Page 1 of 25

Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 7:49 pm
by The Cat
Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.
This thread will focus on the historical Muhammad: The Islamic tradition vs Western scholarship.

Part one: -The Year of the Elephant
The Islamic tradition says that Muhammad was born in the Year of the Elephant, that's 570.
This event is related to the invasion of Southern Saudi Arabia by king Abraha who marched
on Mecca, his elephant (named 'Mahmud') refusing to enter the city, not to harm the Ka'ba!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraha
http://www.muhammadanreality.com/yearelephant.htm

This event is recorded in sura 105 (Chr.19th):
-Hast thou not seen how thy Lord dealt with the owners of the Elephant ?
-Did He not bring their stratagem to naught,
-And send against them swarms of flying creatures,
-Which pelted them with stones of baked clay,
-And made them like green crops devoured (by cattle) ?
:sadangel:

That's already mythical enough but we found an inscription infirming 570 and without any mention to Mecca.
As a matter of fact it is also proving sura 105 a rotten baloney, as the Northern Arabs -lost- to king Abraha.
Image

The inscription is now dated 552ce and reads:
"With the power of the Almighty, and His Messiah King Abraha Zeebman, the King of Saba'a, Zuridan, and Hadrmaut and Yemen and the tribes (on) the mountains and the coast wrote these lines on his battle against the tribe of Ma'ad (in) the battle of al-Rabiya in the month of "Dhu al Thabithan" and fought all of Bani A'amir and appointed the King Abi Jabar with Kinda and Al, Bishar bin Hasan with Sa'ad, Murad, and Hadarmaut in front of the army against Bani Amir of Kinda. and Al in Zu Markh valley and Murad and Sa'ad in Manha valley on the way to Turban and killed and captured and took the booty in large quantities and the King and fought at Halban and reached Ma'ad and took booty and prisoners, and after that, conquered Omro bin al-Munzir. (Abraha) appointed the son (of Omro) as the ruler and returned from Hal Ban (halban) with the power of the Almighty in the month of Zu A'allan in the year sixty-two and six hundred."

http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9389.0;wap2
As one can clearly see, the Abraha expedition is described in detail and contrary to the fairy tales that we heard from Ibn Ishaq and traditionalists there is absolutely no mention of anything related to Kaaba or Makka. The inscription doesn't mention elephants. Given the fact is that it would have been highly impractical to bring elephants into the desert and carry their weight in water, I would say that Abraha did not use elephants. (...)

As you may have noticed, the story of Abraha as told in the inscription is kind of dull and with no happy ending for the Arabs. On the other hand, the hearsay tales from the likes of Ibn Ishaq are filled with amazing details, suspense, and drama. They capture people's imagination with the amazing detail of the character of an old frail man (the fictitious Abd Al-Mutilib) standing in the path of the Army of Abraha. The stories have special effects of amazing creatures (the elephants) and gore (the flesh and blood flowed like water and the skin of Abraha and his soldiers falling off and exposing the bones, etc.). These hearsay stories that the Arabs concocted two hundred years after the fact have very high entertainment value and appeal to the masses much as Hollywood flicks often do. However, they have no value for those interested in the truth. (...)

As a side note, the date on the inscription converts to 552AD. According to traditionalists accounts of the sira/story of the prophet, he was born in the year of Abraha's expedition and they say that he was born in 570AD. So this pushes back the date of birth of the prophet by about 20 years. This creates a big problem for traditionalists. They now either have to revise the entire Sira/story of the prophet or they have to give up all their Hadiths. This is for the simple reason that all the chains of transmission of their "Sahih" Hadiths will now be broken as a result of pushing back the dates by 20 years.


Indeed, with the Year of the Elephant dated 552, the whole traditional account of Muhammad (570-632) falls down! (Muhammad = ?-?).

Added by editing:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Response ... man_av.htm
A far greater problem for the Islamic traditions is that the Sabean date on this inscription is 552 A.D. According to the most recent scholarship, Abraha died in 553 A.D. or shortly thereafter – but, according to the Muslims, Muhammad was born in 570 A.D. So, if we want to believe the Muslim traditions concerning Abraha, we have to push Muhammad's birth back 15, 16 or even 18 years. This has enormous consequences for much of early Islamic history. If Muhammad was born 18 years earlier, when did Muhammad begin to receive revelations? When did the Hijrah occur? When did Muhammad die? When did various battles take place, and when did the first four Caliphs reign? This is potentially messing up everything that Muslims believe about their early history. Moreover, this may cast doubt on much of the Islamic Traditions. The accuracy of their so-called "Sahih" Hadiths cannot be trusted because the "chains of transmission" may now be broken - most events in the life of Muhammad has been pushed back 18 years and gaps are bound to open up somewhere in the chains between Muhammad and the time of Bukhari, Muslim, and the other collectors. (...)

Muhammad ibn al-Sa'ib (died 726 A.D.) said that Muhammad was born 15 years before the "Year of the Elephant". Ja'far ibn Abi 'l-Mughira (died early 8th century A.D.) dates Muhammad's birth 10 years after the "Year of the Elephant", while Al-Kalbi tells us that Shu'ayb ibn Ishaq (died 805 A.D.) said that Muhammad was born 23 years after this event. Al-Zuhri (died 742 A.D.) believed that Muhammad was born 30 years after the "Year of the Elephant", while Musa ibn 'Uqba (died 758) believed that Muhammad was born 70 years later!8 If we assume that the "Year of the Elephant" was 570 A.D., then Muhammad could have been born anytime between 555 A.D. and 640 A.D. and could have died anytime between 615 A.D. and 700 A.D.! How can we trust any of the hadiths? The "transmitters" cited by the hadith may not have been alive during Muhammad's lifetime, to witness the events which they are believed to have "transmitted". The problem of dating Muhammad's birth date is an issue that not only affects the hadith traditions; but also affects the reliability of the history of the Quran's collection and compilation.

All the hadiths and sirah of the prophet, the whole chain of oral transmissions gets derailed, obsolete. Kaput... Kapishe! :bye:

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 4:34 am
by Ibn Rushd
Lawrence Conrad wrote about this (and was reprinted in Ibn Warraq's Quest for the Historical Muhammad), and also M. J. Kister before him in JESHO (Journal for the Economic Study of the History of the Orient). The gist of this is that Muhammad was born "40" years before his prophetic calling. "40" in semitic religions (eg. Judaism, Babylonian, Islamic) merely means "the right time", or "a lot". Conrad brings up the references to 40, 400, 40 000 in the Islamic conquest literature and there they usually mean "many troops" not necessarily associated with that number, or someone was old enough to fill a certain post. In no way does this "at the right age" give us his proper birth year (see also Moses in Exodus with "40" years in the desert).

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 5:26 am
by The Cat
Part 2: When Was There a Mecca?
Many Western scholars, particularly Patricia Crone in her 'Meccan Trade And The Rise of Islam' investigated about the Islamic holy city, just to find out there were no known place of that name in the 7th century, although the nearby Ta'if was reported along with Khaybar and Yathrib (Medina). According to the Islamic tradition, it was already a major trading center as well as a pilgrim sanctuary, led by the powerful 'Quraysh' tribe. Nothing of the sort is given in any found inscriptions throughout Arabia, before Islam was well established, in the very beginning of the 8th century. We've seen in the Abraha inscription that there is no mention of Mecca, nor of the 'Quraysh'.

The Koran never mentions Mecca by name except in 48.24 which is a very late Medina sura (111th), so I wondered. But thanks to this Koran-Only Muslim site, the answer is given: MK or MKK never meant a city, but is the Arabic for destruction, utter devastation.

A mind blowing thread, a must to read...
http://www.free-minds.org/language
MAKKA(T)
It is not surprising that the inscription of Abraha doesn't mention or even allude to a town called Maka(t). There is zero evidence for a town named Maka(t) prior to the revelation of the great reading and all sides of the debate on the historicity of Maka(t) agree that the name Maka(t) doesn't occur in any "pre-quranic" inscriptions. Those promoting the historicity of Makka are forced to bring the only one reference by Ptolmey to an insignificant town by the name of Macoraba and not Maka(t) for the simple reason that they know very well that there are absolutely no references to the supposedly important town of Maka(t). This despite the fact that there are many references, including the above Abraha's inscription, to far less important towns in Arabia than this alleged Makka(t).

According to classical Arabic dictionaries, the word "maka(t)" mainly means "destruction/wearing down", among other meanings. It is listed in classical Arabic dictionaries under either MKK or MK. Al-Mohit lists it under MKK, the meaning given is destruction and wearing down which is consistent with the context of standoff in 48:24. It also lists the meaning of TMKK as an adversary's insistence on something, which is also consistent with the standoff in 48:24.

Lisan Al-Arab lists it under MK and the meaning of MK(t) is given as "destruction" and TMK as "destroy". Al-Wasit lists it under MK, the meanings given are: sucking everything out, insisting on revenge from an adversary, and the thing, which is worn down or destroyed. Al-Ghani lists it under MKK, the meanings given are: sucking, insisting with demands on an adversary.

Here is a translation of 48:24 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.'' I used Yusuf Ali's translation but while he left "maka(t)" un-translated I didn't. As one can see, the clear classical Arabic meaning fits perfectly in the context of the military standoff in verse 48:24.

Based on the context from the great reading/"quran", linguistic evidence from Arabic dictionaries, and the lack of any evidence supporting that there was a "pre-quranic" town by the name of Maka(t), the only logical unbiased conclusion is that "maka(t)" is not the name of "pre-quranic" town but is simply a mundane common noun like thousands of others in the great reading/"quran". (...)


The article follows with a study of ka'aba
KAABA(T)
There is absolutely zero evidence of a "pre-quranic" shrine called Kaaba(t). There is an abundance of "pre-quranic" shrines in Arabia and none of them is described as Kaaba(t) in any of the thousands of inscriptions on or around those shrines. In fact, the name Kaaba(t) cannot be found in any "pre-quranic" inscriptions or manuscripts.

We know from the great reading that the "pre-quranic" Arabs adored idols named Allat, Aluzza, and Manwat (see 53:19-20). Those are all Nabataean idols. While Greco-Roman people have always represented their deities with human form, the Nabataeans represented their deities with geometric forms such as square stone blocks, sacred meteorites, or square shapes carved into a stone wall and sometimes enhanced with schematic eyes and nose. Historical sources, such as the Suda Lexicon, state that the Nabataean idol Dhu Al-Shaara's statue is an un-worked square black stone. Maximus of Tyre comments in his book Philosophoumena in the 2nd century AD, that the Arabs had a statue, which was a square stone. There is abundant archeological evidence that stone cubes like the one in the town presently called Maka(t) whose height is slightly longer than the other dimensions is a representation of the idol Dhu Al-Shaara. The pictures below depict some of the archeological evidence in Northern Arabia and Nabataean outposts. (...)

