Author Topic: split/retitled: PotatoMuslim on crucifixion, geography, Psalms 84 as Mecca  (Read 854 times)


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 3854
    • View Profile
    • False Prophet Muhammad
I have finished replying to your first two replies. Now, I would like to put more meat into my arguments above by responding to more comments you posted here.

But your own post contradicts your false presumption:a

"Around 1200 to 1000 bce, the rise of camel transport revolutionized Arabian commerce. With the accompanying emergence of sprawling caravanserais....."

That was 400 to 600 years AFTER Ishmael.

I think it is quite comical how you took that one quote from my article and assume as if that is the final and definitive conclusion on when camels were domesticated.

I had temporarily lost my way from being influenced by your article, forgetting about the scriptural accounts of the use of camels, which I trust.

That is simply a ridiculous assumption to make. When I made that first reply, I didn't do enough research on camel domestication, but now I know that this is a matter which still remains largely unresolved.

The approximate date of camel domestication has widely differed amongst scholars, which makes explicit the fact that there is still no solid, archaeological evidence for knowing when and where the animals were first domesticated. Many scholars favor a date of around 1,000 B.C, while other scholars cite evidence which places camel domestication long before this, perhaps as early as 2000-3000 BC. Therefore, the part that you quoted (from my own article) should be at best regarded only as a possible date amongst the other possible dates proposed by other sources. See the opinions below:

"The dromedary is sometimes referred to as the Arabian camel, after the area in which it is thought to have been domesticated and probably most extensively employed. Mason (1979) suggests that the dromedary was domesticated in southern Arabia around 3000 B.C. However, the evidence as to where, when and why these animals were first domesticated remains inconclusive." (E. Mukasa-Mugerwa, The Camel (Camelus Dromedarius): A Bibliographical Review, p. 3).

"Archaeologically the domesticated camel shows up in Saudi Arabia about 3000 BC and the Bactrian at about the same time in south Russia. There could well have been earlier and more widespread domestications in central Asia or western China." (Jack Harlan, The LIving Fields: Our Agricultural Heritage, p.110).

"The proposed time of camel entry into Egypt after its domestication in Arabia was found between 2500 and 1400 B.C. Evidences from excavation findings, archaeological records and rock engravings beginning from prehistoric time till Roman time, in which camels were certainly known, were reported in this study." (A. S. Saber, “The Camel in Ancient Egypt”, in Proceedings of the Third Annual Meeting for Animal Production Under Arid Conditions, Vol. 1 (1998), pp. 208-215)

Another explanation is that camels were brought under some human control well before 1,000 BC but were not used for widespread riding and transport until later. But, exactly when that happened is unclear:

"The most significant advance in pastoralism for Arabia was the domestication of the one-humped camel, a process that was probably begun in southeast Arabia in the third millennium BC. It was very likely exploited first for its dung, burnt as fuel, and its milk and flesh, consumed for sustenance. At the end of the process would have come its use for riding and transport. When this latter event occurred is a much debated question." (R. Hoyland, Arabia and the Arabs: From the Bronze Age to the Coming of Islam, p. 90).

There are several reasons why the time and origin of camel domestication still remains a debated question. One reason is that the use of camel prior to 1,000 BC may have been rare in Arabia and in other parts of the world. The camel was probably known and domesticated long before Abraham's time, but not widely used until later. In that case, it should be expected that finding archaeological evidence of domesticated camels during that time period would be very unlikely. A second reason is, it is rather difficult to distinguish wild from domesticated camels by using bone samples alone:

"It should be stressed that establishing criteria for distinguishing wild from domestic dromedaries on osteological material is difficult. The camel's ability to withstand harsh environments made it desirable to domesticate, and man tampered little with these characteristics of the wild form" (P. Wapnish, "Camel Caravans and Camel Pastoralists at Tell Jemmeh," Journal of the Ancient Near East Society 13, 1981, p105).

Those are just two of the limitations of archaeology, which shows us why the date for camel domestication in Arabia is still inconclusive. And almost every archaeologist is aware of this. It's always possible that a new evidence will emerge which differs from the previous findings and that's why archaeologists still keep searching and digging after finding something. Likewise, regarding this archaelogical study which I posted earlier, the archaeologists are most probably aware of the possibility that, some time in the future, new evidences might emerge that challenges their own study.

You, however, place an irrationally high amount of significance on archaeological evidence........

