Author Topic: Re: Re: Re: Mecca - Makkah - In History (perhaps most important opening subject for Muslims)  (Read 1541 times)

PeteWaldo

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 3854
    • View Profile
    • False Prophet Muhammad
There is no historical record of any Islamic "tradition" regarding Mecca, prior to the pens of those that created the "tradition" from thin air in the 7th - 10th centuries AD.

Something being called "tradition" doesn't necessarily mean that it was created from thin air.

I agree. However 7th-10th century AD Islamic so-called tradition pretends to chronicle 4500 years of pre-Muhammad history - all the way back to Adam - without the use of, or reference to, any actual historical record that preceded the 6th century AD. Any rational person should have no problem recognizing the difficulty with that.

Traditions, oral traditions, that is, play as important a role in allowing knowledge of the past as written documents do.

I'm going to post something here, and then I want you tell me whether you consider it as being historical ot not ... and explain why.

Both the Bible and the Quran states that Abraham slaughtered a ram as a sacrifice instead of his son. In the Bible this is found in Genesis 22:13: "And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son." 

Now, it has been reported by the chief of the Quraish tribe, Abu Sufyan ibn Harb, that the horns of the ram was seen inside the Kaabah and that it remained there until a rebuilding of the Kaaba. Sufyan said, "The horns of the ram remained hanging in the House until it was burned, and they were burned too.''

This was also recorded in E. J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1913-1936, Volume 4, on page 587: "The two horns of Abraham's ram did not crumble to dust until the rebuilding of the Ka'bah by 'Abd Allah b. al-Zubair." (Screenshot)

Would you call that history or just a made up tradition, and why?

Case in point. That horn fable regarding the kaaba is a concoction of Islam's fictional history authors.
http://www.brotherpete.com/index.php?topic=452.0

Just like Muhammad riding around on a flying donkey-mule or Solomon riding on a magic flying carpet that "was big enough to carry humans, castles and other buildings, tents, supplies, horses, camels, and other animals."
http://www.brotherpete.com/fables_fantasies.htm#flying_carpet

All from thin air, created without reference to any actual historical record that preceded the 5th century AD. A fictional creation, just like the falsehood about the pagan's Kaaba being rebuilt, rather than initially built by the Quraish pagans.


Yet you cannot cite a single shred of evidence that supports your contention.

I've already provided not one, but several shreds of evidence that support my contention.

Sorry, but no rational person would suggest that what you brought to bear, could stand in for an absent 4500 year historical and archaeological record of a pre-4th AD century Mecca.

Your job now is to either accept them or reject them. But if you reject them, then you have to explain why.

Because I am sane and rational enough to understand that THE Holy Land is awash in archaeological evidence, while Mecca, located 1,000 kilometers away from THE Holy Land of the prophets and patriarchs is absolutely devoid of such evidence, even though Muslims claim Mecca was supposed to have been the center of mankind since Adam, who Islam's history creators even credit with building the Kaaba!


You haven't cited a single shred of evidence regarding Abrahama's travels either.

The scriptures do it for me. The same scriptures and historical record that lead archaeologists to ancient sites -  like King David's temple most recently. The same scriptures that increasingly demonstrate the Bible to be a reliable record of ancient history.
http://www.bible-history.com/maps/6-abrahams-journeys.html

So, I'll ask again: Where is the historical and archaeological record that made you come to the firm conclusion that Abraham never came within 1,000 kilometers of Mecca?

Because the overland trade route along the Red Sea was not established until over 1,000 years after Abraham roamed the earth.

Where is Abraham buried? In Hebron, of course.
To believe that Ishmael traveled 1200 kilometers across harsh, barren, untraveled, uncharted Arabian desert, 1,000 years before the trade route was established along the Red Sea - in time to join Isaac for Abraham's burial in Hebron - would require disconnection from physical reality.