The term "ka'ab" is used in Arabic to describe the heel/base of the shoe. In rural areas of Northern Arabia, people still use the expression "ka'ab al-wadi" to denote the base of the valley. Hence, the meaning of "kaaba(t) is "base". That meaning fits the context of 5:95 and 5:97: The God has made the base the restriction house maintenance for the people and the restriction month and the gift/guidance and the means of control so that you know that The God knows what is in the heavens and the earth and that The God is knowledgeable with everything. The house is the "base" where people can assemble safely. 2:125. And We made the house an assembly for the people and a safety and take from the persistence of Ibrahim a lesson and We made a covenant to Ibrahim and Ismail that cleanse my house for the passers by, and the remaining, and the humbly hearing and obeying.

This is a natural non-forced meaning like the house of representatives is the base of legislation where they assemble safely to make laws.


That's not all!!!!!!!! Now the author (calling himself 'Brother Ayman') shows how the Hajj is a complete invention
from 'the traditionalists' with no Koranic base at all. There were some typos ("7ajj") I hopefully corrected well.
Debunking the sanctity of the Hajj
As we saw earlier, Arabic was a common people language and not a scholarly or religious one. Thus, any religious meaning attached to an Arabic word is suspect and should be investigated thoroughly before it is accepted. In the great reading, we find an interesting phenomenon. Words with religious connotation in modern English such as "prayer" and "worship" do not occur at all in the great reading. For example, the word "dua'a", which is traditionally understood as "prayer", doesn't have a religious connotation and is used many times in the great reading in mundane usages that have nothing to do with "prayer" (for example, see 28:25). Hence, it is best translated as "calling upon" and not as "prayer". Similarly, the word "'abad", which is traditionally understood as "worship", is better understood as "serve" (for example, see 16:75, 2:221).

The term "deen" is traditionally understood as "religion". However, one can see that it is used in many instances to mean "obligation" (for example, see 56:86, 2:282, 4:11-12). The common non-religious Arabic meaning of "obligation" actually fits better in all the occurrence of "deen" in the great reading (see: What's in the name?).

The term "hajj" is traditionally understood as "religious pilgrimage". However, a closer study of the great reading reveals that the term has nothing to do with organized clergy-based religious pilgrimages. For example, we hear in 22:27: And announce amongst people with the debate. They will come on foot and on every kind of lean transportation. They will come through every unobstructed passage. In 22:27 that Ibrahim invited people with/"bi" the debate/"al-Hajj" and not to/"li" the debate/"al-Hajj" to witness benefits. Thus, the debate/"hajj" is a tool to attract different people from all over. One could only invite all people with something beneficial and non-discriminatory.

We are told in 28:27 that Moses was hired to work for eight debates/"Hijaj". What was hired to do? Clearly, he was hired to work and tend for sheep (28:23-24) and not for any religious pilgrimage. What does working and tending sheep has to do with the debate/"H'ajj"? Naturally, people work and produce so that they can bargain with their products. Bargaining is a kind of debate and it results in witnessing benefits by the seller and the buyer. Thus, the debate/"al-H'ajj" is like the annual fair where people work all year and then go to sell and/or buy products. Mid summer - early fall is the natural time for such markets because produce and livestock are plentiful (see: Blind Dating Versus Perfect Timing). The large gathering of the debate/"H'ajj" provides a good opportunity to remind as many people as possible of The God. It is also an opportunity for the advantaged to donate and provide for the disadvantaged. This is confirmed by 22:28-29 where we are told about the purpose of the debate/"H'ajj": So that they may witness benefits for themselves and remember The God’s name in a few days over what He Has provided for them of the animal livestock. So eat from it and feed the needy and the poor. Then they would complete their duties and fulfill their vows, and would pass by the freeing house.

The restriction house is simply the place where people safely assemble to communicate and conduct the debate without fear of oppression. This restriction house helps spread freedom because oppressed people who come there and freely debate experience an environment free of oppression and they take that experience with them to induce freedom in their own communities. Debate is an essential process for accountability and dissemination of the best ideas in any free society. Thus, the concept of debate/"Hajj" has nothing to do with any special holy pilgrimage. It is an entirely common concept.


We're now left without a proper Year of the Elephant (552, not 570) to determine the birth of Muhammad,
Without any holy city in the 7th century (MK meaning destruction in 48.24), and without any worthy Ka'aba.

More so, the Hajj was a common Arabic term for debate, nothing to do with a renowned pilgrim sanctuary.

Looks like our Muslims have been fooled from the first. But then what about the historical Muhammad?
Was there any? If there was one, where is he most probably coming from, if not from 'Mecca'.

Koran talks about Beca in 3.96 as the initial sanctuary of all believers. We'll have a look at that and much more.

Stay tune...

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 9:18 pm
by The Cat
Ibn Rushd wrote:Lawrence Conrad wrote about this (and was reprinted in Ibn Warraq's Quest for the Historical Muhammad), and also M. J. Kister before him in JESHO (Journal for the Economic Study of the History of the Orient). The gist of this is that Muhammad was born "40" years before his prophetic calling. "40" in semitic religions (eg. Judaism, Babylonian, Islamic) merely means "the right time", or "a lot".....

Indeed, Ibn Rushd. My lead was effectively Mr. Conrad which led me to the above article, while searching 'Abraha'.

Ibn Warraq: The Quest for the Historical Muhammad (a review)
http://www.skeptically.org/enlightenment/id3.html
The complete unreliability of the Muslim tradition as far as dates are concerned has been demonstrated by Lawrence Conrad. After close examination of the sources in an effort to find the most likely birth date for Muhammad--traditionally `Am al-fil, the Year of the Elephant, 570 C.E.--Conrad remarks that: 'Well into the second century A.H. scholarly opinion on the birth date of the Prophet displayed a range of variance of eighty-five years. . . ." Indeed, it appears that the only secure date anywhere in the whole saga of the origins of Islam is 622 C.E., which has been confirmed from dated coinage as marking the beginning of a new era. (...) It was not until the manufacture of Hadiths (Prophetic traditions) got under way in the second Islamic century that all these vague notions were absorbed and particularized in the detailed sunnt an-nabi (Sunna of the Prophet). . . . Muhammad, as Prophet and mouthpiece for the universal diety Allah, is an invention of the ulama of the second and third centuries A.H. (pp.102-105).

Non-Arab contemporary accounts: We conclude that the local sources written before the early eighth century provide no evidence for a planned invasions of Arabs from the Peninsula, nor for great battles which crushed the Byzantine army; nor do they mention any caliph before Mu`awiya, who by contrast is clearly a historical figure fully attested from several works. The picture the contemporary literary sources provide is rather of raids of the familiar type. And the raiders stayed because they found no military opposition. We suggest, on this and other evidence, that what took place was a series of raids and minor engagements, which gave rise to stories among the Arab newcomers of How We Beat the Romans; these were later selected and embellished in late Umayyad and early ~Abbasid times to form an Official History of the Conquest.

The ayyam nature of these accounts explains why the written versions of the Traditional Muslim account disagree with each other concerning the names of battles, of commanders, the number of participants and casualties, and so on. Furthermore, if we are to judge from this literature, we must conclude that the mass of Arab tribesman were pagan at the time of their influx into the Fertile Crescent, and remained so throughout the seventh century; the governing elite adopted a simple form of monotheism, basically Judaeo-Christian, which may be discerned in an account of official Christian dealings with Arab governor during the early years of Mu`awiya's rule (the 640s/20s) (page 433). Archaeological evidence: archaeological evidence thus indicates that Byzantium began to withdraw militarily from al-Sham (Syria) already a hundred years before the Sassanian forays started in 604 C.E.. This section of the book goes on to describe additional archaeological evidence that conflicts with the official-religious account. Coinage, for example, does not until 71 A.H. contain "either the name Muhammad or any specifically Islamic phrases." (pp. 435-36).


And archaeological evidences also points out that the direction of the most ancients Qibla wasn't towards Mecca as late as 705,
like the Amr b. al As mosque of Cairo, or The Wasit mosque in Iraq, thus agreeing with Balahhuri’s testimony (called the Futuh)
that the Qibla of the first mosque in Kufa, Iraq, supposedly constructed in 670 lay to the west, while it should have pointed almost
directly south. Corroborating the eyewitness testimony of Jacob of Edessa who maintained that the Mahgraye (written Mhaggraye,
Saracens) in Egypt prayed facing east and not south or south-east. Therefore, as late as 705, Mecca had not yet been canonized.

I think we should realize that in the 7th century Arabic wasn't the religious language, but Nabataean. Much like Latin in the West.
This explain with Muhammad was called 'Ummi' wrongly translated as illiterate. Ummi in Aramaic and Hebrew mean 'profane', or
'secular' (laity) in opposition to what is sacred. It means the common folks unlettered in the sacred literature...

http://www.free-minds.org/language
Looking back at archeological evidence from the period before the great reading was descended, we see a very interesting phenomenon. We see plenty of inscriptions in Arabic. However, those inscriptions are mostly informal writings that do not talk about formal religious or political affairs. They are like graffiti written by average people. They talk about average people's issues such as hunting, finding water, tribes and families, the caring for livestock, love, grief, and other normal everyday aspects of desert life.

On the other hand, in the same areas of Arabia where those informal Arabic graffiti are found, thousands of Nabataean inscriptions can be found. (...) 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. More importantly, this archaeological evidence is confirmed by the sign in 16:103 that clearly points out to Arabic not being the language of religious teachings. (...)

Based on 16:103, we found out that Arabic was not a language of religion but was a language of the common people. This would explain how the term "ummi" which comes from "ummat"/people came to mean "illiterate". This would also explain verses such as 62:2 and 3:75 where the meaning of "illiterate" doesn't make any sense because certainly not all the people of the prophet were illiterate and neither was he. (...)

Arabic was a common people language and not a scholarly or religious one. Thus, any religious meaning attached to an Arabic word (in the Koran) is suspect and should be investigated thoroughly before it is accepted.

I fully agree with this and debated such matter in the Old Forum...
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewt ... 48#1089048

The illiteracy of Muhammad is another fabrication meant to state that the Quran was a miracle.
Yet the miracle is rather found in the bottomless gullibility of the Muslims, which is deafening!

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 11:16 pm
by Ibn Rushd
Interesting that this info is found on Qur'an only muslim site!!!

The important point they bring forward is that Arabic was not the religious language. It would appear then the Qur'an was designed to be the first Arabic religious work, sort of like the move to vernaculars in the Catholic Church today, and Justinian allowing Greek in Synagogues since many didn't understand Hebrew.

