Any reference of Female Circumcision or Khatna in Quran?

[Takeiteasynow]

The point I tried to make is first that the Nabatean religion as we know it is not monotheistic. There are overlaps with other ME religions of their days, but not much with Judaism. So somehow "Abraham" does not really fit as a role model for the Nabateans. Therefore I am not sure of this notion of the "Ishmaelites" is a real Nabatean one or simply a Hebrew projection.

Well, there are strong similarities with Judaism until the first century AD, for instance the usage of the Babylonian lunar-solar calendar and other customs. More crucial is the age of the Nabataean religion - maybe this is the parental Yahwist religion? The absence of Abrahamic inscriptions in Hebrew is confusing. The Jews from Elephantine have all the Jewish customs and traditions but no one is called Abraham.

But there are references to these tribes from secondary sources, for instance from Babylon.
http://www.balaams-ass.com/alhaj/twelve ... hmael.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And Eusebius refers to Theman as a locality in the fourth century.

That is why I said Arabia meant something different in antiquity..

The same notion can be asserted in the Nessana papyri, seventh century AD.

[manfred]

The question one should be asking one's self is how could Muhammad actually pass off the Kaaba as being built by Ibrahim, if the Arabs did not already believe it considering that Arab tribes had since antiquity been paying extensive homage to the Kaaba and its rites?

The Kaaba in Mecca could only be at most 200 or so years old when Mohammed died. And it was, if the Muslim accounts are to be believed, a shrine not unlike some found in Petra, with much the same deities in it. This alone suggests there something not quite right with the conventional accounts, but that is another issue.

But you are asking a very valid question. And at least part of the answer is found in the QUr'an, specifically in surah 9.
Mohammed bans non-Muslims from Mecca and excludes them from worshipping there. His followers grumble, they fear they have put their lives at risk for nothing... Wasn't the main reason for capturing Mecca so that the Muslims get a regular income from the Kaaba pilgrims? Allah helpfully intervenes with the revelation instructing Muslims to attack Christians and Jews and extract protection money from them, because they do not believe the right thing... (9:28 to 30)

But that was not quite sufficient to keep the peace. It sounded too much like "jam tomorrow".

So Mohammed decided to "islamify" the Kaaba, so that it could continue to run as a reliable source of income. So we get the black stone and the hajj, all "sanctioned" and "explained" by Allah, the ever-helpful invisible servant of Mohammed. And we get the re-write of Abraham and Ishmael....

Did all his followers believe all this stuff? No, if we read the hadith, there clearly were doubts. But why was it accepted?

Two reasons: Mohammed was a powerful man. It was unwise to be critical of anything he said or did. People remember those who were executed for poems about him. Open doubt would mean certain death.

Second.... It SUITED the Muslim interests. If all this stuff Mohammed was saying was true, and the was the "prophet", so it could perhaps be so, then the Kaaba could stay open for business! All the old customs can stay, all we need is a new reason to keep them.... and Mohammed supplied that.

So would you have shouted "what nonsense" into the face of Mohammed and have your head chopped off or would stay quiet and think of the cash coming in from future Muslim pilgrims in ever greater numbers? if you are used to Ramadan and the hajj, it is not great you can just keep all that as long as you just use a different rationale for this? Mohammed supplied that. The choice was to see all the old customs disappear, or even get executed as a murtad, or to accept Mohammed's "re-alignment". A no brainer really.



Not that hard to understand really.

[Eagle]

Abraham's connection to the Kaaba was never questioned by those first concerned, the Arab Pagans, yet they did not waste any opportunity at challenging, twisting, discrediting as "nonsense" most of what the prophet said or did, just as all past prophets were treated by their people.

Assuming the untenable idea, unheard of even from the most fanciful critics of Islam, ancients and modern, that the early Muslims conspired to create this Abrahamic connection for business purposes (yet they are the ones to have "grumbled" at their loss of livelihood precisely due to this, with out having any limb "chopped off"), despite not existing a trace of any opponent accusing them of such, then one would still need to explain, besides these and other hurdles, why would this group of people appeal to Abraham at a time where they had everything to lose by doing so, in connection to a monument revered by a people who supposedly known nothing of this inherited legacy? The Kaaba's "islamisation" in practice could have still happenned without Abraham.