For a case in point just look at what you posited above. How long do you think it takes a corpse to stink and begin to decay?! By the time Ishmael would have gotten to Hebron on a camel from Mecca, (with nothing for either of them to eat drink for hundreds of miles), maggots would have eaten Abraham's corpse down to the bone.

No Islamic drivel you choose to parrot, will ever succeed in moving Mecca closer than 1,000 kilometers away, from THE Holy Land of the prophets and patriarchs.

Whereas the actual locations of Hebron (where Abraham lived), Beersheba (where Hagar and Ishmael wandered) and the wilderness of Paran (where Ishmael eventually settled), allow the scriptural accounts of Abraham, Sarah, Hagar and Ishmael to make perfect geographical sense.



Let's look again at what springs from Islamic so-called "tradition" on the matter:
"Abraham took Hagar and her son, Ishmael to a place near the Kabah; he left them under a tree at the site of Zamzam. No one lived in Makkah back then, yet Abraham made them sit there, leaving them with some dates, and a small water-skin. Thereafter he set out towards home."

So tell us, since Muslims believe that Ishmael was an infant when Abraham was supposed to have abandoned his wife Sarah's slave Hagar and her son Ishmael in what your teachers claim was a vacant place, how is Ishmael supposed to have helped Abraham rebuild the Kaaba?
Did Abraham abandon his wife Sarah in Hebron, and his son Isaac in who's seed God made His covenant, to stay in an unpopulated Mecca for a decade and a half or so, until Ishmael got old enough to help him build the Kaaba?
Did he wander back the 1200 kilometers from Hebron to Mecca decades later?
Or did Abraham simply ride back and forth on a magic flying donkey-mule as Ibn Ishaq created?

PeteWaldo

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 3854
    • View Profile
    • False Prophet Muhammad
However Islam's own record suggests the Kaaba was built by pagan Arabian immigrants from Yemen in the early 5th century for Arabian Star Family and jinn-devil worship.
http://www.brotherpete.com/index.php?topic=1133.0

First, let me start by quoting the relevant passage from that link regarding this "5th century Kaabah" hypothesis and then we'll discuss.

Rafat Amari wrote:

"Information from the writers of the 8th century A.D., who depended on information from the time of Mohammed, indicates the Kaabah was built at the beginning of  the 5th century A.D. by a  Himyarite pagan Yemeni leader named Asa'd Abu Karb. He is also called  Abu Karb Asa'd, and he reigned in Yemen from 410 to 435 A.D.[iii][3]  The fact that the Islamic historians admit that Asa'd Abu Karb was the first ruler in history to dress the Kaabah is a significant indicator that he was the true builder of the Kaabah.[iv][4]  Dressing a temple in Arabia was the second stage of its construction. It included decoratively finishing the inside walls, putting carpets on the walls and the floor, and adding textured and crocheted items on various parts of the interior building."

The most obvious error of all is found in the following sentence: "The fact that the Islamic historians admit that Asa'd Abu Karb was the first ruler in history to dress the Kaabah is a significant indicator that he was the true builder of the Kaabah." Simply put, being the first one to dress the Kaabah doesn't mean that he was the builder of the Kaaba. Tuba Abu Karib Asad may have been the first to adorn the Kaabah, yes. (The covering or clothing for the Kaabah is called a Kiswah). However, that by itself in no way indicates that he was the true builder of the Kaaba. Personally I find that argument to be more of an intellectual dishonesty than mere fallacious reasoning.

I agree that who dressed the kaaba "that by itself" (so who's being disingenuous?), may not necessarily indicate who built the Kaaba, but it is yet another part of the body of evidence, that pounds yet another nail in the coffin of any hope of a pre-4th century Mecca or kaaba.

But moving on, Amari cited two Islamic historians in his footnote, namely, Yaqut al-Hamawi and Al-Azraqi. His reference to "Sabaean inscriptions from Maḥram Bilqîs (Marib)" - which can be read here - can be ignored since the author of that book didn't mention anything about Abu Karib's dressing of the Kaaba. He just wrote down some dates and names of children and family members of Abu Karib. That's irrelevant to the history of the Kaaba. So, let's take quick look at Yaqut and Azraqi.