I also found in John Penrice's lexicon that nabat came to mean "fool", so they were implicitly saying that the religious or ruling class was foolish or they were forming a break from the past. This might prove fruitful research in the future.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 11:50 pm
by Wootah
amazing. bookmarked to read. Articles like need to be saved in case he takes it down.
http://www.free-minds.org/language

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 8:04 am
by Ibn Rushd
There are some articles there about 19 too. Even a debate btw Ayman and Edip Yuksel. Very interesting.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:10 am
by The Cat
History of the Arabic Alphabet...
Noops, it wasn't invented somewhere down the seventh heaven, nor in between.
But rather first in tumultuous Hira (Iraq) later to become Kufa (the Kufic script).
It is a monumental form of Kufic that we find on the Dome of the Rock and it's
in Kufic that two of our oldest Koran (Samarkand and Topkapi) are written...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... scriptions
The Arabic alphabet evolved either from the Nabataean, or (less widely believed) from the Syriac...... In the 2nd century AD, the first known records of the Nabataean alphabet were written, in the Aramaic language (which was the language of communication and trade), but including some Arabic language features: the Nabataeans did not write the language which they spoke. They wrote in a form of the Aramaic alphabet, which continued to evolve; it separated into two forms: one intended for inscriptions (known as "monumental Nabataean") and the other, more cursive and hurriedly written and with joined letters, for writing on papyrus. This cursive form influenced the monumental form more and more and gradually changed into the Arabic alphabet.

The first recorded text in the Arabic alphabet was written in AD 512. It is a trilingual dedication in Greek, Syriac and Arabic found at Zabad in Syria. This version of the Arabic alphabet used includes only 22 letters, of which only 15 are different, being used to note 28 phonemes..... Pre-Islamic Arabic inscriptions in the Arabic alphabet are very few; only 5 are known for certain. These mostly do not use dots, making them sometimes difficult to interpret, as many letters are the same shape as other letters.

So this confirms what we've seen above: Nabataeans didn't write in the language they spoke (Arabic).
The common language was rather written down on papyrus which, later, evolved into the Koranic script.

Kufic script: Image

Here again, the root of the Koran points somewhere else than Central Arabia... Unless al-Hira (Iraq) is 'Mecca' (?!?).
I believe that the only true recension was made by al-Hajjaj ibn Yūsuf around 710. The rest is Islamic hagiography.

Oh yeah... about the Year of the Elephant, that was something invented by Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib, founder of
the Abbaside dynasty. He maintained to be a descendant from Abdu'l-Muttalib, the hero of the Islamic legend...

More reflections on the Year of the Elephant and sura 105
http://www.free-minds.org/petra
To assert their legitimacy, the bani-Hashim, who would later become the Abbasids, start to promote the victory of the Arabs lead by Abdul-Muttalib against Abraha... The Abbasids officially base their claim to the caliphate on their descent from Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib: This alone is a clear indication as to why they would be inclined to promote an event such as this.

An extremely perplexing account in early Muslim conquests is that of the battle of Qadisiyyah. This battle was fought against the Sassanid/Pehlavi forces in 636 AD. The Persian army's war elephants terrified the Arab cavalry, and succeeded in creating mass confusion among the Arab fighters for two days straight. By the third day of battle, the Muslim army succeeded in frightening the Persian elephants through various improvised tricks. When an Arab warrior succeeded in slaying the lead elephant, the rest fled into the rear and trampled the enemy soldiers. The Arabs continued to advance their attacks during the night. (...) Why does it seem that Qadisiyyah is where Arabs fought an army with elephants for the first time? (...)

Think of an elephant trying to brave the travel, especially when it feeds on tons of leaves and vegetation after every mile. Furthermore, an elephant stays in the shade or in pools of water, and even pours mud on itself to keep cool. The scorching hot sand is hardly something even the African desert elephant would be inclined to put on itself. If Abraha used elephants in his expedition, could they have survived in the harsh weather conditions of the Arabian desert? Simply put, to have elephants make their way from Yemen to Mecca would be quite an arduous task given the harsh conditions, all the more reason for the absense of elephants from the inscription being a vital indicator that no elephants were used.

Moreover, the expedition by Abraha ended with his victory and return to his capital according to the inscription. This is almost two decades before the alleged "Year of the Elephant". There is no mention of a second expedition in historic accounts, which means he must have fought and defeated every Arab tribe he came across. Further, it concludes that if the Meccans fought against Abraha at Mecca, they were decisively defeated by him. The above inscription is irrefutable evidence that would send shivers down the spine of a traditionalist. Furthermore, Chapter 105 speaks of the "People of the Elephant" and certainly not Abraha's army.

Should that be, it would underline that the Koran wasn't yet fix by 636 and so I certainly believe...

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:02 am
by The Cat
Part 2b: Where Was There A Mecca?
Thanks to 'brother Ayman' of free-mind.org we now know that the root MKK (Mekka) really mean 'destruction' or 'wearing down'.
We found out that the Kaaba is not such a religious term, since it refers to 'base' which could be understood as 'foundation'...
Then we've learned that the 'Hajj' was something like a country fair where farmers and breeders show their stuff and bargain.

Let's have some more perspectives about the obvious mythological 'Mecca' and its forced idolatry...
G. R. Hawting on Mecca (excerpts, emphases mine)
http://www.bible.ca/islam/library/islam ... awting.htm
It seems likely that the Meccan sanctuary was chosen only after the elimination of other possibilities--that in the early Islamic period a number of possible sanctuary sites gained adherents until finally Mecca became established as the Muslim sanctuary. (...) The Ka'ba itself is frequently said to have been demolished and rebuilt. The Black Stone is on a number of occasions removed from the Ka'ba and then restored to its place. The stone called Maqam Ibrahim is moved around by floods and by human actions. The well of Zamzam is "discovered" on two separate occasions. Al-Masjid al-Varam, explained as the mosque containing the Ka'ba at Mecca, is several times rebuilt and enlarged. (...) Even Muslim tradition recognized that the history of the sanctuary and its incorporation by Islam could not be presented as a simple, straightforward development.

Maqam Ibrahim
The most obvious reference which seems at odds with the idea that the Maqam Ibrahim is the sacred stone bearing that name at the Muslim Sanctuary is the Qur'anic verse 2:125: "Take for yourselves a place of prayer from the Maqam Ibrahim''. In connection with this verse the exegetes give a number of different explanations of what is meant by Maqam Ibrahim. In addition to the view that the name here refers to the stone which is now so called, it is also said to indicate the whole of the haram or various extended areas within the haram. The context seems to require explanations such as these since it is necessary to explain away the preposition min as a redundant particle if it is desired to see the Qur'anic reference as to the stone which is now called Maqam Ibrahim. On the whole, therefore, the verse seems inconsistent with the usually accepted signification of the name Maqam Ibrahim. (...)

It seems clear that, whether the references are to al-Maqam or Maqam Ibrahim, there is frequently some difficulty in reconciling the references with the Meccan sanctuary as we know it, or some suggestion that they are not to the stone which now bears the name Maqam Ibrahim. Since it seems impossible that such references could have originated after the Muslim sanctuary had become established at Mecca in the form in which we know it, it seems to follow that they must date from an earlier period when the name Maqam Ibrahim meant something else. The name has then been reinterpreted and applied to the stone which is now so called. (...)

There does seem to be enough to suggest that the name Maqam Ibrahim arose first in the context of elaborations on the Genesis Passages, and I can see no obvious alternative explanation for the use of the term in the way in which it occurs in the Qur'an and some of the other material cited above. I envisage, therefore, that the name first arose as a designation for the sanctuary because it was there that Abraham had stood in the presence of God; when the Meccan sanctuary was taken over, for reasons which are not clear, Maqam Ibrahim could no longer be used as a name for the sanctuary as a whole and so it became attached to the stone which now bears the name.

Al-Rukh.
The phrase "the land whereon thou liest" in Genesis 28:13 could be taken to mean that Jacob was buried in the place where he had experienced his dream, the site of the sanctuary. God's promise that He would give "the land whereon thou liest" to the descendants of Jacob is taken to be a divine promise of the whole of Palestine for Israel since at that time Palestine was reduced in size to the spot where Jacob was sleeping. As mentioned before, the sanctity of al-Hijr in Muslim tradition derives in part from the fact that Ishmael is buried there, and the descendants of Ishmael possess the Muslim sanctuary. (...) In the story in Genesis, Jacob erects a stone in the place where he had slept: this is the stone which had served for his pillow, and Jacob calls it "Gods house." The stone is, naturally, made much of in the elaborations on the story: it is identified with the Eben Shetiya, the corner stone of the Temple and the pivot on which the whole world is balanced; after Jacob had set it up, God cast it down into the abyss where it serves as the corner stone for the whole world. It seems that al-Rukn was originally, before it became the Black Stone, the name for this Eben Shetiya or a development of it. (...)

Again the most satisfactory explanation is to see the Rukn as a remnant in Muslim tradition of the Jewish sanctuary ideas out of which the earliest Muslim ones arose. The Rukn was originally the corner stone of heavenly origin buried beneath the sanctuary. When the Meccan sanctuary was taken over by Islam, the name and some of the ideas associated with it came to be applied to the stone of that sanctuary, the Black Stone. But, since the name al-Rukn (pillar, support, foundation) means something more than merely "stone," the name was also applied to the corner containing the stone. This development, I suggest, typifies that whereby the earliest Muslim sanctuary ideas were modified and adapted to take account of the facts of the Meccan sanctuary when it was taken up as the Muslim sanctuary.

I think the evidence put forward is difficult to make sense of if the usual version of the adoption of the Meccan sanctuary by Islam is accepted, and that the alternative scheme suggested here seems to me necessary to account for the evidence I have presented.

I truly hope that, by now, Muslims are getting aware they have been duped by their own clergy and Imams.
Through them, they've been lead like cattles to the slaughtering house of -hell-, from the idolatry involved.
Image

http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch5.html
From the evidence at hand, it is highly doubtful that, initially at least, Mecca existed as a center of any importance; certainly it was nothing like what is depicted in the Qur'an. The Roman geographer Ptolemy is often cited as an early witness to Mecca, through his description of a city called Macoraba. However, as has been pointed out, "Macoraba" is of a different linguistic root than Mecca. Crone, further, demonstrates that Ptolemy's Macoraba cannot be identified with Mecca, and that if Ptolemy did refer to anything like Mecca, it would have been to a town in Arabia Petraea named Moka, far to the north of Mecca. This identification with the Mecca of Islamic tradition is, obviously, extremely tenuous at best.

Mecca as the center of caravan trade presented in the Islamic tradition, was practically unknown by contemporaries. Whereas Arabia (a term which can include the deserts east of Al-Shams) was of political and ecclesiastical importance in the 6th century, there is no mention of the Quraysh or the trading center of Mecca in any way, in any literature from the time, even though Greek and Latin authors had written extensively about the trade which supplied them with the spices and other goods of southern Arabia, and which is assumed in Muslim tradition to have come through Mecca. Crone points out that in sources contemporary with the maturation of the Arab religion (late 7th - 8th centuries), there seems to be some confusion as to where Mecca even was. She notes that the Continuatio Byzantia Arabica gives a location for Mecca between Ur and Harran, placing it not in the Hijaz, but on the edge of Mesopotamia. This may belie an apparent Abrahamic influence in the Arabic religion during this time (as the patriarch was associated with both cities in the biblical records).