The ordinance, the banning of idolaters from practicing their religion in the sacred precincts of the Kaaba, had naturally caused the Muslims to fear for their livelihood 9:28. This meant the town would automatically lose its position as a comercial center and all trade would cease. However these worldly considerations could not interfer with the carrying out of higher objectives and further "if you fear poverty then Allah will enrich you out of His grace if He please; surely Allah is Knowing Wise". That enrichment came as the entire land of Arabia entered the fold of Islam like waves upon waves as prophecied in a time when none could have imagined for such an outcome to come true 110:1-3. The jizya cannot counterbalance for this loss of trade neither did it cause anyone to become rich.

And the prophet Muhammad is nor thw assassin prophet David of the HB. When he punished, it never was out of mere retaliation for a personal slight or injury. All his punishments, of believers and unbelievers alike, were for crimes committed against the public weal or infringements of the promulgated law; and even here his life contains acts of clemency in which he put mercy above justice.

Poets in those times covered a wide variety of activities, many approved in Islam and the prophet, others disapproved such as those who would use their skill to start and end wars by instigating hatred among different parties who otherwise would not have even fought eachother on the battlefield, they were therefore rightfully considered combattants like any soldier in a time where threats and treason were coming from all side against the nascent Muslim community, aiming at its extinction.
The closest one can come to the kind of impact this kind of poetry had in Arabian tribal life in those days, is to remember the role propaganda played during the world wars of the 20th century, more particularily the 2nd one.

Like with every flimsy revision of history, it is very easy to spew anything but extremely difficult to intricately explain how a massive lie can knowingly, willingly be accepted, established. Again we're not speaking of pyramids or some monuments no longer used, but of a living monument kept in high regard by an entire population past, present and future. We're not talking of a single person making a grandiose claim on the origins of a population and its hometown, but of an entire population's claims based on ancestral knowledge.

Kaaba is spoken of by Greek historians of the 1st century. Through their trade and interraction with the people of the region, the Meccans brought in idols whom they unanimously agreed were only intercessors with Allah the supreme Creator.

[manfred]

Abraham's connection to the Kaaba was never questioned by those first concerned, the Arab Pagans, yet they did not waste any opportunity at challenging, twisting, discrediting as "nonsense" most of what the prophet said or did, just as all past prophets were treated by their people.

You only question things when you get to know them.

MUSLIMS would not question Mohammed. And the non-Muslims were banished from Mecca, their voices erased by Muslim writers.

Kaaba is spoken of by Greek historians of the 1st century.

Now don't be ridiculous. A "Kaaba" maybe, but certainly not the one in Mecca. There was no Mecca at all in the first century. There are NO REFERENCES AT ALL about Mecca until much later. And Diodorus Siculus did mention a sanctuary of the Arabs. But "Arabia", as repeatedly shown, was not the Arab peninsula in ancient times. To a Roman, "Arabia" was the Nabatean kingdom with Petra as its capital, and later also Yemen. the desert part was not even known properly. And Diodorus describes the location and matches roughly the area of Petra. The Roman Empire took control of part of the Hejaz in 106 CE, but even though detailed descriptions were established of Western Arabia by Rome, such as by Procopius, there are no references of a pilgrimage and trading outpost such as Mecca. In fact the first unambiguous mention of Mecca is in a Byzantine chronicle from the 8th century, but the location is wrong as well.

At best we can assume that Mecca was a fairly new settlement when Mohammed was born. The idea it was a trading centre is also quite daft. People would have used the sea or exceptionally the coast. Mecca is simply too out of the way.

And Mohammed admitted that he made all the stuff about the Kaaba, to Aisha:

“Had not your people been still close to the pre-Islamic period of ignorance I would have dismantled the Kaaba and would have made two doors in it; one for entrance and the other for exit”. [Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 3, Number 128].

We have had that discussion previously with another Muslim and he ran away from the forum, some years back.

"if you fear poverty then Allah will enrich you out of His grace if He please; surely Allah is Knowing Wise"

So "Allah" is very much concerned about grumbles amongst the Muslims. He throws money at it. How spiritual of him. But not his money, OTHER PEOPLE'S money, as verse 29 explains. He instructs Muslims to attack Jews and Christians, fight to the death, until they agree to pay protection money. And Allah specifically justifies this attack on peaceful people with their religion, which, he, hilariously, describes wrongly in verse 30...

The whole thing really is so silly that the only miracle is that Muslims actually believe that. Let's face it someone who mistakes surah 9 as some kind of divine words, will believe pretty much any nonsense, as long Mohammed pronounces it.