Al-Azraqi may have written that the Yemeni king Abu Karib was the first to dresss the Kaaba. However, he certainly never wrote that Abu Karib was the builder of the Kaaba, contrary to Rafat Amari's argument. So, Amari's referrence to Al-Azraqi in order to back his argument is not actually helping him, at all.

Come on, my friend, you should know better than that. The Hadith doesn't leave any question as to who built the Kaaba:
http://www.brotherpete.com/hajj___umrah.htm#kaaba

Sahih Muslim Book 007, Number 3078: 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Messenger may peace be upon him) said to me: Had your people not been unbelievers in the recent past (had they not quite recently accepted Islam), I would have demolished the Ka'ba and would have rebuilt it on the foundation (laid) by Ibrahim; for when the Quraish had built the Ka'ba, they reduced its (area), and I would also have built (a door) in the rear.

Rather, his reference to Al-Azraqi is self-defeating, one reason being the following:

"Al-Azraqi was a 9th-century Islamic commentator and historian, and author of the Kitab Akhbar Makka (Book of reports about Makka). He is from a family who lived in Makka for hundreds of years.

Let me see........ 9th century minus hundreds.........almost takes us to when "actual" Islamic history began to be recorded (such as it is, with the inclusion of all those fables - like birds stoning an army to death).

He gave information on the design and layout of the pre-Islamic Ka'aba at Makka after its rebuilding following a fire in 603 AD until its possession by Mohammed in 630 AD. The contents included a statue of Hubal, the principal male deity of Makka, and a number of other pagan items, which were destroyed in 630 as idolatrous. They also included a pair of ram’s horns said to have belonged to the ram sacrificed by the Prophet Abraham in place of his son, the Prophet Ismail, and a painting (probably a fresco) of Jesus and Mary. According to Al-Azraqi, Mohammed spared these items, which survived until the destruction by the Umayyads in 683 AD."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Azraqi

So, Azraqi wrote that Muhammad (peace be upon him) spared the ram's horn that belonged to the ram sacrificed by Prophet Abraham (peace be upon him). This, obviously, indicates that Azraqi believed that the Kaaba existed from Abraham's time and that Abraham went there, which is in Mecca.

I don't understand how you can't see this is just another Islamic fable created thousands of years after Abraham roamed the earth.
It is constructive in showing us the method Satan uses to dupe his followers: "Gee, didn't you know that Abraham had something to do with sacrificing a ram? Well here's a tale that was created thousands of years after the fact, that will explain how it happened in Mecca!"

Therefore, Amari's reference to Azraqi in his article doesn't help him at all. He wanted to make to appear as if his citations of works by Islamic historians strengthens his arguments, but, upon closer examination, they only weaken his arguments even more. 

It's also funny that Amari cites Yaqut al-Hamawi to strengthen his argument that Abu Karib being the first to dress the Kaaba "is a significant indicator that he was the true builder of the Kaabah." For one thing, Yaqut was probably the originator of the rather controversial "Paran = Mecca" hypothesis.

Just because a person's mouth is filled with preposterous falsehood from the father of lies, doesn't mean that a pearl of truth can't fall out now and then.

He also claimed that the name "Bakkah" (which appears in the Quran as well as the Old Testament) specifically refers to the site of the Kaaba,........

Which is one of the most ridiculous lies in all of Islamic taqiyyah, which utterly destroys the credibility of anyone who would parrot such a ridiculous claim, usually by censoring out the location pin from the verse:
http://www.historyofmecca.com/baca_mecca.htm

Though it's no surprise that a bunch of Yaqut's 10th-11th century semi-literate contemporaries would desire to believe such tripe. The big question is, what's up with those that are gullible enough to get duped into buying into the dissimulation used in advancing the claim, in this 21st century information age.