Another evidence for the Syrian origin of the Arab religion lies in the disposition of the religious milieu in which the Arabs of Al-Shams existed versus the Hijaz. There is no archaeological evidence to support the contention in the Qur'an that Mecca and the Hijaz were huge centers of pre-Islamic Jahiliyya paganism. Indeed, there has not been found any solid evidence of permanent Arab settlement in the region of the Hijaz in the 6th and early 7th centuries. There is, however, evidence for exactly the type of pagan centers, practices, and sanctuaries that are described in the Qur'an and the Muslim traditions - in Syria-Palestine. (...) Further, there is evidence that what is called "Classical Arabic" (the language of the Qur'an) did not originate in the Arabian peninsula, but arose instead among the Arabs of Al-Shams. Classical Arabic adapted an Aramaic (22 letter) script which is actually not very suitable for transcribing Arabic. This is despite the presence among peninsular Arabian tribes of South Arabian scripts with 28 or 29 letters which would be more suitable for Classical Arabic (with which any hypothetical Meccans in a busy caravan town would have been very familiar).

The fact that a more unwieldy script was chosen suggests that the reason was due to the availability of the Aramaic-based scripts, in turn suggesting a more northerly origin for Classical Arabic than in the Hijaz. In fact, there is no epigraphic or other evidence for Classical Arabic in the Hijaz region until the reign of Mu'awiyah in the 660s AD. This late appearance, coupled with the fact that when Classical Arabic appeared in the Hijaz it did so fully developed (with no long history of evolution), indicates that it was introduced from outside, perhaps by a colonization effort into the region instituted by Mu'awiyah. The traces of development of Classical Arabic from precursors are instead found in Syria, where an early form of this language written in a proto-Kufic script has been found at a number of sites dating to the 6th century, including on the lentils of church doors.

Koran 3.96-97: Lo! the first Sanctuary appointed for mankind was that at Becca, a blessed place, a guidance to the peoples;
Wherein are plain memorials (of Allah's guidance); the place where Abraham stood up to pray; and whosoever entereth it is safe.
And pilgrimage to the House is a duty unto Allah for mankind, for him who can find a way thither. As for him who disbelieveth,
(let him know that) lo! Allah is Independent of (all) creatures.


There is a huge and fertile valley in Lebanon called Beqaa, very easy to locate...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beqaa_Valley

Then, of course, we've got the Psalm 84.1-8:
How amiable are thy tabernacles, O LORD of hosts! My soul longeth, yea, even fainteth for the courts of the LORD:
my heart and my flesh crieth out for the living God. Yea, the sparrow hath found an house, and the swallow a nest
for herself, where she may lay her young, even thine altars, O LORD of hosts, my King, and my God. Blessed are they
that dwell in thy house: they will be still praising thee. Selah. Blessed is the man whose strength is in thee; in whose
heart are the ways of them. Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools.
They go from strength to strength, every one of them in Zion appeareth before God.
O LORD God of hosts, hear my prayer: give ear, O God of Jacob. Selah.


In this psalm we also find a reference to the 'House of Jacob's God' written Beytullah (for Bethel) in the Koran!
This must be the 'Maqam Ibrahim' of 2.125, far very far from Mecca where the Hajj becomes... a monstrosity!

Um al-qura in 6.92 and 42.7 talk about the Mother of villages, or the Mother-Town. Mecca... :worthy: :whip:

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 9:25 pm
by The Cat
Part 3: Who Were The Quraysh?
I've been searching a lot to dig out the etymology and origin of this word,
traditionally given to the 'powerful tribe' ruling over Mecca. The Islamic
tradition has been shown to be faulty on all the verifiable grounds we got.
So let's look furthermore...

The wikipedia entry on 'Quraysh' is as vague as can be... relying on the traditional account.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quraysh
Quraysh or Quraish (Arabic: قريش‎) Qurayš. Other transliterations include "Quresh", "Quraysh", "Koreish" and "Coreish". Turkish: Kureyş) was the dominant tribe of Mecca upon the appearance of the religion of Islam. It was the tribe to which the Islamic prophet Muhammad belonged, as well as the tribe that led the initial opposition to his message. According to popular legend, the Quraysh was a branch of the Banu Kinanah tribe, which descended from the Khuzaimah. The Quraysh remained completely disunited until Qusai ibn Kilab managed to rally their ranks on honourable terms attaching major prominence to their status and importance -[clarification needed]-. After the introduction of Islam, the Quraysh gained supremacy and produced the three dynasties of the Ummayad Caliphate, the Abbasid Caliphate and the Fatimid Caliphate.

There is a sura (106) named 'Quraysh' or 'Winter' said to be parent with sura 105.
But the chronological order of the suras are widing them a bit. 105=19th; 106=29th.
--For the taming of Qureysh.
--For their taming (We cause) the caravans to set forth in winter and summer.
--So let them worship the Lord of this House,
--Who hath fed them against hunger and hath made them safe from fear.


The one important item being: ''For their taming We cause the caravans to set forth in winter and summer''
We'll see just how 'Qureysh' is deeply associated with caravaners, yet of two very different backgrounds!
And... in no way can those fierce nomads be associated with -any- settlement, is it Mecca, by definition!

http://www.reocities.com/spenta_mainyu/Islam3.htm
Extensive research done by Richard W. Bulliet on the history of trade in the ancient Middle East paints a different picture than the traditional Islamic legend. The Muslim claims seem to be quite wrong: “Makka simply was not on any of the major trading routes, because Makka is tucked away at the edge of the peninsula. Only by the most tortured map reading can it be described as a natural crossroads between a North-South route and an East-West one.” Research carried out by N. Groom and W. W. Muller corroborates this view. They have written, “Makka simply could not have been on the trading route, as it would have entailed a detour from the natural route along the western ridge.” In fact, they assert that the trade route must have bypassed Makka by some one hundred miles.”

Moreover the Greco-Roman trade with India has already been collapsed by the 3rd century A.D. Therefore, in the Messenger’s time there was neither an overland route nor a Roman market to which the trade was destined. The trade remained there, was controlled by the Abyssinians and not the Arabs; and not Makka but Adulis, the port city on the Abyssinian coast of the Red Sea, was the trading centre of that region.

The Greek historians Cosmas, Procopius and Theodoretus were closer to the events of the time, and the Greeks to whom the trade went had not even heard a place called Makka. If Makka were so important, certainly those traders would have noted its existence. P. Crone in her work points out that the Greek trading documents refer to the towns of Ta’if (which is to the southeast of and close to the present day Makka), and to Yathrib (later Medina), as well as Kaybar/Khayber (means ‘fortress’ in Hebrew) in the north, but there is no mention of Makka. Under these circumstances, the historicity of a settlement right at the centre of the early Islam becomes doubtful. Finally, in addition to the disagreement as to the geographical location of Makka in the early secular sources, there is also a degree of confusion even within the Islamic tradition. According to the research carried out by J. van Ess (also in Muhammad bin Ahmad al-Dahabi, 1369), in both the first and second civil wars, there are accounts of people proceeding from Medina to Irak via Makka.

Indeed, The Continuo Byzantia Arabica of the Chronicle of Isidor (second half of 8th century) mentions a battle ... "apud Maccam,
Abrahae, ut ipsi putant, domum, quae inter Ur Chaldaeorum et Carras Mesopotamiae urbem in heremo adiacet
" ("... in Mecca,
Abraham's house, as they [the Arabs] believe, that is located in the desert between Ur in Chaldea and Carras, in Mesopotamia".
(Ohlig, Der frühe Islam S.368). --Carras here must be the Roman Carrhae, otherwise Harran. So we're back to the biblical account!

The Frankincense trails were of two kinds but the one
to the left, far too windy (Jiddah), wasn't in much use.
Image

So, who were those mysterious 'Quraysh'? This search hasn't been done properly so far, since scholars relied on the Islamic tradition.
From my researches, it came to mean not exactly a tribe but a trade, a working unit. It formerly meant some federation of long
distance caravaners, much like we would say a trucker association! I found out that this association regrouped two different trails:
The Frankincense and Silk Roads! The root for Quraysh comes from the later, escaping scholarship and puzzling me a long while.

The most likely etymology for Quraysh comes from the Elamite 'Kuraysh' which is also behind the name Cyrus. It meant ''Those Who
Bestow Care', thus the caravaners of BOTH the Silk Road and the Frankincense trails. Possibly from the wide region of Khorasan (Iran).
Both trails somehow met in Damascus and Babylon, where they must surely had cultural and commercial wide exchanges (the Hajj)!
That's why Muhammad's succession became so problematic: there were two former branches of rightful 'Quraysh'! Abu Bakr's vs Ali's...
Thus, the 'Battle of the Camel' could be understood as the battle between Bactrian and Dromedary kinds. The Battle of the Hump(s)!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bassorah

The two major trading roads, that of the 'Quraysh': The Frankincense and Silk Trails, meeting at Babylon and Damascus.
Image
From this mapping, the name Aila (Aqaba, Eilat) should be spotted out. It's of great importance (as the absence of Mecca)!

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 8:42 am
by Ibn Rushd
I too had considered that Quraysh and Cyrus (Heb. Qoresh) were the same. This puts a whole new aspect on the Ridda (apostacy) wars!

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:12 pm
by The Cat
The Quraysh, generalities over the name...

Muhammad and the origins of Islam, Francis E. Peters (from my notebook, so not exactly quoting)
http://books.google.ca/books?id=Jrq6boX ... q=&f=false
Arabs used to say ''the caravan of Quraysh has arrived''. Or they say that this Quraysh was the guide of Banu al-Nadr, responsible
for approvisioning them. Ibn al-Kaldi maintains that Quraysh is a collective name. Another story relates how the name came from
al-Nadr ibn Kinana, since he ''looked like a Quraysh camel.'' Another one states that it comes from a monstrous sea creature: al- Qirsh.

And so the not convincing etymologies continue, and at least one of them suggests that the term Quraysh is more recent.
It is clear that the Arabs had no clear idea who the Quraysh were...

More on Quraysh and Qadesh
--In Hebrew it means holy from the Phoenician Qadesh. It also designated the temple prostitutes.
--In Ugaritic it meant also holy, like in binu Qadishi (sons of the holy).
--Akkadian: cleansing, purifying; Kadishtu: devoted to Ihstar. The above three are not corresponding enough, KDS vs KRS.
--The Persian Achaemenid dynasty also known as the Kuraysh dynasty, from Anshan in Elam, founding place of the dynasty.

In Arabic it has the meaning of ''coming together after being separated'', ''eating from earnings'', ''in charge of the pilgrims'',
or a mysterious creature of the sea: al-Qirsh. This name is also an Arabic currency and we've got Ilwat al-Qirsh, an island on
the lake Mangala near Port Said. Nothing too helpful in quiery and rather confusing.