In regard to Mecca, that's not correct. I attribute a very reasonable amount of significance to the fact that there is an absolute dearth of archaeological evidence of any pre-4th century AD Mecca, even though Islamic folklore pretends it was the center of human existence dating from Adam.

........ just so that you can criticize the Islamic beliefs, but not the Christian ones. Like in this comment here:

But when we look at where the scriptural and archaeological record demonstrate Abraham traveled, we find it is in the OPPOSITE direction of where Mecca was eventually established in the 4th century AD - skirting the Arabian desert and within the "fertile crescent" - as per the post that you conveniently ignored.

But is there really any archaeological record of caravan routes during Abraham's time which lends credence to the extensive travels that he made? Of course there isn't.

History tells us the overland route along the Red Sea wasn't established until around the 6th century BC. Indeed the evidence suggests that Mecca wasn't even on that route.

"Yet, according to extensive research by Bulliet on the history of trade in the ancient Middle-East, these claims by Muslims are quite wrong, as Mecca simply was not on the major trading routes. The reason for this, he contends, is that, "Mecca 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." (Bulliet 1975:105)"

You see, your problem isn't about whether there were camels or not, but what the camel would eat and drink, let alone how Abraham, Hagar and (what you are taught was an infant) Ishmael would have traveled across hundreds of miles of harsh dry barren desert without food or water. Early in their journey being confronted with what we know today as the Syrian desert:

But in accordance to the Scripture alone, you believe that the travels occurred.

I believe the reasonable account as indicated in scripture, that Abraham's travels were within the "Fertile Crescent" where there were rivers, streams, game and other food to eat. In other words things that are necessary for human survival. You see, archaeologists don't just wander out into a desert with a shovel and start digging to find an ancient structure or town. They study the historical record (just the way treasure hunters do), in order to know where to begin digging.

As opposed to journeying in a harsh barren waterless foodless untamed desert where they could not have survived, like the Syrian desert in Northern Arabia pictured above.

What, are you going to move Assyria to Mecca next? How about Ishmaels 12 sons? You moving them too?

You also believe that Ishmael and his descendants inhabited places that extend as far from Egypt to Assyria. And obviously there is still not a shred of archaeological evidence that proves where they lived and traveled exactly.

They could only have traveled where human survival was possible, and more specifically in the area where scripture indicates they traveled and lived.


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 3854
    • View Profile
    • False Prophet Muhammad
My point being, there shouldn't be. And yet, you try to argue that just because there is no evidence for the existence of caravan routes and domesticated camels in Arabia during that time, them traveling through a desert to reach Mecca must be a "geographical impossibility."

Not to mention that Ishmael is said to have settled in a desert (desert of Paran) after separating from his father.

The wilderness of Paran is located in northern Arabia in the Trans-Jordan area, over 1,000 miles away from where Mecca was initially established in the 4th century AD.

Paran is described as a "great and terrible wilderness" because it was extremely harsh, dry, and had a very limited source of water just like it was in Mecca: "He led you through the great and terrible wilderness, with its fiery serpents and scorpions and thirsty ground where there was no water; He brought water for you out of the rock of flint" (Deuteronomy 8:15). Now read the verse-by-verse commentaries:

Yet you think that traveling through the dry, barren desert of Arabia to go to Mecca was a geographical impossibility?

It's a fact because there is no evidence of any overland travel between northern and southern Arabia until around the 6th century BC. Try as you might, you will never move Mecca any closer than being over 1,000 kilometers away from THE Holy Land of the prophets and patriarchs.

The sooner we can get down to the core of the matter, the sooner you can quit searching in vain, for a pre-4th century AD Mecca. Why do you think it can't even be included in a listing of ancient towns of Saudi Arabia?

The ancient towns mentioned there are just some of the ones that were discovered - or rediscovered, more specifically - in Saudi Arabia after archaeological investigations. We can be sure that such discoveries must have occurred after the middle of 18th century, since that is when dating methods were laid out and archaeological excavations first began.

In other words, at one point the location of these cities became "unidentified" and remained so for a long period of time, but later they were discovered again (or officially identified) based on corresponding South Arabian text, inscriptions, rock art, findings of old artifacts, etc. Regarding the discovery of Qaryat al-Faw, for example, the same Wiki article states: "Abdulrahman al-Ansary, former Professor of Archaeology at King Saud University in Riyadh and a member of Saudi Arabia's Consultative Council and of the Council's Committee on Education is considered as the founder of the rediscovery of the city of Qaryat al-Fāw."