When are Muslims going to come to terms with the fact, that simply repeating a preposterous lie, will never make it magically come true?

......... while Mecca refers to the city around the Kaaba (see: Touba, El Sayed M. (1997) Conservation in an Islamic Context: A Case Study of Makkah. Masters thesis, Durham University. p 9). He said that because the Quran states in Surah Al-Imran, verse 96: "Indeed, the first House (of worship) established for mankind was that at Bakkah, full of blessings and a guidance for all kinds of beings." All of that clearly shows that Yaqut regarded both Mecca and the Kaaba as having existed from at least Abraham's time. Yet Rafat Amari cites him to make it sound as if it corroborates his view that the Kaabah was built in the 5th century by Himyarite pagan leader. How dishonest. So, apparently, the Islamic historians that Amari cited to support his "5th century Kaaba" hypothesis only backfires against him.

Or did he more pluck a gem of telltale truth out of a load of taqiyyah, that bears witness to the foolishness, of the rest of what that author was creating?

However we can rest assured that it was the Quraish that built the Kaaba, as made crystal clear in the Bukhari Hadith quoted above. So who's being dishonest through the half-truths of Islamic dissimulation/taqiyyah?

PeteWaldo

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 3854
    • View Profile
    • False Prophet Muhammad
Sorry but only ISLAMIC so-called "scholars" would parrot that, in a vacuum of evidence. The same types as those who created Islamic "tradition" in the first place.

Again, you conveniently throw around the word "tradition" as if by definition it is something unhistorical, which is actually far from the truth. The traditions surrounding Mecca are historical traditions, passed down from people who were contemporary during that time.

I agree regarding the accounts of the Quraish building the Kaaba.
http://www.brotherpete.com/hajj___umrah.htm#kaaba

Regarding anything about a pre-4th century Mecca is unhistorical pure hogwash that was created and  put to the pen in the 7th to 10th centuries without reference to any actual historical record that preceded  the 5th century AD (to be generous).

Even Christian scholars, such as William Muir, for example, have been known to acknowledge that Mecca and the Kaabah existed from the remotest antiquity, long before Christianity.

He wouldn't be the only person who read The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Gibbon made a similar false presumption through a dearth of facts. And again, it's fortunate we have more information available than the historians in the 18th and 19th century did.
http://www.historyofmecca.com/historical_claims.htm#diodorus

But as we know, even the kaaba in Taif was a more significant place of pagan worship than the Quraish pagan's Kaaba, since the Quraish themselves continued to go on Hajj to Taif long after they built their Kaaba in Mecca.

While 19th century William Muir seems to have fallen for the false presumption of those 18th and 19th century parrots before him, regarding any pre-4th century history of Mecca, at least Muir demonstrated a good understanding of Islam:

"It is incumbent upon us to consider this question from a Christian point of view, and to ask whether the supernatural influence, which ... acted upon the soul of the Arabian prophet may not have proceeded from the Evil One ... Our belief in the power of the Evil One must lead us to consider this as at least one of the possible causes of the fall of Mahomet... into the meshes of deception ... May we conceive that a diabolical influence and inspiration was permitted to enslave the heart of him who had deliberately yielded to the compromise with evil.

In the final chapters of Life of Muhammad, Muir concluded that the main legacy of Islam was a negative one, and he subdivided it in "three radical evils":[13]

    First: Polygamy, Divorce, and Slavery strike at the root of public morals, poison domestic life, and disorganise society; while the Veil removes the female sex from its just position and influence in the world. Second: freedom of thought and private judgment are crushed and annihilated. Toleration is unknown, and the possibility of free and liberal institutions foreclosed. Third: a barrier has been interposed against the reception of Christianity."