[Eagle]

Muslims questioned their prophet all throughout his life. All the accusations of the prophet's enemies are available, in the Quran, hadiths, and other books of the traditions. But of course except the untenanble one proposed earlier....

Siculus is the writer and he spoke of the Kaaba viewtopic.php?f=21&t=18423&start=20#p242368" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes Allah is concerned with those that sacrifice their livelihood for a higher truth and he compensates them both in this life and the next. Jizya had nothing to do with that and neither were the people of the book addressed in the verses peaceful. As to v30 which accurately paints the beliefs of Jews and Christians it is addressing, although their persistence in disbelief and uttering of falsehood is forcefully condemned as worthy of divine wrath, never is this attitude given as a reason to fight them.

[Eagle]

What was "repeatedly shown" concerning Arabia in the 1st century, was that it extended present day eastern Egypt, including the Sinai Peninsula, southern Israel, Jordan, and parts of Syria and Iraq, all of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and the Gulf States on the Persian Gulf.

[Centaur]

Muslims questioned their prophet all throughout his life. All the accusations of the prophet's enemies are available, in the Quran, hadiths, and other books of the traditions. But of course except the untenanble one proposed earlier....

Siculus is the writer and he spoke of the Kaaba viewtopic.php?f=21&t=18423&start=20#p242368" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes Allah is concerned with those that sacrifice their livelihood for a higher truth and he compensates them both in this life and the next. Jizya had nothing to do with that and neither were the people of the book addressed in the verses peaceful. As to v30 which accurately paints the beliefs of Jews and Christians it is addressing, although their persistence in disbelief and uttering of falsehood is forcefully condemned as worthy of divine wrath, never is this attitude given as a reason to fight them.

why are you lying like this, mohammed didnt entertain any criticism but butchered his critiques when he had amassed enough power to do so. When he was slightly less power full and still in the process of building his robbing gang he was well versed in the business of cursing and ranting game. one of the best example is from quran itself- Abu lahab. Abu lahab called mohammed names and in return Mohamed dedicated a good part of a chapter and his time returung the favour like a street rowdy.

Mohammed didnt even leave Abu lahabs wife Umm Jama alone. As she was a firewood vendor, Mohammed's curse was that she would be providing firewood forever for burning her husband in hell in the afterlife.

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option ... ew&id=1062

[Eagle]

The hadith, obviously speaking of the prophet wanting to conduct reparations to what is nothing but a building and not wanting to hurt the people's extra sensitivities to it. Here a longer version unappealing to the deception hunters'

Ata' reported: The House was burnt during the time of Yazid b. Muawiya when the people of Syria had fought (in Mecca). And it happened with it (the Ka'ba) what was (in store for it). Ibn Zubair (Allah be pleased with him) felt it (in the same state) until the people came in the season (of Hajj). (The idea behind was) that he wanted to exhort them or incite them (to war) against the people of Syria. When the people had arrived he said to them: O people, advise me about the Ka'ba. Should I demolish it and then build it from its very foundation, or should I repair whatever has been damaged of it? Ibn 'Abbas said: An idea has occurred to me according to which I think that you should only repair (the portion which has been) damaged, and leave the House (in that very state in which) people embraced Islam (and leave those very stones in the same state) when people embraced Islam, and over which Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) had raised it. Thereupon Ibn Zubair said: It the house of any one of you is burnt, he would not be contented until he had reconstructed it, then what about the House of your Lord (which is far more Important than your house)? I would seek good advice from my Lord thrice and then I would make up (my mind) about this affair. After seeking good advice thrice, he made up his mind to demolish it. The people apprehended that calamity might fall from heaven on those persons who would be first to climb (over the building for the purpose of demolishing it), till one (took up courage, and ascended the roof), and threw down one of its stones. When the people saw no calamity befalling him, they followed him, demolished it until it was razed to the ground. Then Ibn Zubair erected pillars and hung cartains on them (in order to provide facilities to the people for observing the time of its construction). And the walls were raised; and Ibn Zubair said: I heard 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) say that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) had observed: If the people had Rot recently (abandoned) unbelief, find I had means enough to reconstruct it, which I had not, I would have definitely excompassed in it five cubits of area from Hijr. And I would also have constructed a door for the people to enter, and a door for their exit. I today have (the means to spend) and I entertain no fearfrom the side of people (that they would protest against this change). So he added five cubits of area from the side of Hatim to it that there appeared (the old) foundation (upon which Hadrat Ibrahim had built the Ka'ba). and the people saw that and it was upon this foundation that the wall was raised. The length of the Ka'ba was eighteen cubits. when addition was made to it (which was in its breadth), then naturally the length appears to be) small (as compared with its breadth). Then addition of ten cubits (of area) was made in its length (also). Two doors were also constructed, one of which (was meant) for entrance and the other one for exit. When Ibn Zubair (Allah be pleased with him) was killed, Hajjaj wrote to 'Abd al-Malik (b. Marwan) informing him about it, and telling him that Ibn Zubair (Allah be pleased with him) had built (the Ka'ba) on those very foundations (which were laid by Ibrahim) and which reliable persons among the Meccans had seen. 'Abd al-Malik wrote to him: We are not concerned with the censuring of Ibn Zubair in anything. Keep intact the addition made by him in the side of length, and whatever he has added frem the side of Hijr revert to (its previous) foundation, and wall up the door which he had opened. Thus Hajjaj at the command of Abd al-Malik) demolished it (that portion) and rebuilt it on (its previous) foundations