There is evidence of ancient towns in both southern and northern Arabia, but no evidence that Mecca  existed until around the 4th century AD.

Mecca cannot be included in such a listing because it never had to be rediscovered or re-identified at any point in time. It was always there, always known to exist from a very remote age, because of the continuous pilgrimage to the city. And so, whether you like it or not, the greatest artifact that preserves the history of Mecca is memory itself.

By the way, it's ironic how gave a link to Wikipedia as if it contains accurate and trustworthy information on Mecca, .......

The purpose was to point out that Islam's dissimulators and taqiyyah purveyors have not added Mecca to the article as an ancient city, because it would require evidence to add it. Of course there is no evidence because Mecca is not an ancient city.

....... considering that you yourself criticized Wikipedia's credibility and even felt a need to fight with Wikipedia editors, unfortunately to no avail.

Why don't you look at some encyclopedias if you don't like Wikipedia, eh?

"Mecca, sometimes also called Becca, which words are synonymous, and signify 'a place of great intercourse,' is certainly one of the most ancient cities in the world." (Charles Rollin, The Ancient History of the Jews, and of the Minor Nations of Antiquity. London: Mayhew, Isaac, and Co., 1834. p. 858)

There's a great choice of words! 'a place of great intercourse' is quite appropriate since the Islamic ritual of the Sa'ee - or running back and forth between the hills of al-Safa and al-Marwah as the Arabian pagans did - was a ritual in which they traversed between two idols placed on those hills, that represented the most venerated priest and priestess of the Arabian jinn-devil religion, who were fabled to have fornicated inside the Kaaba!

You poor, desperate fellow. It's fortunate we aren't stuck with information limitations the author had in 1834. There was no shortage of parroting false presumptions based on what they had available almost 200 years ago.
18th century Edward Gibbon also jumped to a false conclusion that the Kaaba was ancient, based on the limited information available to him. Though he qualified it by freely admitting he was "careless" regarding the subject and had no interest in Arabia or its paganism:


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 3854
    • View Profile
    • False Prophet Muhammad

Indeed the etymology of the name "Allah" suggests it was the name of the Arabian pagan's moon god.

To anyone who knows the Aramaic language and its history in the Middle East, it is obvious that the Arabic name Allâh is an adaptation of the Aramaic word for God, Alâh or Alâhâ. Prior to the rise of Islam and for some time afterwards, Aramaic was the main language of the Jews and Christians in the Middle East (apart from Egypt, where varieties of Coptic were used), and many Aramaic words were borrowed into Arabic. The usual term for God in Aramaic was Alâhâ. It is used as the term for God in the books of Ezra and Daniel, in the Jewish translations of the Bible (the Targums), and in the inscriptions found in some of the cemeteries associated with those churches.

"Elah" is also a Hebrew word for god. There is no amount of denial that can change that fact, as evidenced in the links below:

From Wikipedia:
Islamic scholars have rejected these claims, one even calling them "insulting". It is argued that "Allah" is just the word for "God" in Arabic, which ultimately derives from the same root as the Hebrew words "El" and "Elohim", both used in the Book of Genesis. Sociologist Lori Peek writes that, "Allah is simply the Arabic word meaning God.

But as you yourself should protest, that is patently false, as even your shahada makes obvious. "There is no ilah but Allah." The Arabic word for God or god is "ilah", but as you well know (and as that blasphemy confirms) "Allah" is the proper name of an Arabian pagan deity that Muhammad adopted and continued.

In fact people who speak Arabic, be they Christians, Jews or Muslims, often say 'Allah' to describe God, just as God is called 'Gott' in German and 'Dieu' in French."[/b]

Yet another sad tragedy. But while Arabic speaking non-Muslims use that name of blasphemy, likely as a result of the Van Dyke Bible translation, God's name - YHWH/Yahweh - will never change.

Indeed, moon gods - and sun gods and many other gods - were worshiped in various cultures in the past such as by the ancient Sumerians, Mesopotamians, and even by some of the Semites, for example. Pagan Arabs at one time also used to worship a moon god. There were also statues (or idols) of moon gods.

And of course the Quraish pagans are who Muslims owe their adopted, adapted and thinly veneered rituals to, as well as their kaaba and black stone idol.