Thus Muir, in his book The Life of Mahomet: From Original Sources, on page xiv, writes: "A very high antiquity must be assigned to the main features of the religion of Mecca. [...] Diodorus Siculus, writing about half a century before our era, says of Arabia washed by the Red Sea: 'There is in this country a temple greatly revered by the Arabs.' These words must refer to the Holy House of Mecca, for we know of no other which ever commanded such universal homage.

Early historical tradition gives no trace of its first construction." (Screenshot)

He of course "knew of no other" because by the 19th century Kaaba Inc. was the only show in town. Muhammad and his boys destroyed all the other places of worship as they went on their rape, pillage and plunder rampage of the Arabian Peninsula.
Muir obviously didn't have enough information available to him in the 19th century, which resulted in his parroting Gibbon's false presumption about Diodorus, because in fact there were many far more important sites of pagan Arabian worship than Mecca, since we know that even the Quraish continued to go on two pilgrimages a year to other more significant sites of pagan worship, long after they built their Kaaba.
http://www.historyofmecca.com/historical_claims.htm#diodorus

PeteWaldo

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 3854
    • View Profile
    • False Prophet Muhammad
and the oldest of Islam's manuscripts are dated long after Muhammad's death. Like this one that was washed and written over.
http://www.brotherpete.com/index.php?topic=2576.0

Well I'm guessing that you've already heard about the following recent discovery, but maybe you were too ashamed to post it.

"A Qur’an manuscript held by the University of Birmingham has been placed among the oldest in the world thanks to modern scientific methods. Radiocarbon analysis has dated the parchment on which the text is written to the period between AD 568 and 645 with 95.4% accuracy. The test was carried out in a laboratory at the University of Oxford. The result places the leaves close to the time of the Prophet Muhammad, who is generally thought to have lived between AD 570 and 632."
http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/latest/2015/07/quran-manuscript-22-07-15.aspx

The second oldest is the Quran of Uthman which is still preserved in the Egyptian National Library. "On the basis of a privately held fragment of the Qur'an carbon dated to the 7th century CE (609-694 CE with a 95.2% confidence level) showing similar script, textual aids and illumination, Dutton dated Arabic Palaeography Plates 1-12 (i.e., Ms. 139) to a roughly similar timeframe, i.e., the Umayyad period."
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/dak139.html

Are those two copies of the Quran dated long after Muhammad's death? Evidently, the answer is clearly a resounding "no."

I'm glad to learn that we will have yet another old Quran, that will contradict the rest of the old Qurans, the way they do each other.
http://www.brotherpete.com/index.php?topic=4707.0

Let alone how in one of the oldest Qurans, one out of every five verses, don't even make sense:
http://www.brotherpete.com/index.php?topic=2576.0

But no discovery of old Qurans, will ever demonstrate other than it was inspired by Satan himself, since Muhammad denied the basis of the whole subject of the Gospel.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/

Compare that to Hebrew scribal methodology:
http://www.brotherpete.com/index.php?topic=97.0

The Quranic scribal methodology is very delicate and precise, too.

Sure, that's why all of the variant copies were collected up and burned, on two separate occasions, in favor of the edited versions of first Bakr and his editors, then later by Uthman.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/textual_history_of_the_koran.htm

And certainly it has been better preserved then all the other Scriptures of the past, due it being memorized.

"The Arabs of this time were generally an illiterate nation but were great fans of poetry and tales.

Which is exactly how the Quran wound up being a potpourri of then-current events jumbled together with fables and folklore, just as the Quraish pagans accused of Muhammad, because he parroted "tales of the ancients" - as if they had come from "Allah"-  rather than the folklore which they rightly accused Muhammad of plagiarizing. Do you really think it a mere coincidence that the fabled prophet of the Zoroastrians also rode on a fabled flying animal to the fabled resting place of his immortal ancestors?
http://brotherpete.com/fables_fantasies.htm
http://www.brotherpete.com/muhammads_night_journey.htm

Being a predominantly oral culture the Arabs would memorize poems and tales in order to communicate it to others. They had a heightened sense of memory in comparison to other nations. Therefore once the Muslims were taught a passage of the Qur’an they immediately confined it to memory quite easily and this practice was encouraged by the Prophet (saw)."
http://www.minhaj.org/english/tid/2929/The-History-And-Compilation-Of-The-Holy-Quran.html

No need to try to sugar coat it. The Quraish were a bunch of ignorant illiterate pagans, stuck in a remote backwater that civilization had left behind, that were still venerating 360 idols in as late as the 7th century AD!