[manfred]

Siculus is the writer and he spoke of the Kaaba

No he did not.

He spoke of a "sanctuary revered by the Arabs". He gives a location, it is close the Petra.

And the desert part of the Arabian peninsula was not considered as "Arabia". You quoted Josephus yourself.

[Eagle]

He says all of Arabia, all of it, venerates a singular temple. There are no 1st century maps of Arabia so scholars gather all territories writers of that time spoke of when they mentionned Arabia.

Which singular temple was revered by all of Arabia in the 1st century, even in Petra?

[manfred]

He says all of Arabia, all of it, venerates a singular temple. There are no 1st century maps of Arabia so scholars gather all territories writers of that time spoke of when they mentionned Arabia.

Which singular temple was revered by all of Arabia in the 1st century, even in Petra?

You are talking about ONE small sentence, and you are misrepresenting what it says.

“Hieron d’ hagiōtaton hidrutai, timōmenon hupo pantōn Arabōn perittoteron.”
“A very sacred temple has been established there which is highly revered by all the Arabs.”
—Diodorus Siculus, tr. Stanley M. Burnstein

According to Agatharchides, one of the sources of Diodorus, somewhere south of the Gulf of Aqaba is a bay or gulf (kolpos) that runs inland about 500 stadia—a very improbable number, roughly 90 km. The mouth is too craggy for ships to traverse. Around the bay live a hunting people called something like the Batmizomaneis or Banizomeneis. Diodorus uniquely includes the detail that a “very sacred temple has been established there which is highly revered by all the Arabs.”

The thing is there is no such gulf near Mecca. There is a lagoon 300 km north from Jeddah, but it does not run inland. There is a groups of island with a small lagoon some 100 km north of Jeddah, and that also does not fit the description. Talking about Jeddah, as that would have been known in the 1st century BC, at least by some, as a port important for the Nabateans selling Frankincense and such, if it was anywhere near there, Jeddah surely would have got a mention.

There is a "gulf," not as large as described though, with reef and islands in front of it, running inland as described, slightly east to the entrance to the gulf of Aqaba, from the red sea. That is the best fit for the scant description. There were many "Kaabas" in the region at the time, so which one he meant it unclear, but it cannot be Mecca as the description of the location does not fit, and there simply was not Mecca as yet.

Diodorus also says that this sanctuary is NORTH of the people of Thamud, not south.

This suggests that the sanctuary was in Nabatean land, and the "gulf" was that treacherous false entry to the gulf of Aqaba already mentioned.

If the "sanctuary" Diodorus briefly mentions did even exist, must look for it in Nabatean land.

He certainly would not suggest a "sanctuary" in a place that did not yet exist. You might as well suggest he means New York....

[Centaur]

who else thinks if Saudi Arabia opens up for archaeology that will be another nail on the coffin of Islam.

[Eagle]

The question, like many others asked in this thread, remains unaddressed: where/what is the single 1st century temple revered by all of Arabia? That there were scattered kaabas is known and already stated.

The statement of Sicilus can in no way whatsoever reject the premise it was not the Kaaba.