However, there is no historical evidence nor any logical argument to to support the claim that "Allah" was the name of a moon god. Allah was never associated with any idols either.

You can vainly wish that were true even as you prostrate yourself toward the Quraish's black stone idol, but the archaeological evidence regarding the etymology of the name (let alone Islamic rituals like Ramadan) indicate otherwise:

"We know that the term 'Allah,' as the god of the moon, was derived from the Thamud god of the moon. His name was Hilal, or Hlal, which means 'crescent.' Later, the name 'Hilal' became Hilah, as we see in many inscriptions which were found in Arabia. In the Thamud inscriptions he is found as H-ilah, Ha-ilah and H-alah. We see the same development for 'Hilah,' the moon deity in Yemen, where Almaqah is called 'Halal,' or 'Hilal, the Crescent.'

Safaitic tribes were nomads wandering in many parts of Arabia, especially in the north. The god of the moon was found in their inscriptions as 'H-lah.' in the Safaitic inscriptions, the letter 'H' pronounced as 'Ha' is the definite article, 'the.' It corresponds to the Arabic, 'Al.' This led the Arabians to call him 'Al-lah.'"

Even when the Kaaba was filled with idols before Muhammad's time, there were no representations of Allah because everyone knew that Allah cannot be represented with anything materialistic: "The Kaaba contained hundreds of sacred rocks and statues from many Arabian tribes, but no images of Allah. No special cult was associated with Allah." - Professor William E. Phipps, Muhammad and Jesus, p. 21.

"Allah Akbar" - Allah is the greatEST of all the pagan's deities. The cry of the Arabian pagan moon god worshipers from before Muhammad was ever born. Since the Quraish Star Family worshiping pagans believed that their moon god was the most powerful of all their Star Family deities, it's reasonable to assume that the black stone idol - that Muhammad kept to appease the pagans and Muslims still prostrate toward and venerate to this day - is what represented their most powerful deity, the moon god.

The idea that Allah was a pagan moon god is rather a misinformation that was first invented by the Christian apologist Robert Morey, who had provably resorted to suppression of evidence, forgery, and deliberate misquotation in an attempt to prove his theory that Allah was a moon god. Not surprisingly, all of his moon god claims have been thoroughly rejected and falsified by both Islamic and Western scholars, like in the following article:


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 3854
    • View Profile
    • False Prophet Muhammad
Surah 4:157 That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

One of the interpretations of that verse is that the death of Jesus was only an apparent or an external perception, because there are other verses which say that those who are killed in the way of God are not dead but alive, with their Lord, but we just do not perceive it.

But the concept of never dying once we are "born again" in the Spirit, is from scripture, regarding the irrelevance - indeed blessing - of our physical death.
What you suggest certainly would be a unique interpretation since no Islamic scholar would ever suggest that "they killed him not, nor crucified him" and "for of a surety they killed him not", actually means that they did crucify him and did kill him. The biggest problem with which of course being, that Muslims would then have to deal with the purpose of the Passover Lamb of God shedding His blood for sin atonement of all, which is the last thing that Satan can afford for his people to believe as it would snatch them from his domain.

But rest assured that Jesus was killed, just as He prophesied He would be, and just as He was.

Matthew 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

He was finished off by being speared in the side:

Jhn 19:34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

Just as was prophesied in the OT:

Zechariah 12:9 And it shall come to pass in that day, [that] I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. 10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for [his] only [son], and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for [his] firstborn.

And confirmed as fulfillment of the same:

John 19:36 For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. 37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

See the two verses below:

"And say not of those who are killed in the way of God: 'They are dead.' Nay, they are living, but you perceive (it) not." (Surah 2:154)

"Think not of those who are killed in the Way of Allah as dead. Nay, they are alive, with their Lord, and they have provision." (Surah 3:136)

But the reason your verse said "killed in the way of God", is because Muhammad was referring to Muslims who are killed inadvertently, while in the act of slaughtering (innocents) through imperialistic conquest as they did throughout the Arabian Peninsula during his lifetime.
Though I certainly agree that the poor souls won't die, but far better for them if they had:

Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

The (Islamic beast) that is.

So, that is how the following verse is to be interpreted:

"And their saying: 'Surely we have killed the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the apostle of God'; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure. Nay! God took him up to Himself; and God is Mighty, Wise." (Surah 4:157-158)

So the Quran mentions the death of Jesus in a unique and dignified manner (i.e. because he was killed in the way of God).