The entirety of suggestion of a pre-4th century history of Mecca, was all created from thin air, and put to the pen in the 7th to 10th centuries AD. Period. Islam has no manuscripts that date prior to that time. Nor does Islamic so-called tradition, cite any Islamic record from before the 5th century AD (and even then only fraudulent claims of oral transmission - of what is demonstrably false nonsense).

Yet in the countless historical books and encyclopedias we see that the Islamic traditions which you think are "demonstrably false nonsense" are, as opposed to your opinion, regarded as historical facts.

On this subject:
http://www.historyofmecca.com/historical_claims.htm#fact_vs_tradition

Encyclopedias are collections of information - or jacks of all trades - which the uncritical often presume to be at least semi-credible sources of information. When it comes to subjects like the life cycles and migratory patterns of geese they may be fairly credible through the experts they pursue. However when it comes to religion they become like just so many more Wikipedias.
http://www.brotherpete.com/index.php?topic=3355.0

If they desired to do an objective article on (the fiction of) Islamic so-called "tradition", they would separate and title the article appropriately.

But when unhistorical Islamic so-called "tradition" is presented and parroted as if it were historical fact, and worse yet placed under a sub-heading like "History" with absolutely no more historical support than the Muhammadans created, then the encyclopedia has turned itself into little more than an Islamic propaganda machine. Often with the fingerprints of Muslim "editors" associated with it. Modern day encyclopedia parrots of the lies disclaiming their peddling of myth with  qualifiers like "According to Islamic tradition...." or "According to legend....".
http://www.historyofmecca.com/historical_claims.htm#fact_vs_tradition

Uninformed encyclopedia editors go to a goose expert to learn more about geese, so by the same token they might naively go to Muslim taqiyyah purveyors to learn about Mecca, unaware that any pre-4th century Mecca is a figment of Islam's later fictional history creators.
I corrected one online encyclopedia that parroted Islamic "tradition" as history, and he was very appreciative that I did.

That's why I devoted a whole forum category to exposing those that parrot deception in this, what I call, the age of the victory of the lie.
http://www.brotherpete.com/index.php?board=92.0

Look at how the Islamic fiction is foisted on a gullible public by Encyclopedia Britannica:
http://www.brotherpete.com/index.php?topic=4319.0

Here's a portion of my response to their misleading tripe:

""According to Islamic tradition, Abraham and Ishmael, his son by Hagar, built the Kaʿbah as the house of God."

There is absolutely nothing historical about that claim.
http://religionresearchinstitute.org/mecca/archeology.htm

It is not history. Yet by including it in a section labeled "history", and intertwining actual history with counter-scriptural, unhistorical, archaeologically devoid and geographically impossible Islamic so-called "tradition" - that was all created and put to the pen in the 7th to 10th centuries without reference to any actual historical record that preceded the 5th century AD - you create the illusion of that 7th century fable as being fact.

While you prefaced the sentence with "According to Islamic tradition.....", because it is located in the "History" section, young students or people with limited capacity for critical thinking or folks that are simply predisposed to believe it, do not recognize your qualifier as a disclaimer. Instead they are led to believe that you are actually reporting it as history, specifically because it is in the "History" section. I know this for a fact because even web authors, whose writing indicates that on other matters they might otherwise possess fairly normal cognitive function, present it to me while proclaiming that Encyclopedia Britannica confirms the historical fact that Abraham and Ishmael built the Kaaba."