Then, this important reference about the 'Koreysh' from Theophanes' Chronicles which meant the Arab allies (Feodi) of Heraclius.

When referring to a people, it is etymologically related to the Kurds, the Kurdish languages. The Kurds are basically Persians and
Indo-Europeans but they transcend a specific ethnic, with minorities in Iran (7%), Iraq (17%), Turkey (18%) and even Syria (9%).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_people
The Kurds (Kurdish: کورد / Kurd) are an Ethnic-Iranian ethnolinguistic group mostly inhabiting a region known as Kurdistan, which includes adjacent parts of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. (...) Most speak Kurdish, an Indo-European language of the Iranian branch. The Kurds are classified as an Iranian people (...) "Kurdish" is not a firm and standardized linguistic entity with the status of an official or state language. Kurdish is a continuum of closely related dialects that are spoken in a large geographic area spanning several national states, in some of these states forming one, or several, regional substandards (...) The Kurdish languages belong to the north-western sub-group of the Iranian languages, which in turn belongs to the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European family. The older Hurrian language of the people inhabiting the Kurdish areas was replaced by Indo-European around 850 BCE, with the arrival of the Medes to Western Iran.

We can see that they formed a sharing with the Elamites of the South West Iran, but I cannot state at this moment how much they can be related with Cyrus. One thing for sure, Kurds are like a mini United Nations by themselves, a fascinating people to study!. There were Jewish Kurds (mountainous Jews, khazars) and today's ADN studies demonstrated a very close affinity with Cohen Modal Haplotype. 'Kurd' had a socio-economic rather than ethnic meaning. It could very well be the link for the Elamite meaning of Kuraysh, ''those who provides (good)'', a nomadic branch.

Map of ancient Mesopotamia (Hurria, Akkadia, Subartu, Amurru, Elam, etc)
Image

After all, they're as close as can be from Noah's descent, and of the agrarian revolution...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurrians
http://www.archaeology.org/0807/abstracts/urkesh.html
The discovery of a sophisticated city with monumental architecture, plumbing, stonework, and a large population contradicts the idea that Hurrians were a roving mountain people in a strange land.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... ish_people
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Judi
(Q.11.14): The 9th century Arab geographer Ibn Khordadbih identified the location of mount Judi as being in the land of Kurdistan, and the Abbasid historian Abu al-Hasan 'Alī al-Mas'ūdī (c. 896-956) recorded that the spot where it came to rest could be seen in his time. Masudi also said that the Ark began its voyage at Kufa in central Iraq and sailed to Mecca, where it circled the Kaaba, before finally travelling to Judi. The geographer and encyclopedist Yaqut al-Hamawi (1179–1229), also known as Al-Rumi, placed the mountain "above Jazirat ibn Umar, to the east of the Tigris" and mentioned a mosque built by Noah that could be seen in his day, and the traveller Ibn Battuta passed by the mountain in the 14th century.

See my study:
viewtopic.php?p=89466#p89466

Finally, still the most likely etymology is thus the Elamite 'Kuryash' (i.e. kurdish?) meaning 'providers' or 'bestowing care.'

Next: So Who Was The Historical Muhammad?
Well, I think he is known as one of his companion...
And it just happens that he was 'Muhammad' too!
He also had a brother called 'Mahmud'. Who's that?

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 12:35 am
by Ibn Rushd
Suliman Bashear was convinced that Muhammad ibn al-Hanifiya (son of the pagan woman) was the foundation for the fictional Muhammad that we read about today. He led a revolt in south Iraq in the 690s AD. Unfortunately the book he wrote about this is in Arabic, so I can't go through his argument at this time.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 7:56 pm
by The Cat
Hey!....... I have found the Koranic MAKA/BEKA: ABEL-BETH MACAAH !!!
Sorry for this another commentary but, after all, this is a work under construction.
I prepared myself quite a lot for the opening of this thread, still new informations
keep on coming on as I deepen and sharpen my studies.
This is a HISTORICAL WORLD PREMIERE, here at FFI !

ABEL-BETH MACAAH...
This is a city referred to in 1kg.15.20; 2Kg.15.29; 2Sam.20.14-18 as Abel-Beth Maacah.
The OT story refers to it as a city in the time of David, an important Koranic timeline...

http://www.searchgodsword.org/enc/isb/v ... number=T28
a'-bel-beth-ma'-a-ka ('abhel beth ma`akhah, "the meadow of the house of Maacah"): The name appears in this form in 1 Kings 15:20 and 2 Kings 15:29. In 2 Samuel 20:15 (Hebrew) it is Abel-beth-hammaacah (Maacah with the article). In 20:14 it appears as Beth-maacah, and in 20:14 and 18 as Abel. In 2 Samuel it is spoken of as the city, far to the north, where Joab besieged Sheba, the son of Bichri. In 2Ki it is mentioned, along with Ijon and other places, as a city in Naphtali captured by Tiglathpileser, king of Assyria. The capture appears also in the records of Tiglath-pileser.

In 1 Kings it is mentioned with Ijon and Dan and "all the land of Naphtali" as being smitten by Benhadad of Damascus in the time of Baasha. In the account in Chronicles parallel to this last (2 Chronicles 16:4) the cities mentioned are Ijon, Dan, Abel-maim. Abel-maim is either another name for Abel-beth maacah, or the name of another place in the same vicinity. The prevailing identification of Abel-beth-maacah is with Abil, a few miles West of Dan, on a height overlooking the Jordan near its sources. The adjacent region is rich agriculturally, and the scenery and the water supply are especially fine. Abel-maim, "meadow of water," is not an inapt designation for it

2Sam.20.14-15: And he went through all the tribes of Israel unto Abel, and to Bethmaachah, and all the Berites: and they were gathered together, and went also after him. And they came and besieged him in Abel of Bethmaachah, and they cast up a bank against the city, and it stood in the trench: and all the people that were with Joab battered the wall, to throw it down.

2Kg.15.29: In the days of Pekah king of Israel came Tiglathpileser king of Assyria, and took Ijon, and Abelbethmaachah, and Janoah, and Kedesh, and Hazor, and Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali, and carried them captive to Assyria.

Abel-beth Maacah (near Kadesh, between Tyre and Dan)
Image

This city also covers perfectly the Koranic story of the queen of Shebah visiting Solomon. We've got it!!!
The Hebrews call her 'The Wise Woman of Abel-Beth Macaah' as a lady killed king Sheba to save the city.
The Islamic account confounded this woman as the Koranic 'Queen of Shebah' in its Solomon's views (Q.27)!
It's also very possible that the heroine of the story acquired the legendary title of ''Queen of Shebah' later on.

http://ferrelljenkins.wordpress.com/200 ... th-maacah/
No sooner had King David put down the rebellion of his son Absalom when a Benjamite by the name of Sheba led a rebellion against him. The men of Israel rebelled against David and followed Sheba, but the men of Judah remained loyal to the king. Realizing that Sheba was a greater threat than Absalom had been, David called on Abishai to take servants (warriors) and capture Sheba. Joab’s men when out from Jerusalem to capture Sheba. This pursuit took Joab’s men all the way to the north of the Israelite territory, to a town named Abel-Beth-Maacah. Some English versions use Abel Beth Maacah, or a similar variant. In modern Israel this town is almost on the border with Lebanon between Kiryat Shmona and Metulla.

The Islamic holy site as mentioned in the Koran (3.96-97): Abel Beth Maacah!
Image
''Our photo, looking east, shows the massive mound thought to be the site of Abel-Beth-Maacah.
Apples are grown in this area. On a clear day one would be able to see the Beka Valley''


So Abel Beth Maacah and the Beka'a valley in Lebanon are only few miles away! We've got it... :rock:
THIS IS OF HISTORICAL PROPORTION, as is the following...
--------------
Here, I must also point out too that the uncovering of the Hurrian's city of Urkesh (or Urkish)
should completely reshape our understanding of the Abraham's journey from Ur of Chaldea...
It should thus completely rescale Abraham's origins within a much keener biblical perspective!
Image
http://www.archaeology.org/0807/abstracts/urkesh.html
All but forgotten by history, their origin remains obscure, but excavations led by husband-and-wife UCLA archaeologists Georgio Buccellati and Marilyn Kelly-Buccellati over the past quarter century reveal that the Hurrians were far more than just another wandering tribe in the fractious Middle East. And during last year's season, they found compelling evidence that the Hurrians not only strongly influenced the language, culture, and religion of later peoples, but also may have been present 1,000 years earlier--just as nearby Mesopotamians began to create the first cities. (...) Piotr Michaelowski, an Assyriologist at the University of Michigan, notes that Hurrian, like Sumerian, is a language unrelated to Semitic or Indo-European tongues that dominated the region during and after the third millennium B.C. Perhaps, he suggests, the Hurrians were earlier inhabitants of the region, who, like the Sumerians, had to make room for the Semitic-speaking people who created the world's first empire based at Akkad in central Mesopotamia around 2350 B.C.

The discovery of a sophisticated city with monumental architecture, plumbing, stonework, and a large population contradicts the idea that Hurrians were a roving mountain people in a strange land. Far from being yet another rough nomadic tribe, such as the Amorites or Kassites who were latecomers to the Mesopotamian party, the Hurrians and their unique language, music, deities, and rituals may have played a key role in shaping the first cities, empires, and states. The language has died, the music faded, and the rituals are forgotten. But thanks to the sculptors, stone masons, and seal carvers at Urkesh, Hurrian creativity can shine once again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urkesh
http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingLists ... rrians.htm
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~semitic/hsm/NFNuziMozan.htm
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~semitic/hsm ... ablets.htm

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 4:35 am
by Ibn Rushd
So this would mean that the initial debates which are recorded in the Islamic literature originally referred to this northern location. The question remains over what and where is Medina. Some scholars (I can't remember their names) thought the mi'raj story was about a journey from Jerusalem to Mecca (in the south) and legitimating the new claim of this city to antiquity: in short, give it a pedigree of a prophetic visit where a prophet ascends to heaven. Jewish and Islamic texts both say that Jacob's dream of the ladder was at Mt. Moriah (Temple Mount), and David also had a mi'raj there (concerning the incident with Bathsheba). If we accept the modern Islamic thinking, then Muhammad had a 3rd mi'raj in Jerusalem, but if these other scholars are correct, it is making a mi'raj for another place to give it equal authority. I would place the creation of Mecca in the 800s based on Goldziher's work.

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 4:09 pm
by The Cat
To most scholars, Mount Moriah isn't referring to the temple mount but to 'The Land of the Amorites'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriah
Most modern biblical scholars, however, regard the name as a reference to the Amorites, losing the initial a via aphesis; the name is thus interpreted as meaning land of the Amorites. This also agrees with the biblical text as it appears in the Syriac Peshitta – where the near-sacrifice occurs at the land of the Amorites, and in the Septuagint, where, for example, 2 Chronicles 3:1 refers to the location as Ἀμωρία – Amōriā. This would give it the same etymological root as Hamor, a person's name in the narrative at Genesis 34 which concerns Shechem. Some scholars also identify it with Moreh, the location near Shechem at which Abraham built an altar, according to Genesis 12:6. Hence a number of scholars believe that Moriah refers to a hill near Shechem, supporting the Samaritan belief that the near-sacrifice of Isaac occurred on Mount Gerizim – a location near Shechem.