No I'm sorry, but the jealous fallen angel Satan falsified the record with the exact opposite through his "messenger" THE false prophet Muhammad, who denied that Jesus was crucified and died - the basis of the whole subject of the Gospel - to prevent his followers from seeking out and receiving salvation from their sins through the shed blood of the Lamb of God, so Satan could claim them for himself for an eternity in hell.


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 3854
    • View Profile
    • False Prophet Muhammad
Ishmael and the tribes of his sons lived in northern Arabia and the northern Sinai peninsula - "from Havilah to Shur" Egypt to Assyria bordering the Fertile Crescent - a thousand kilometers away from where Mecca was eventually settled in the 4th century AD. And as your article admits, 400 to 600 years before domesticating camels for travel even began.

Before I explain, let me just quote the full verse which you've made a brief reference to:

"And they dwelt from Havilah unto Shur, that is before Egypt, as thou goest toward Assyria: and he died in the presence of all his brethren." (Genesis 25:18)

Now, I'm going to post a map of those locations (Havila and Shur) that you posted in your own website, and then I will systematically refute your claim that the regions of Havila and Shur are thousand kilometers away from where Mecca is.

I see that you did include an alternate location for Shur, but what was striking to me is that you made no mention of the different proposals for the possible location of Havila, which you should have, considering that there is a wide range of opinions amongst Biblical scholars regarding where Havila is. You associated Havila with a random place in Kuwait, and the reasoning you gave for that is that the words "as thou goest toward Assyria" in the Genesis imply that Assyria is between those two points (Havila and Shur).

I gave it as the scriptural reason the line was curved upward "toward Assyria", because otherwise it would be straying out of the Fertile Crescent and going straight across the heart of what we know today as the Syrian desert which was, and remains, uninhabitable.

However, this interpretation can be easily rejected since scholars have considered and accepted various possible locations for Havila, some of which do not lead to the way of Assyria as we go from Havila to Shur.

Here are some of the different opinions on Havila's location (as outlined in the Jewish Encyclopedia):

"HAVILAH (Εὑλάτ: lit. 'the sandy land'): Name of a district, or districts, in Arabia. [...] the Ishmaelites are also placed in the same locality (Gen. xxv. 18), which will thus correspond with the northern part of Arabia, .....

EXACTLY! Which is 1,000 kilometers away from where Mecca was eventually established in the 4th century AD.
You are getting confused by the modern day boundaries pictured on the map. I found a map that might help you see that national borders created later by men are not material to this conversation. What matters most regarding Abraham's journey is where the ancient rivers and streams and just game and human habitation were and remain:

..... the 'Melukhkha' or 'Salt Desert' of the cuneiform inscriptions. In Gen. x. 29 and I Chron. i. 23, on the other hand, Havilah is a son of Joktan, associated with Sheba and Ophir in the southern portion of the peninsula. [...] Havilah was identified by Bochart and Niebuhr with Khaulan in Tehamah, between Mecca and Sana; by Gesenius with the Khaulotæi of Strabo in northern Arabia; and by Kautzsch with Ḥuwailah on the Persian Gulf."[/color][/b]

Carol A. Hill, in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Volume 52, writes: "The Bible mentions two Havilahs in the Table of Nations: Havilah the son of Cush (Gen. 10:7) and Havilah the son of Joktan (Gen. 10:29). The 'land of Havilah' has been interpreted by many biblical scholars to be Arabia, and Joktan is considered to be the head of the tribes of Arabia, as most of his sons can be traced to places and districts within what is now Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Apparently the 'land of Havilah' referred to a whole region rather than one particular place, since there appears to have been more than one tribe by that name."

The last sentence in the above quote highlights the possibility that Havila may cover a very large area of present-day Saudi Arabia, as opposed to being confined in a small location. It may stretch across both north and south of Arabia as well. This possibility has also been noted in the Jewish Encyclopedia: "The fact, however, that Raamah, Sheba, and Dedan are coupled with Havilah is in favor of Arabia; and Havilah, like Sheba, might geographically be described as both Joktanite, or southern, and Cushite, or northern."

So, as you can see, it is clear that most scholars associate the land of Havila to be somewhere in Arabia, encompassing perhaps a large part of it. Nonetheless, the exact location of Havila is still uncertain:

"(hav' ih luh) Place name meaning, 'sandy stretch.' Biblical name for the sand-dominated region to the south covering what we call Arabia without necessarily designating a particular geographical or political area. [...] Others look for a Havilah further north and west than Havilah is usually located. Others talk of the fluid boundaries of the area. Thus Havilah refers to an area or areas in Arabia, but the precise location is not known."

