is why I disagree with you that they were "certainly Nestorians" and I would never claim that. They could have been Ebionites or another of the many Christian or Christian-Jewish sects that settled in the Lakhmid provinces as a result of Roman Christian persecution of sects they viewed as heretic. Regardless of who Nasara were, the points in the article still stand. I am very much open to better interpretations of who Nasara were but it is going to have to be based on more solid evidence and not on confusing singular and plural in Arabic.

Peace,

Ayman

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