Which renders the article to be a thinly veiled unscholarly propaganda piece.
http://www.brotherpete.com/index.php?topic=4329.0

Yet people are careless enough to not notice the qualifier that destroys the historical claim's credibility, not even realizing it is about scripture-contrary fiction that was all created in the 7th to 10th centuries AD, and may even walk away believing it has something to do with history. I found the article by having it presented to me by an online Islam teacher who, just like you, presented it as if it provided evidence of a pre-4th century Mecca. Yet all it does is simply parrot Islam's pure hogwash. If memory serves, this is also the article that has a Muslim editor.

Here's how the falsehood is parroted on Encyclopedia.com

"..... tradition says that the Kaaba was built by Adam and rebuilt by Abraham and the descendants of Noah."
http://www.brotherpete.com/index.php?topic=4326.0

If encyclopedia creators are gullible enough to get duped into parroting that tripe in this 21st century information age, what do you suppose that says about your encyclopedia authors in the 19th century information-starved age PotatoMuslim?

Edward Gibbon's false presumption in Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, grew like a poisonous mushroom, even though he himself indicated that he was "careless" about Arabia and its paganism (obviously because he was studying and writing about the Roman Empire, not Arabia).

Gibbon gives his readers ample warning about his carelessness in regard to Arabia - in the verses that preface what Islamic so-called "scholars" quote, while conveniently leaving out the qualifier in which Gibbon admits:

"I am ignorant, and I am careless, of the blind mythology of the Barbarians: of the local deities, of the stars, the air, and the earth, of their sex or titles, their attributes or subordination."

Thus it should be no surprise that by the time Gibbon's 1700s rolled around, an Englishman that had expressed a less than enthusiastic interest in Arabia, could falsely presume that the "famous temple" written about by Diodorus was the Ka'aba, because by Gibbon's 18th century many hundreds of years had passed since the Muhammadans had destroyed all of the other places of Arabian worship during the rape, pillage and plunder of their imperialistic conquest of the Arabian Peninsula.
http://www.historyofmecca.com/historical_claims.htm#edward_gibbon_ptolemy

The Edinburgh Encyclopaedia, Conducted by D. Brewster, p. 175: "CAABA, a stone edifice in the temple of Mecca, which has been revered with superior sanctity by the Arabians, from the remotest antiquity; and to which every Mahometan is required by the Koran to direct hismelf in prayer." (Screenshot)

Aren't you even a little embarrassed that you have to resort to an encyclopedia that was published in 1808? Was that the period of peak human knowledge and understanding? Do you believe it a mere coincidence that Gibbon's false presumption about any antiquity of the kaaba in "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" was published in the 1780s, about 25 years before?

Do you wonder why you have to turn to obsolete texts, from relatively information starved authors, for historical information on other than the period surrounding when they lived?

(I recommend against anyone clicking on that screenshot link as it jammed my computer.)

The Metropolitan Magazine (Volume 25), p. 362: "In the Caaba of Mecca, the genuine antiquity of which ascends beyond the Christian era, a large black stone is held in the highest veneration by all the Arabs.

A 1923 author parroting 19th century sources, that parroted Edward Gibbon's false presumption in Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, about Diodorus' writings, which is obviously the likely germ of all the following parrots.
http://www.brotherpete.com/index.php?topic=5007.0

This stone, there is every reason to believe, has been reverenced by them from a very remote period."[/i] (Screenshot)

On the same "History of Mecca" site you probably went to after Wikipedia (which also contains no historical record because there isn't any) you likely found this page on our site regarding the misunderstandings of an 18th and an early 20th century author. But we live in the 21st century information age, and can easily understand how their presumptions were unsound:
http://www.historyofmecca.com/historical_claims.htm

Their claims were no doubt far more well-supported and rational compared to Rafat Amari's, the disingenuous espouser of the 5th century Kaabah hypothesis, which he clearly failed to prove, as I've just demonstrated in this post.