"A land ‘encircled’ by the Pishon, one of the four rivers branching off from the river issuing out of Eden. It is further identified as a land of good gold, bdellium gum, and onyx stone. (Ge 2:10-12) Inasmuch as the Pishon River is no longer identifiable, the location of the land of Havilah remains uncertain. The description of its resources is considered by some to be typically Arabian, and it is associated by some with a region in Arabia."

The strongest argument, in my opinion, is that the land of Havila was located somewhere within the region of the Hijaz in Saudi Arabia. The Hijaz area includes both the cities of Mecca and Medina as we know today. Research by archaeologists Juris Zarins and Farouk El-Baz indicates this may be the place that the land of Havila could have been referring to because, in their search for the Biblical Garden of Eden, they have discovered that satellite images reveal a "fossil river" that once flowed north east from the Mahd adh Dhahab (Cradle of Gold) in the Arabian Peninsula in the area known as the Hijaz.

The Book of Genesis states that the whole land of Havila is encompassed by a river called "Pishon." It says that the land of Havila also contains gold, bdellium, and the onyx stone: "And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. The name of the first is Pishon: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone." Taking into consideration the above geographical descriptions, then, the two archaeologists (Juris Zarins and Farouk El-Baz) came to the conclusion that Havila was most likely a land situated somewhere along the Hijaz mountains, in western Arabia.

We can well understand why you wish it were in Mecca.
Are you going to try to move Assyria 1500 KM south to Mecca next?
Then perhaps Hebron and Beersheba after that?


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 3854
    • View Profile
    • False Prophet Muhammad
Surely you don't buy into the intentional lies that Muslims fabricate in order to pretend that "baca" is Mecca. Look at the number of times I corrected their bible verse, and the number of times those liars scrubbed out my correction. The Old Testament scriptures indicate the pilgrimage to have been to the temple that God had His people build IN ZION.
What do you think about a bunch of people that feel compelled to intentionally lie for Muhammad?

Although Zion is often used as a synonym for Jerusalem, the fact is that, etymologically, it contains other meanings as well:

"Because Zion was originally not Israeli, the name Zion comes to us probably from a language other than Hebrew. HAW Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament mentions an Arabic root s-w-n, meaning to protect or defend, which may give Zion the meaning of fortress. Others (says HAW Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament) suggest derivation from a root saha, be bald. Spelled the way it is, however, the name Zion is identical to the Hebrew word ציון (sayon) either meaning place of dryness, or monument."

If we take the word to mean "a dry place," then the location can be best described as being in Arabia, not in Jerusalem. On the other hand, if the word means a "temple," then the question is, what temple was there in Jerusalem when David wrote Psalms 84? You wrote, "The Old Testament scriptures indicate the pilgrimage to have been to the temple that God had His people build IN ZION." So, exactly what temple is it referring to?

Before you answer that question, read this. Abdus Sattar Ghauri, in his book, The Only Son Offered for Sacrifice: Isaac or Ismael, makes the following points:

"It would be appreciated that ‘dry place’ or ‘parched ground’ can be only applied to arid, barren, and sterile land of ‘Makkah’. It can by no means be applied to the verdant and fertile land of  ‘Jerusalem’. Like other Bible names ‘Zion’ may also have more than one significations. There may have been a ‘Zion’ of Makkah and the other of Jerusalem. But in the sense of ‘dry place,’or ‘parched ground’ it can only be applied to ‘Makkah’ in the present context. It is not possible for the writer of this book to dilate upon this theme here. It may, however, be noted that the implication of the Zion of Jerusalem is to be ruled out due to the fact that there did not exist any sanctuary at Jerusalem at that time. The rest of the Psalms depicts the strong yearnings of King David to have some opportunity to visit the sanctuary of the Lord like other pilgrims."

Your false presumptions arise from abject ignorance to scripture and geography. The term "Zion" occurs 152 times in the King James Bible and here's why:

"Zion is a place name often used as a synonym for Jerusalem.[1][2] The word is first found in Samuel II, 5:7 dating to c.630–540 BCE according to modern scholarship. It commonly referred to a specific mountain near Jerusalem (Mount Zion), on which stood a Jebusite fortress of the same name that was conquered by David and was named the City of David. The term Tzion came to designate the area of Jerusalem where the fortress stood, and later became a metonym for Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem, the city of Jerusalem and generally, the World to Come."