Next after these plains as one skirts the coast comes a gulf of extraordinary nature. It runs, namely, to a point deep into the land, extends in length a distance of some five hundred stades, and shut in as it is by crags which are of wondrous size, its mouth is winding and hard to get out of; for a rock which extends into the sea obstructs its entrance and so it is impossible for a ship either to sail into or out of the gulf. Furthermore, at times when the current rushes in and there are frequent shiftings of the winds, the surf, beating upon the rocky beach, roars and rages all about the projecting rock. The inhabitants of the land about the gulf, who are known as Banizomenes, find their food by hunting the land animals and eating their meat. And a temple has been set up there, which is very holy and exceedingly revered by all Arabians.

Sicilus does not mention the Thamudites nor does he mention the Nabateans, in relation to where this Temple is located. He says the location of this Temple is where the Banizomes inhabit the region. He states that these people hunt land animals and eat their meat, mean they are an inland, not coastal people.

Further, Sicilus most likely is quoting second hand from Agatharchides. Strabo, who are said to quote from the same source, only quote the following:

92c. Then there is a bay, about five hundred stades in extent, encircled by mountains and with an entrance that is difficult to penetrate. Men who hunt wild land animals live around it. (Agatharchides of Cnidus, On the Erythraean Sea 169 BC, translated by Stanley M. Burstein, 1989, book 5, fragment 92c. Strabo 15 AD, 16.4.18, C777)

He makes no mention of the Temple. SInce Sicilus' compilation is taken from multiple sources, he could have easily conflaged different accounts from other sources. The point is, he mentions a singular Temple revered by all Arabs.

[manfred]

`The question, like many others asked in this thread, remains unaddressed: where/what is the single 1st century temple revered by all of Arabia? That there were scattered kaabas is known and already stated.

The statement of Sicilus can in no way whatsoever reject the premise it was not the Kaaba.

It's "Diodorus Siculus"

You question is like "which unicorn ate the apple pie"?

The was no "single" Kaaba and the source does not speak of it. And nobody, including Sicilus, make that claim, Only you do.

And you are claiming it must be the Kaaba Diodorus speaks of because we cannot exactly locate something he mentioned in passing.

There is no bay, even remotely near Mecca.

But Gibbon was mistaken. As our sources move on from the bay, southward down the coast, they encounter the lands of a people called the Thamūd (Thamoudēnoi). We have no hard and fast borders for the lands occupied by the Thamūd, but ancient and Islamic sources place them in the northwest of the Peninsula, not far from the Nabataeans and Arabia Petraea. Gibbon explicitly puts the temple between the Thamūd in the northwest and the Sabaeans in the Yemen – an area that may include Mecca – whereas a more careful reading of the Agatharchides tradition places the bay and its vaunted temple north of the Thamūd.

http://www.iandavidmorris.com/mecca-bef ... the-kaaba/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The location that best fits the description, as I already told you, is Leuke Kome

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leuke_Kome" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And that is the consensus of all the most recent studies, not counting Muslim ones, who of course do anything to make Islam look right, including rewriting history. It is quite funny that you would agree with Edward Gibbon, the Orientalist most hated by Muslims, on this obvious mistake.

You would first need to provide multiple references to the city of Mecca in the first century, all stating that it had that "single" sanctuary. As there are no records at all of any such place, not even one tiny description, a piece of pottery, a ruin from that day, nothing at all, that theory is plain daft.


This post, from another topic, is also relevant here:

Dan Gibson has published a new paper on the Pre-Islamic Ka'ba.

Source: https://thesacredcity.ca/Four%20Kabas.pdf

The Pre-Islamic Ka’ba

Very little is known about the first pre-Islamic Ka’ba. However, from my survey of the earliest Qiblas, I concluded that the pre-Islamic Ka’ba must have been built in the city of Petra, because it was where all of the earliest Qiblas pointed. But first we need to learn something of the history of the Ka’ba.

From Islamic sources we learn that the history of this location goes back to Abraham and Ishmael. Allah revealed to Ibrahim, may peace be on him, to erect the Ka'ba when he was one hundred years old and Isma'il was thirty years old, so he built it with him. Isma'il died after his father and was interred inside al- Ḥijr close to the Ka`ba by the side of his mother Hajar. (Ibn Sa’ad Vol 1, 1.8.14. & Ṭabarī, Vol. I, p. 162, and Ibn Hishām 2).

In the above description several things are evident. Muslims believe that the original Ka’ba was built by Abraham and Ishmael, and the graves of Hagar and her son are located there, near the Ka’ba.

We also have descriptions of the Pre-Islamic mosque. First, Ibn Hishām tells us that the original Ka’ba was a small, roofless enclosure, with walls a little higher than a man.