It's thus much more correct to talk about Mt. Moreh. And Bethel corresponds to the Koranic 'Beytullah' (House of God).
The Samaritan influences over the forming Islam are overwhelming. Bethel is much closer to our Abel-Beth Maacah.

From the Torah itself Shechem should be considered as the former sanctuary of Judaism, not Jerusalem...
That's most probably why Samaritans rejected all other biblical books and influenced Islam on the matter.
Thus, Muhammad's Mi'raj and Isra must also be seen from this Samaritan perspective. It's not Jerusalem!
More so, the Dome of the Rock stands on the site of a Christian church: The Church of the Holy Wisdom.

At one point in time the victors decided to give an Arabic imperialist tone to their faith, thus the Mecca/Quraysh/Hajj fables.
Bye...

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 30, 2010 3:56 am
by The Cat
Part 4: Where Was Muhammad, if not in Mecca?
We've seen quite eloquently that a Mecca in Central Arabia is most unlikely where Muhammad inhabited.
If it existed at all it was rather insignificant and barren, far from a center of worship in pre-Islamic time.
An old town in south Lebanon called Abel-Beth Maacah, bordering the Beka'a valley, mentioned in the OT,
could very well suit our research. Even the calligraphic evidences point to a place of birth near or in Iraq.

So can we gather more evidences that Muhammad spend his youth in this area rather than in Central Arabia?
PLENTY! Let's bring them out... Once again first with the help of 'Brother Ayman' from free-minds.org

http://www.free-minds.org/ayman
In the article entitled Language Barrier we have seen how even important events in Sira 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 48:24 was appropriated after the great reading was revealed. So naturally, the question arises, where did the prophet really live? (...)

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:

1. The Nabataean Aramaic script. This is the script of the Nabataean Aramaic language.
2. The Musnad script. This script is also called Ancient South Arabian 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). (...)
Image
Mashq (Medina) script, attested: 725. Surahs Ya-Sin (36), 72-83 and Al-Saffat, 1-14. No aya markers and no surah headings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma%27il (Ma'il or Hijazi script, from Hejaz -West coast of Arabia).

http://www.schoyencollection.com/arabic.htm
Chronology: Omayyad Kufic (661-750); Mashq (Medina, 750-800); Western Kufic (850-950).

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. At 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. (...) 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"-i.e. 6.92; 42.7).

The Nabataean alphabet used 22 phonemes; the Musnad 28, just like Arabic. Compellingly, the former prevailed instead!
Likely, Muhammad was raised in a place bordering both Ghassanids and Lakhmids territories, traveling much in between.
Image

Interesting informations on the Nabataeans and related subjects:
http://nabataea.net/lhistory.html
http://nabataea.net/arabia.html
http://nabataea.net/12tribes.html
http://nabataea.net/Ishmaelchart1.gif
http://nabataea.net/foundingnations.html
http://nabataea.net/hagar.html

To be continued...

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:56 pm
by The Cat
Keeping on the above topic of 'Where Was Muhammad, if not in Mecca'?
We're seeing that he most probably comes from a Nabataean background.
We've so established the calligraphic evidence from the earliest scripts.

Horned stele 'Qos-is-Allah', seal attributed to Edomite's God Qaush found near Petra.
See: http://www.dhushara.com/book/orsin/orsin3.htm
Image

http://www.free-minds.org/moh (on 6 pages)
The author (signing 'Layth') starts an Islamic anthology going from Noah to Hud (Aad), to Saleh (Thamud) and then Abraham to Lot,
quoting many ayats (2.127; 2.158; 3.96; 22.26; 14.37; 6.83-86; 15.76-77; 29.35): ''And the left remains of it as a clear sign....''
ending this section with: it can be said with some confidence that the ancient city of Petra is indeed the location where the people
of Lot resided with Lot being from the progeny of Abraham.
(Note: sura 8 is chronologically the 88th or early Medina)

Here we have a number of conclusive points which need to be looked at:
Ø Revelations are newly being revealed through Mohammed (8:31);
Ø The Restricted Temple/Sanctuary is at this location/place (8:34-35);
Ø Mohammed is living amongst these people (8:33);

Taking all the previous information into account, this would mean that Mohammed began his mission in Baca where Abraham originally with Ismail established God’s Restricted Temple/Sanctuary. Now, according to the Sunnis and Shia, we are told that this location is Mecca (Arabia) where the great Kabaa (cube) is located and where millions of pilgrims have made their way for centuries to visit this shrine while performing the rituals/rites of pilgrimage (quoting 3:96). The most obvious and important piece of information that is often overlooked is that God calls the place where His first Sanctuary is located is called "Bakk`a". Now, while Bakka and Mecca may rhyme, they are obviously not the same place (...)

The name `Baca` has been retained in ancient scriptures and is the given as the name of the area which is reached as pilgrims exited the valley of Rephaim from the south west that led to mount Zion in the heart of Jerusalem (2Sam. 5:22-23, Psalm 84.4-8). In fact, the name Baka is still retained for that very same area that approaches the heart of Jerusalem from the south west (nowadays Ge'ullim). We are told that the word ‘Kaaba’ means a ‘cube shape’ and that the site in Mecca has been constructed in accordance with this design requirement. However, the meaning of ‘cube’ associated to this word has no basis in the Scripture itself nor even to the Arabic language still in use today (the word for cube is mu’ka’ab, not kaaba or kaab). The word ‘Kaab/Kaaba’ are associated in Arabic to any feature that is protruding, such as the bones to the side of the ankles (quoting 5.6)... Thus, any construct, regardless of its shape can be called a ‘Kaaba’ as long as it stands out from the plain.

On the changing of the Qibla as reported in the Koran (2.142-150, another early Medina sura)...
...Then the ayat about the changing of the Qibla: “The foolish from amongst the people will Say: “What has turned them away from the focal point that they were on?” Say: “To God is the east and the west, He guides whomsoever He wishes to a straight path” (2:142). The Muslims today are confused to the above verses in thinking that the shift towards the ‘Restricted Temple’ was God’s command for Mohammed when he shifted away from Jerusalem (and they assume towards the shrine of Mecca). The problem with this understanding is that in 2:142 the “change” had already taken place and the people were commenting about it (i.e. 'what made them change from their Qibla?'). While in 2:144 the Prophet is given “new” instructions to use the focal point of the “Restricted Temple” (which cannot be Mecca because the first change of Qibla that was meant to be a “test” has already happened and thus the people were all facing the focal point opposite Jerusalem).

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 5:72-73 we see that the term Nasara doesn't occur. The passage condemns as unappreciative/rejecters/"kuffar" Monophysites (5:72) and Roman Trinitarians (5:73). On the other hand, 9:30-33 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.

1. 2.142 refers to something that has already occurred, yet evidences (see above) puts it to around 710AD.
2. There must be something true in the half legendary meeting of Muhammad and Bahira, a Nestorian monk.
3. See my Nasara/Ansars thread: viewtopic.php?f=21&t=5225
4. The whole controversy about Jesus being or not the 'Son of God' is based on the wrong Arabic word about it:
Using the word 'walid' (son) which is a blood belonging instead of 'Ibn' or 'al-Bayt' (House of) much more in line!

By far this map is not thoroughly accurate but gives an idea of the Arabian tribes' repartition found by 600AD
Image

The author ('Layth') then develops furthermore on Mecca and the Venusian symbol of the Black Stone...
WHY MECCA?
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.

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. (...)

Black stone of Aphrodite
Image
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. (...)

Sectarians today fantasize that the prophet can intercede on their behalf and can control who goes to heaven. Thus, one may think that they idolize the prophet. However, upon closer examination of the root cause of this symptom, one can see that they are in fact not idolizing the real prophet but they are idolizing an imagined prophet, i.e. a fantasy. So when they implore this fantasized prophet they are in fact serving nothing more than a fantasy.

Or, as the Koran gives it (12.106; 30.30; 39.44-45; 6.121 and 159), Muslims are following nothing but hearsay & conjectures.

Shirk and Idolatry in Islam:
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=1062
Image

So, compelling evidences are pointing to the Northwest of Arabia as the region where Muhammad came from.
This would be in concordance with 37.137-138: ''And lo! ye verily pass by (the ruin of) them in the morning,
And at night-time; have ye then no sense?
'' and 33.27 ''He caused you to inherit their land and their houses
and their wealth, and land ye have not trodden.
'' We should think from the later that he wasn't from Mecca
and we can deduce from the former that he was a Northwest, Nabataean Arab...

http://www.reocities.com/spenta_mainyu/Islam.htm
Following the indications given in 37.133-38 the Messenger was a Midianite/Nabataean and his wife Hadiga was the daughter of Adb-al-Uzza, a Nabatean name. (If we juxtapose 25.38-41 then it only confirms so, since the Ad, Thamud and Rass people were Midianites). (...) Kuran 33:27 is preceded by the verses that deal with the ‘battle of the ditch’, which the Ismaelite-Hagarenes have reportedly fought with their adversaries (an allied group of Makkans and some Jewish tribes). Makkans and their allies could not take Medina, so they lifted the siege and went back to their hometown. If this story is true then the land that the Messenger hasn’t yet stepped on was Makka. The verses of Kuran make that clear. He was from a different land. Make note, Hagarenes were in Medina, and it was the fifth year of the Hicra, and the Messenger was yet to step on other lands including the Makkan soil! (...)

According to the official literature the Messenger had begun his prophetic life in Makka. But Kuran 33:27 makes sense only if this central character of the Islamic mythology had begun his life not in Makka but somewhere else. The official literature seems to imply that the place that the Messenger vowed to take is Makka. The nationalist Arab authors of the codebook were right inserting that statement into the book, because they were trying to adopt the original teaching according to their priorities. They claimed that the Messenger vowed to take Makka, because the Makkans were the ones who made the Messenger move to Medina and Makka was a town of idolaters. It is my belief that if the Messenger had ever thought of taking Makka it was not because he was ridiculed there; not because he was made to leave; not because Makka was his native town; but it housed a rival sacred shrine to the Messenger’s shrine in Bakka, Makka was the focal point of various indigenous faiths/cults. Therefore, this shrine should be got rid of. All of these faiths/cults were a potential threat to his status and teaching.

This is my belief: Islam’s Messenger was not a Makkan. The Islamic ideology made it very clear: His tribe and family were from Medina. Moreover I believe that his family had moved to Medina from the lands to the north and settled in the town (3.96 vs. Psalm84.6-7; 37.133-138; 25.38-41). The southernmost point the Messenger had gone in the Arabian Peninsula was Medina.......