But if you disagree, then you need to justify what temple in Jerusalem the pilgrims were all traveling to, in David's time. It can't be Solomon's temple because the temple wasn't even built when David was alive. It was only after his death that his son, Solomon, took over the throne and commenced the building of the First Temple. This is written one of the links that you posted in your own website: "After the death of his father David, Solomon issued the orders for the building of the First Temple to commence. [...] Construction began in the fourth year of Solomon's reign and took seven years."

But all of the Psalms are not attributed to David, so you can throw out your nonsense about Pslams 84 not referring to the temple "IN ZION", just like the passage states.

Given that information, and given that the valley of Baca is mentioned in Psalms 84..........

..........(keeping also in mind that Baca in an ancient name for Mecca per the Quran), and given that the passage is describing a pilgrimage to the House of God (or a temple), it all strengthens the possibility that David was describing a pilgrimage to Mecca. But I'd like to see if you or anyone else can refute this.

Sure. Yahweh's people turned their backs on their temple on the temple mount in ZION, in THE Holy Land of the prophets and patriarchs, to wander 1200 kilometers across harsh, barren, untraveled, uncharted dry desert wasteland, to march around the pagan's Kaaba 7 times that did not exist until over a thousand years later, only to wander back up the 1200 kilometers back up to Zion, to continue to ignore their temple in THE Holy Land of the prophets and patriarchs. Makes perfect sense doesn't it?

Yet that doesn't even seem to embarrass you, the way it did the host of Muslims that tried to peddle that foolishness on YouTube until I commented on their videos, after which they realized the sheer stupidity of what they had been taught to parrot and removed their videos:

Islamic history tells us that Muhammad's grandfather dug the well of zamzam to establish Hajj around Arabian jinn-devil worship of running back and forth between al-Safa and al-Marwah 7 times in worship of the most venerated priest and priestess of the Arabian jinn-devil religion Asaf and Neilah, idols of which were placed on those two hills.

And again you post more nonsense disguised as "facts," all cleverly fabricated by the disingenuous espouser of the" 5th century Kaabah" hypothesis.

So it's "fabrication" to recognize the sensible geographical plausibility of scripture, regarding physical locations that still exist in THE Holy Land of the prophets and patriarchs today, as opposed to the abject ignorance to geography required to vainly try to advance the geographical impossibility of shifting all those locations 1,000 kilometers to the south.

Rafat Amari tried to convey the idea that it was Muhammad's grandfather (Abdul-Muttalib) who created the well of Zamzam, which is historically false. The Zamzam well existed from the time of the Prophet Abraham.........

But only in the minds of Islam's 7th to 10th century AD fictional history creators - like Ibn Ishak:

........ (peace be upon him). Amari cited Ibn Hisham's book - which is a reconstruction of Ibn Ishaq's biography of Muhammad - for supporting his argument, but as usual, there are flaws to be found in his overly simple-minded reasoning. Let's see what they are.

First of all, Amari knows that what Ibn Hisham wrote about the Zamzam well is that Abdul Muttalib recovered it (the Zamzam), he didn't build it. He wrote that the Jurhum tribe used to have custodianship over the Kaabah for a period of time, which ended when they were ousted by the Khuza'a tribe. So, in an act of revenge, the Jurhum blocked the water of Zamzam by burying it with things like gold, swords, armors, piles of sand, gazelles, and possibly other objects. From that time on, the Zamzam was hidden and no one knew where it was. It was only years later that Abdul Muttalib had a vision in which he was ordered to dig and recover the well. 

Amari asks the following question:

"Ibn Ishak, chief Islamic biographer of Mohammed, claimed the tribe of Jurhum covered the well with the black Stone and a gazelle of gold. This was after Jurhum was defeated and driven from Mecca. How could it be possible for the only well in Mecca to be hidden from the inhabitants of Mecca and from the eyes of the Bedouins who walked miles to find water for their camels? Would they not have redug the well the same day it was buried?"

Firstly, there were enough small wells on the outskirts of the city. Zamzam was just superior to those other wells.

Which is all moot, since contrary to Islamic fables, the well that Hagar found was in the wilderness of Beersheba. After Abraham cast Hagar and Ishmael out:

Gen 21:14 And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and.....sent her away: and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba.
15 And the water was spent in the bottle......
19 And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water.....