...the Quraysh decided to rebuild the Ka`ba when the apostle was thirty-five years of age. They were planning to roof it and feared to demolish it, for it was made of loose stones above a man's height, and they wanted to raise it and roof it because men had stolen part of the treasure of the Ka`ba which used to be in a well in the middle of it. (Ibn Hishām 44)

Azraqī (pg. 27) tells us that it was made of rough stone laid dry. The dimensions of the sides are listed as: north-east: 32 cubits, north-west: 22 cubits, south-west: 31 cubits, south-east: 20 cubits. So the proportions were roughly 3:2. If we calculate a cubit as 0.4572 meters, then the dimensions would have been: 14.63 meters x 10.6 meters x 14.17 meters x 9.1 meters.

Dan Gibson projects these fine dimensions onto an ancient and unexplained structure in front of the Qasr al-Bint. He proposes this place as the original location of the Ka'ba.

Location:https://www.google.com/maps/@30.3298279 ... a=!3m1!1e3

[Fernando]

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: "The Prophet Ibrahim circumcised himself when he was eighty years old and he circumcised himself with an axe." (Related by Bukhari, Muslim & Ahmad.)

Abraham is also said to have died age 175. This is hardly credible. It's much more likely that he died when he was 80, as a result of attempting to circumcise himself with an axe.

[manfred]

You mean you don't shave with an axe as people do?

[Eagle]

There are narrow bays on Jeddah's coast, which is very close to Mecca. Again, Diodorus places it in an area of simple people who hunt land animals, off a particular coast in the Red Sea. The accounts of those that live by the coast and eat fish are also mentioned, which gives further evidnece that the Temple was located inland. He doesn;t equate it with the Nabateans and he doesn't do it with the Souther Arabian kingdoms. He places it in an area of simple people who hunt land animals, off a particular coast in the Red Sea. The accounts of those that live by the coast and eat fish are also mentioned, which gives further evidnece that the Temple was located inland per his understanding. Something very important to note and as will be demonstrated below, Diodorus isn't an authority on Arabia, he didn't venture into Arabia but was simply relating history according to 2nd-3rd hand records.

So how does one explain the error of judgment committed by two scholars, Muir and Gibbon- that too the same error, when neither of them are known to be sympathetic to Muslims, meaning they had every reason not to admit to Siculus' allusion to the Kaaba? Btw Gibbon was known for his accuracy in quoting primary sources,
providing in-depth detail regarding his use of sources for his work, which included documents dating back to ancient Rome.

But all this is besides the point, of course there was no single Kaaba in Arabia and this is attested by the Muslim sources as well much before the coming of people with their flimsy tales. The point is where is the single temple revered by all of Arabia in the 1st century?

As an aside, as already shown, Agatharchides' general description of the coast along the Arabian Peninsula is a lost work partially reconstructed from three other ancient authors: Diodorus (49 BC), Strabo (15 AD), Photius (897 AD). Agatharchides himself quotes from Alexandrian official records as well as relies heavily on another Greek writer, Anaxicrates. In short, neither Agatharchides nor Diodorus nor Strabo ventured in these areas they are comenting about and are all relying on second hand sources. Diodorus, as already shown, injects his comment about the universal Arabian temple within the same passage from Agatharchides that Strabo quotes, yet Strabo says nothing of the Temple.
There are other such situations where Diodorus differs from Strabo and Phontius as they all quote the same passage from Agatharchides, the most applicable being 87a where Diodorus inserts a passage about "an ancient altar that is made of hard stone and bears an inscription in lettering that is archaic and unintelligible" which is missing from Strabo in 87b.
The necessary implication of this point is, as stated above, Diodorus' statement on the Temple has most likely conflated accounts based upon second-hand information. Further, when Diodorus speaks of a temple commemorated by all Arabs, this does not mean he saw it or was actually present when Arabs were going there. He probably got it from a third-party source who also heard it from some Arab. It's a historical record from an outsider, not an insider.

[Eagle]

As to potteries, china, forks and knives..

No modern archeological research was done in Mecca to determine its antiquity, because of the backward, reactionary wahabite dynasty of the Saud family that now rules over the area that has become known by its proper name; Saudi Arabia. Not only does this corrupt ideology prevent or strictly limits all historical and cultural endeavors, it in addition does not miss any occasion to systematically raze and destroy whatever artifact or construction it believes might lead to improper veneration. It is surprising that critics, mainly from the Judeo-Christian background point to that absence of evidence to undermine Mecca and the Kaaba's antiquity yet no archaeological evidence for Solomon's first temple's existence, let alone its location, has been discovered despite 19th century excavations, and no extra-biblical records of it have survived, despite it being a place where much more people flocked in for pilgrimage than to Mecca, bringing in all kinds of offerings, sacrificing thousands of animals according to the Bible.