My own personal belief is that the prophet came from Hegra (nowadays the archaeological Mada'in Salah).
It corresponds to many above requirements and the familiarity between Hegra and Hegira takes it all!
Both names mean 'cursed', 'departing from'. The first UNESCO World Heritage site in Saudi Arabia...
http://nabataea.net/medain.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mada'in_Saleh
Image
http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1235.htm
Other inscriptions discovered at the site –this time both in Nabataean and in a script that is intermediate between the classical Nabataean found at Petra and Arabic– should help epigraphists understand how writing developed in the region. “Nabataean, a script derived from Aramaic, is the direct ancestor of Arabic script,” Nehmé explains. “Transitional scripts between Nabataean and Arabic have been observed at other archaeological sites, but this is the first time that we’ve seen them at Hegra.”


More on this in Mudarras Kadhir Gaznavi site, to which I'll come back very shortly...
Islam, From the Sabian Faith to Arabic Imperialism (on 5 long articles)
http://www.reocities.com/spenta_mainyu/Islam.htm
The Hagarene Messenger
http://reocities.com/spenta_mainyu_2/Muhammad.htm

Coming up next: Who & When Was Muhammad?
Is the Medina prophet the same as the previous one?
Or were they, later, mixed together to form a legend?

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 10:06 pm
by The Cat
Part 5: Who and When Was Muhammad?
We assume that there was only one prophet giving birth to Islam but that assumption is challenged by the huge theological
discrepancy between the 'Meccan' (Hegra) and 'Medinan' verses. Like we usually think that the Pauline Epistles were from
one and only writer while the calligraphic expertise has shown there was at least two different authors under the Epistles.
The former is meek and giving while the second is an authority in an already existing church. Experts think that the later,
who wrote the Pastoral Epistles and fully interpolated the former, is Polycarp from the familiarity of the writing style.

It's noteworthy that in the former 'Meccan' (Hegra) verses, there is not one single mention of the name 'Muhammad' that can
be found, except in added brackets! All references to a MHMD or MHMT are to be found in the Medina verses: 3.144 (89th);
33.40 (90th); 47.2 (95th); 61.6 (109th); 48.29 (111th) this last one very close to the only Koranic mention of 'Mecca' (48.24).
We've seen above how the ''Valley of Mecca' is either referring to the original Arabic meaning of MKk (destruction), or, if
juxtapose to the 'Beca' 3.96 (89th), would refer to the Davidic city of Abel-Beth Maacah, looking over the valley of Beqa'a.

The eschatological dimension of the Koran, in its description of Heaven and Hell, is notably Persian. Its a divine brothel
absolutely contrary to the Jewish or Christian notions of the hereafter. The inception of these notions into the Koran call
for an in-depth Persian influences over the Prophet. This, coupled with his obvious ignorance of Jewish or Christian basic
sacred scriptures, relying more on apocryphal literatures, is simply deafening and indicate a distance from those sources,
apart from Sabian and Nestorian influences that is.

All fabricated traditional accounts set apart, I think that the one original 'Meccan' (Hegra) prophet is none other than Salman
the Persian, an alleged former companion of 'Muhammad', which by the way wasn't a name in use throughout the 6th century
Arabia, though arising like mushrooms in the moist soon after.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_the_Persian
It was Salman who came up with the idea of digging a great trench around the city of Medina to defend the city and its people from the army of 10,000 non-Muslims of Arabia. The Prophet and his companions agreed and accepted Salman's plan because it was safer and there would be a chance for the Non-Muslim army of Arabia to have a large number of casualties. Salman came up with that idea from remembering doing the same in Persia; when the Persians heard about and feared an attack led by their enemies coming to their territory, they suggested to dig a trench around them to be safe. So during the Battle of the Trench, what the Muslims had expected had occurred.

While some sources gather him with the Muhajirun (immigrants from Mecca), other sources narrate that during the Battle of the Trench, one of Muhajirun stated "Salman is one of us, Muhajireen", but was challenged by the Muslims of Medina known in Arabic as the Ansar. A lively argument began between the two groups, each of them claiming that Salman belonged to their group, and not to the other group. Muhammad arrived on the scene, and heard the argument. He was amused by the claims but he soon put an end to their argument by saying: "Salman is neither Muhajir nor Ansar. He is one of us. He is one of the People of the House, ahl al-Bayt."

Salman the Persian died during the reign of the third Caliph, Uthman ibn Affan. There is some debate on his age at the time of death. He is buried in Ctesiphon, in present-day Iraq. Though that city fell into abandon, there is still a town there named after him, Salman Pak. His shrine at Al-Mada'in was attacked on February 25 and 26, 2006, and seems to have been destroyed in the violence following the destruction of the Al-Askari Mosque. His grave is shown also in Lod (Lydda), Palestine/Israel, now inside the modern quarter called Ramot Eshkol. He translated part of the Qur'an into Persian, thus becoming the first person to interpret the Muslim holy scripture into a foreign language.

He was thus familiar with Arabic. By all accounts he personified the former spirit of Islam and a much revered saint for the sufis.
Note: Muhajirun, Hegra and Hegira share the same meaning of 'cursed', 'separated from' or 'getting away with', 'departing from'.

Who Authored the Quran? (by Abul Kasem)
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/kase ... origin.htm
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/kase ... rigin3.htm
Undoubtedly, Muhammad cleverly utilised Salman’s extraordinary talent to compose many verses of the Qur’an that deal with historical tales of the ancient Egypt, the Greek, the Romans and the Persians. As Salman was formerly a Zoroastrian, Muhammad learned, in detail many of their beliefs and practices and incorporated them in his Qur’an. Muhammad’s description of Paradise and hell are stunningly similar to that of the Zoroastrians. So those verses dealing with the punishment in Hell and the prize in Paradise were surely contributed by Salman, the Persian. It is interesting to note that Salman became a close member of Muhammad’s family. Aisha reports that Muhammad used to spend countless hours with him-- discussing various religious issues, so much so, that Aisha thought that Salman would spend the night with Muhammad. (...)

For brevity’s sake I did not include the historical references in the Qur’an that were undoubtedly told to Muhammad by Salman. Please spend some time searching the Qur’an and you will surely discover that they were purely man-made stories—not the stories told by Allah.

Yet Salman wasn't much of a warrior but a charismatic leader and a knowledgeable (by Arabic standards) gatherer. Thing is that
Salman the Persian wasn't of Arabic descent so he had to be given a secondary role within the Arab imperialist faith coming out
from Medina... where Salman became joined to his given alter ego, the warring Muhammad of Medina. The family name of this
Muhammad might pretty well be behind the name 'Muslim'. He was Muhammad ibn Maslamah, nicknamed 'Ansar' or the 'Sword of
the Prophet' (that is Salman the Persian, whom he protected)! He must be the one behind the bloody hate-mongering verses from
Medina. This Maslamah should not be confused with Musaylima of the kidda wars...

From the first non-Muslim testimonies we have, from the Doctrina Jacobi (634-640) to at least John Bar Penkaye (687) everything
is leading us to conclude that there was no recognized Prophet of Islam but an Arabic brigand (among others) named or surname
MHMD (sometimes MHMT), a 'Mahmud' (John of Damascus). More so, in the Doctrina Jacobi, the Prophet is both unnamed and
described as something NEW: ''What do you tell me, lord and teacher, concerning the prophet who has appeared among the
Saracens?
'' -''I have fear that we are getting ready to meet the devil, yet depart, Lord Abraham, and learn about the prophet
who has appeared.
..
'' It's pretty clear that it relates to someone alive whom had just appeared! The document also makes it
clear that the Saracens (or Mhagrayye, Hagarenes) and the Jews were allied. Which is contrary to many Koranic assertions!

In my opinion, this Arabic brigand was Muhammad ibn Maslamah (591-666), an alleged 'companion' of the Prophet, nicknamed Ansari
who by 634 was spoiling all over Palestine and Syria, thus corroborating the earliest non-Muslim accounts we have (from the 'Doctrina
Jacobi' of 634 to at least John bar Penkaye who wrote in 687). This Maslamah, sometimes referred to as 'The Sword of the Prophet'
(read his hit-man), wasn't even an Arab being described as ''a halif of the Aws tribe''.
http://christianorigins.com/islamrefs.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_Maslamah
Muhammad ibn Maslamah, sometimes surnamed Ansari (591-666) (Arabic: محمد بن مسلمة الأنصاري‎) was a Companion of Muhammad. He was among the first in Yathrib to become a Muslim and was a halif or an ally of the Aws tribe in Medina indicating he was not an Arab. He became a Muslim at the hands of Musab ibn Umayr, before Usayd ibn Hudayr and Sad ibn Muadh who were influential men in the city. In 622 when Muhammad arrived in Medina he paired off each Muhajir with one of the Ansar, joining Muhammad ibn Maslamah with Abu Ubaydah ibn al-Jarrah. Muhammad ibn Maslamah took part in all the military engagements of Muhammad except the Battle of Tabouk. (...)

In 627, after the surrender of the Banu Qurayza, Muhammad ibn Maslamah was put in charge of the captured males that were eventually killed. During the caliphate of Umar (634 - 644), Muhammad ibn Maslamah was put in charge of a special office established to investigate complaints against officers of the state. When Amr ibn al-Aas requested reinforcements during his expedition to Egypt, Umar sent him four detachments of one thousand men each, led by Muhammad ibn Maslamah, az-Zubayr ibn aI-Awwam, Ubadah ibn as-Samit and al-Miqdad ibn al-Aswad.

Muhammad ibn Maslamah also served Umar's successor, Uthman. When the latter was killed in 656 and civil war broke out Muhammad did not participate, deliberately broking the sword he always used and which was given to him by Muhammad. During this time, he was known as the "Knight of the Prophet" and by refusing to use the sword against Muslims he preserved this reputation. Muhammad ibn Maslamah died in Medina, April 666 at the age of seventy five. His brother Mahmoud (MHMD) ibn Maslamah killed in Al-Khandaq battle against unbelievers. He was involved in the expulsion of the Banu Nadir from Medina. He was married and fathered two sons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Aws
Shi'a sources say they were Jews, while a Jewish source says they and the Banu Khazraj were Arab tribes from Yemen who came to Medina in the fourth century CE. The Jewish source continues to say that the two tribes took the power of Medina from the Jews in the fifth century "By calling in outside assistance and treacherously massacring at a banquet"

Just like Salman the Persian, this Muhammad ibn Maslamah wasn't thus of Arabic descent.
So the need to create the Arabic fables of Mecca, the Ka'aba, the Hajj and of 'Muhammad'.

I will end this serial on an examination of the name MHMD (or MHMT).
Thanks everyone for your appreciated patience... !