Beersheba of course is just to the south of Hebron, where Abraham's home was.

As Ibn Ishaq wrote:

"There were some old wells outside Mecca dating from the time of Murra b. Ka`b and  Kilab b. Murra from which the first princes of Quraysh used to draw water, namely Rumm and Khumm.  Rumm was dug by Murra b. Ka`b b. Lu'ayy, and Khumm by Kilab b. Murra, and so was al-Hafr. [...] Zamzam utterly eclipsed the other wells from which the pilgrims used to get their water, and the people went to it because it was in the sacred enclosure and because its water was superior to any other; and also because it was the well of Ishmael, son of Abraham. Because of it the Banu Abd Manaf behaved boastfully towards the Quraysh and the other Arabs." (A. Guillaume, translator, The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah. Oxford University Press, 1967. p 65)

Secondly, Amari asks us, how is it possible that the most important and honored well in Mecca remained hidden from the eyes of its inhabitants for so long?

Well, see this: 34 Lost Cities Forgotten by Time

"It's hard to imagine how an entire city can get lost but that’s exactly what has happened to the lost cities on this list. There are actually many reasons why a city has to be abandoned. War, natural disasters, climate change and the loss of important trading partners to name a few. Whatever the cause, these lost cities were forgotten in time until they were rediscovered centuries later."

So, if an entire city can stay lost for centuries, then it is also perfectly possible that the same thing can happen to a well in a desert.

There were no "early Muslims" prior to Muhammad. There were only Arabian pagans, engaged in pagan Arabian worship. Like sacrifice of she-camels at Al-Ula and worship of the Nabatean deity Dushara and such. Or as Muhammad detailed Lat, Uzza, Manat and Allah.

Lat, Uzza, and Manat as the "daughters" of Allah was something that was believed only by the pagans, but in fact Allah doesn't actually have any sons nor daughters according to Islamic belief, as the Quran states, "Say: He is God, the One and Only God, the Eternal, Absolute. He begets not, nor is He begotten. And there is none like unto Him!" (Surah 112:1-4).

You're ignoring the "satanic verses" from back when Muhammad was trying to be more inclusive of the pagans in his newly invented "religion".

The pagans in Arabia recognized Allah as the supreme creator god, but they believed Him to be a sort of remote god who retired from and was aloof from his creation. Therefore, the pre-Islamic pagans of Arabia focused their cultic worship on lesser gods represented by over three-hundred idols in the Kaaba, which would act as intermediaries to Allah. But, later, it was Muhammad who cleansed the Kaaba by destroying all of these idols, rejecting all the false deities, and called everyone to the worship of Allah alone, as Abraham did.

"The pre-Islamic Kaaba housed the Black Stone and statues of pagan gods. Muhammad reportedly cleansed the Kaaba of idols upon his victorious return to Mecca, returning the shrine to the monotheism of Ibrahim. The Black Stone is believed to have been given to Ibrahim by the angel Gabriel and is revered by Muslims."

The reference to dressing the kaaba for the first time was not pre-4th century, but happened in the early 5th century AD, and could have been collected by people that were contemporary to that time, that could have been transmitted orally. That is what history is. It is collected by people that were contemporary to the times they wrote about. Even oral tradition like from someone's grandfather, that he got from his grandfather.

Then by that definition of history, you should agree that all oral traditions ought to be more or less classified as historical records, regardless of the date. As you said, if something happened in the 5th century AD, "and could have been collected by people that were contemporary to that time, that could have been transmitted orally," then why can't the same be applied to events in the 4th century AD, the 3rd century AD, the 2nd century BC, or the 10th century BC, or even earlier? Why does the historicity of the oral traditions have to emerge only after the 4th century AD?

Weren't there people who were contemporary during and before the 4th century, who could have transmitted their knowledge of things orally?

What you are wishing, and even ridiculously claiming, is the insane notion that 4500 years of pre-Muhammad history dating from Adam, was orally transmitted through a bunch of illiterate pagans that Muslims themselves admit worshiped 360 idols in as late as the 7th century AD. A desperate desolate isolated backwater that the civilized world had left behind.
Compare the engineering of the kaaba that Quraish pagans cobbled together in the 6th century - unable to even get two sides to come out the same length - to the Antikythera mechanism of about 600 or 700 years earlier.