The stone palace uncovered at the foot of Temple Mount in Jerusalem could attest that King David had been there; or it might belong to another era entirely, depending who you ask. There is no archeological evidence even for the second temple built on the first one's rubbles after the Babylonians sacked it in 587BCE, by the Jewish exiles returning from their Babylonian captivity 40 years later, even though its existence is corroborated by extra-biblical written sources. The only conclusive archeological evidence that exists is for Herod's temple (started in 20BCE and ended 80years after his death), supposedly built instead of the second temple which the rabbis thought was too modest in comparison to the first temple built by Solomon.

In fact no evidence exists for any of the events described in the Book of Genesis, such as the Jericho wall toppled by Joshua. More damning is that despite active digging like never before, from the Temple Mount to the Kidron Stream, via the neighborhood of Silwan, including the so-called City of David, with the exception of a few controversial sites, the imperial capital of a mighty unified kingdom as described in Scripture, of David and Solomon has not been found. Even the Timna copper mines, dubbed “King Solomon’s Mines” could hardly have been under Solomon's control; in the 10th century BC, no trace of powerful enough kingdom, to manage and require that ammount of copper, stretching as far south as Timna exists.

Islam made Mecca and the Kaaba known to the world, obviously as it spread beyond Arabia. Prior to that, its importance, greatness and historicity was confined to the Arabs and their oral tradition. When it was built by Abraham, who had the habit of building worship sites along his journeys as stated throughout Genesis, it wasnt meant to be the universal qibla at its onset but later on during the mission of the last prophet sent to humanity. It was initially a monotheistic settlement, from where God would manifest his promises of blessings to Ismail and his seed, the place where per Abraham's words in the Torah Ishmael "might live before the Lord".

[manfred]

Eagle don;t you think this is getting quite silly now? You postulate a Kaaba on the first century BC in Mecca from such poor evidence? Mecca does not fit the description. Now amount of wishful thinking makes it otherwise. As already pointed out, if Mecca really was such an important centre then we would have multiple sources about it, some written perhaps, but certainly archaeological ones. As these do not exist it is intellectually dishonest to insist that this one little sentence refers to Mecca. It could not, as there was no Mecca yet.

A much better explanation, free from bias of the sort you insist on, is given by Dan Gibson, as takeiteasynow has shown you. The other scholarly article I quoted from also explains why the "Kaaba" mentioned by Diodorus was in Nabatean territory, giving reasons from the sources we have.

So really this is going nowhere.

As to blaming the Saudis for the lack of evidence, they would be the first to parade it around the most spurious of evidence if they had any. They prevent the research because they know exactly, just as you do, that if they allowed the proper research then Islam would collapse as based on fairy tales.

So you cannot have it both ways. If Muslims prevent the digging they cannot also claim that the evidence in their favour is there. If you do not produce it then you must admit there is no evidence.

[Eagle]

The only ridiculous thing that transpires from all this is that neither Gibson nor anybody else is capable of answering the simple question, where is the universal Arabian temple of the 1st century? There were none in Nabatean territory nor to the south. And there is no reason why the discription wouldn't fit Mecca.

And as already said, it is Islam that made Mecca known to the world, no explorer ever went inland to confirm its existence.
Mecca was not a passing point of voyagers nor a trade route, hence the scarcity of non-Arab sources mentionning it, besides the lack of inland explorations of the area by either Greek or Roman writers. Outside the annual pilgrimmage during which all of Arabia flocked in and generated profit to the city and its inhabitants, Meccans had to journey outside their own region to places like Syria and Palestine (in summer) and Yemen (in winter) to sell and buy goods because no trading route passed by or close to them. These long journeys were dangerous at the time and caravans were frequently raided and looted, however the Quraysh benefited from an immunitiy that was not provided to any other tribe, for they were given a special respect as the custodians of the Temple and caretakers of the pilgrims.

The issue of the Saudis was brought up, not to explain the so called lack of archeological support but to describe what reality on the ground consists of and the fact is that to their ideology, history and artifacts are insignificant.