Re: Muhammad -Myth vs Reality.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 8:04 pm
by The Cat
Part 6a: Considerations over MHMD(t): A name or an appelation?
As we've seen all the references to a MHMD are found in 5 Medina verses, not counting the added ones in brackets.
This small number is suspect in itself: can we imagine the gospels with only 5 mentions of the name Jesus-Christ?
Can we imagine the Torah with such a few mentions of Moses and all the others in added brackets? Of course not!
Image

Now let's review, in chronological order, the 5 Medina verses referring to a MHMD in the Koran:

3.144 (89th): ''Muhammad is but a messenger, messengers (like him) have passed away before him. Will it be that,
when he dieth or is slain, ye will turn your back on your heels?''

33.40 (90th): ''Muhammad is not the father of any man among you, but he is the messenger and the Seal of Prophets.''
(Note: Khatim an-Nabiyin could be coming from Aramaic, i.e. Witness of; Nabi is not Arabic but Akkadian i.e. nabu = to call).
Or is it referring to a mark between his shoulders?: http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ ... ethood.htm

47.2 (95th): ''Those who believe and do good works and believe in that which is revealed unto Muhammad -and it is the
truth from their Lord - He riddeth them of their ill-deeds and improveth their state.

61.6 (109th): ''And when Jesus son of Mary said: O Children of Israel! Lo! I am the messenger of Allah unto you, confirming
that which was (revealed) before me in the Torah, and bringing good tidings of a messenger who cometh after me, whose
name is the Praised One (written Ahmad).''

48.29 (111th): ''Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard against the disbelievers and merciful
among themselves. Thou (O Muhammad) seest them bowing and falling prostrate (in worship), seeking bounty from Allah
and (His) acceptance. The mark of them is on their foreheads from the traces of prostration. Such is their likeness in the
Torah and their likeness in the Gospel.''

We find sparkling references to Jesus-Christ in all those verses: How can 33.40 reconcile a -final- prophet with the announcement
of another one yet to come (61.6)? It all comes more into light when we are informed of the Ahmad/Comforter meaning (in 61.6),
through Ibn Ishaq: ''Munahhemada is Syriac for Muhammad, in Greek he is the Paraclete.'' (Life of Muhammad, tr. Guillaume).
Indeed, the Syriac Mehahhemada means: the Life Giver, One who raises from death, hardly describing the traditional Muhammad.

http://answering-islam.org/Index/A/ahmad.html
By Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham's account of the verse, as recorded in Ibn Ishaq's biography of Muhammad: "...But when the Comforter has come whom God will send to you from the Lord's presence, and the spirit of truth which will have gone forth from the Lord's presence he (shall bear) witness of me and ye also, because ye have been with me from the beginning. I have spoken unto you about this that you should not be in doubt." ''The Munahhemana (God bless and preserve him!) in Syriac is Muhammad, in Greek he is the Paraclete." (Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, tr. Guillaume, pp. 103-104)

Ibn Ishaq does not say that the word "Paraclete" is "Periklutos". In fact, he confirmed that the word in Greek is Paraclete. Moreover, he affirms that John wrote down the Gospel that was revealed to Jesus. He also used Comforter when translating that word. In order to apply the verse to Muhammad, Ibn Ishaq identifies the Syriac word Munahhemna to Muhammad, instead of using "Ahmad" in both the above passage as well as in as-Saff 61:6, which would be the best (obvious) way to prove that the "Paraclete" is Muhammad.

"The most interesting word is that rendered ‘Comforter’ which we find in Palestinian Lectionary, but all other Syriac versions render it ‘Paraclete’ following the Greek. ... The menahhemana in Syriac means the life-giver and specifically the one who raises from the dead. Obviously such a meaning is out of place here and what is meant is one who consoles and comforts people for the loss of one dear to them." (ibid, Guillaume in footnote). As Guillaume pointed, Muhammad hardly fits the description of one who raises the dead, nor is he a life-giver. When the Syriac Christians applied that title to Jesus, it is perfectly within his authority to give life and raise the dead, as he had demonstrated.

According to the Islamic tradition his name was Eb’ul (Ab'ul) Kasim 'Muhammad' ibn Abdullah ibn Abdul 'Muttalip ibn Hashim,
in short: Muhammad. Different accounts on his nickname of MHMD (praised worthy) are given: some say it came from Abu
Talib, his uncle, or that it has been given by his mother Amina, while other sources say that the already nicknamed ''al-Amin''
(trusthworthy) gave himself yet another title on his departure (Hijra) from Mecca! A melting pot of confused contradictions...

As evidences are given there was no such name in the 6th century, which bloomed almost instantly all along with Islam!
I think that, formerly, it referred to an Arabic epithet about Jesus an -apocalyptic- Messiah, not the redeemer we know.
Thus in accordance with all early non-Muslim sources describing 'Muhammad' or 'Mahmud' in such apocalyptic prophethood...
Those who formerly took up this name (like Maslimah) were pillaging warlords under the disguise of apocalyptic justifiers!

As late as John of Damascus (circa 730), the Islamic prophet was rather known as Mamed.
Since he was raised and worked for the Umayyads, his claim stands all the more credible !
http://christianorigins.com/islamrefs.html#johndamascus

I'll be quoting Mr Gaznavi without following his too jumpy order, gathering many dispersed parts...
http://reocities.com/spenta_mainyu_2/Muhammad.htm
The majority of the Christians around Hicaz and South Syria belonged to the Jacobite (Yakubמ) community and not to that of the Nestorians (Nasturמs). The pronunciation used in the Arabic proper names mentioned above is that of the Nestorians (Remember the Nestorian monk Sergis Bhira who was one of the Messenger’s tutors) and not that of the Jacobites. The latter say Ishmo’il, Isro’il and Ishok etc., and not Isma’il, Isra’il, and Ishak, and also Furkon and not Furkan, Kurbon and not Kurban, Kashish and not Kashshish (with a shadda), as they appear in the Kuran.

Amongst the suras referring to the language, there is a very peculiar one in Kuran 42:7: “We have revealed to you a Kuran in Arabic so that you can caution the mother of settlements and civilisations, and the ones around it.” This ‘mother of settlements and civilisations’ must be Makka. Can you imagine Makka as the ‘mother of settlements and civilisations’? I cannot! Consider the conditions in the Arabian Peninsula today, go back 1400 years in time, there was only one settlement, which could be called a ‘city.’ It was Medinta (meaning city in Hebrew), which is Medina of our day. There was no other city around. In that case, how a settlement that has not become a city yet could be the mother of civilisations? (Note: through the Lihyan and Thamud legacy, Hegra could be so considered from an Arabic perspective)......

IS 'MUHAMMAD' A NAME?.......
Nevo and Koren have also noted that in Arabic literature, the root hmd (from which comes the name "Mohammed") was first used as a title for the prophetic figure, only later did it specifically become his name around the first few years of the 8th century, being linked to the Judaeo-Christian style prophet being introduced by Abd al-Malik. The root itself means not so much "one who is praised" (the traditional understanding, developed later and attached to Mohammed), but "chosen one", thus clarifying the early messianic role for the Arab prophet. The term 'muhammed' appears four times in the Qur'an, and in each case the use is accompanied by no personal information, even though the Qur'an elsewhere takes great pains to emphasis the kinship affiliation of other prophets with the people to whom they were sent. This suggests that the references to Mohammed entered the developing Arab scriptures before their prophet had been provided with a biography, and perhaps even before Mohammed was understood to be his name, rather than just his title.

This seems to find support from a piece of evidence contemporary with this process of developing a prophet for Islam. In John of Damascus' Haeresies, he wrote, "So until the times of Heraclius they [the Arabs] were plain idolators. From that time till now a false prophet appeared among them, surnamed Muhammad, who, having happened upon the Old and the New Testament and apparently having conversed, in like manner, with an Arian monk, put together his own heresy...." Notice that John identifies "Mamed" as the surname for this Arabian prophet. This suggests that "Mohammed" originally was not the personal name for this prophet at all, but that the term was instead titular or descriptive, likely a laqab (the part of an Arabic name that gives a description of its bearer). (...)

In the Thomas the Presbyter’s Chronicle the following is written on the Arab conquests after 636 A.D.: “On the front fly-leaf of a sixth-century Syriac manuscript containing the Gospel according to Matthew and the Gospel according to Mark are scribbled a few lines about the Arab conquest, now very faint. The following entries are the most readable: ''In January (the people of) Hims took the word for their lives and many villages were ravaged by the killing of the Arabs of ‘Muhmd’ (Muhammad?) and many people were slain and (taken) prisoner from Galilee as far as Beth." In the above quote the place called Hims is Emese, which is the town of Homs in Syria. We understand that the Hagarenes had carried out murder on a mass scale from Galilee to Beth (which is their usual practice).

Here is another quote from the same book: “In the year 945, indiction 7, on Friday 7 February (634) at the ninth hour, there was a battle between the Romans and tayyaye d-Mhmt [Arabs of Mhmt (Muhammad?)] in Palestine twelve miles east of Gaza. The Romans fled, leaving behind the patrician bryrdn, whom the Arabs killed. Some 4000 poor villagers of Palestine were killed there, Christians, Jews and Samaritans. The Arabs ravaged the whole region." (Thomas the Presbyter, Chronicle). In these quotes the name of the leader of the group called Hagarenes-Ish'maelites is given as ‘Muhmd’ and ‘Mhmt’ As I have pointed out many times Arabic belongs to the family of Semitic languages, and it does not use the vowels. (...)

What is the reason behind the absence of the same emphasis in the earlier Arabic inscriptions, which are supposedly closer to the time he lived? But what is more peculiar is the absence of his name in the earlier texts. For instance, coming across the name of the Messenger is said to be impossible before Abd al Malik’s inscription in the Dome of the Rock in Yerushalim. The scholars are puzzled by the lack of reference to the name of such an important person for Islam in the first years. They maintain that: Until caliph Abd al Malik had an inscription placed on the Dome of the Rock in 691 A.D. there were no references to the name of the Messenger. This shows that the ‘Muhammadan’ formula has been established in the time of Marwan the second, after 684 A.D. This formula is said to have become an official declaration overnight and was used in all the official documents and inscriptions. (...)

This formula does not appear in any inscription dated before the year 691 A.D. This is said to be true whether the inscription is religious or mainly commemorative including a religious emphasis, according to Yehuda Nevo. The example of such an inscription is at the dam near the town of Ta’if, built by the caliph Mu’awiya in the 660s A.D. (Yehuda Nevo). The ‘Muhammadan’ formula (‘Allah is the only god and Muhammad is his messenger’) only began to be used in the popular rock inscriptions of the central Negev sometime during the reign of Caliph Hisham (724-743 A.D.), about 30 years after its introduction by Abd al Malik.

We see that there's a time discrepancy between the inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock, dated 691, and all the others.
According to Karl-Heinz Ohlig and Gerd-R Puin, the MHMD written are referring to Jesus-Christ, but it's more than that:
In my next development I'll show how and why the inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock should be dated 833 and not 691!