What you did was post a bunch of antiquated texts parroting Gibbon, as opposed to first language Arabic Dr. Rafat Amari and the 20-year fill-time study he did of Islam and Arabia, including the use of original source material in his travels to the Middle East, during this information age. Not a bunch of western parrots of Gibbon's, self-admitted "careless" and as a result false, presumptions.
http://www.historyofmecca.com/historical_claims.htm#edward_gibbon_ptolemy

And it is ridiculous to believe that a false presumption parroted within antiquated texts, would somehow magically create a 4500 year historical and archaeological record of a pre-4th century Mecca. Talk about desperation!

Meanwhile there are over a million artifacts - just those on display - inside Israel, which is of course THE Holy Land of the prophets and patriarchs.

PeteWaldo

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 3854
    • View Profile
    • False Prophet Muhammad
We are only interested in materials that cite historical and archaeological RECORD that is DATED PRIOR TO the 4th century AD. We have wasted far too much time in this forum with the repeated false presumptions of Edward Gibbon and  A. J. Wensinck (as if two unsupported, and author self-admitted presumptions, could somehow substitute for a 4500 year historical and archaeological record of Mecca) and created Islamic so-called tradition. Please read the many posts in here by many followers of Muhammad that preceded you.

The Greek historian Diodorus Siculus is believed to have mentioned the Kaabah in 60-30 BC while describing the coast of Jeddah and its surrounding areas: "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." - Bibliotheca Historica, Book 3 Chapter 44

Which passage of course, Dr. Amari explores in great detail:
http://www.brotherpete.com/index.php?topic=1138.msg4430#msg4430

Unlike Islamic taqiyyah/dissimulation purveyors that in NLP styled (neurolinguistic programing) combining of truth to try to mask lies by such as "....describing the coast of Jeddah and its surrounding areas: "The inhabitants of the land about the gulf, who are known as Banizomenes....." who lived nowhere near where Jeddah was eventually established, but rather many hundreds of KM north by the Gulf of Aqaba:

http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-exodus-ancient-geographers-agatharchides-maps-169bc.jpg

Diodorus' is obviously a reference to an actual ancient temple like that near al-Ula, though even that may be further south of the gulf of Aqaba than the temple being made reference to. There is also said to have been a temple at the northern end of the gulf of Aqaba. The pagans used to sacrifice she-camels in the temple in al-Ula.

It doesn't require genius to recognize that any temple that was "exceedingly revered by all Arabians" certainly wasn't the Kaaba in Mecca, because even the Quraish went on pilgrimage to more significant places of Arabian pagan worship twice a year, long after they built their Kaaba in Mecca.
http://www.historyofmecca.com/historical_claims.htm#qibla

Which single reference, as I pointed out, will never stand in for a 4500 year pre-4th century historical and archaeological record of Mecca.

The renowned Islamic historian Muhammad Mohar Ali writes: "To cite the evidence of Diodorus again, he speaks of only one universally venerated 'temple' in Arabia, not of anything else like it or superior to it. The existence of a number of idolatrous shrines throughout Arabia before the rise of Islam to which Ibn Ishaq refers and of which Muir speaks, including even the Yemeni Ka’ba of Abrahah, were all established subsequently to and in imitation of the Meccan Ka’ba, not before it."

Which is just another Muslim dithering on in false presumption that springs from Islamic "tradition". Let alone that anyone with a capacity for critical thought would recognize that since the Quraish went on Hajj to temples of greater significance twice a year, long after they built their Kaaba, would make their off-the-beaten-path 5th-century kaaba, the imitator of one of the more prestigious ones in a more significant place of Arabian pagan worship.

I would direct readers to compare that with an account by a historian that actually studied the writings of Diodorus:
http://www.brotherpete.com/index.php?topic=1081.msg4276#msg4276

"Agatharchides told about another temple close to Ilat in the Aqaba gulf area. It is in a land belonging to a tribe called "Batmizomaneis." Agatharchides emphasizes that the temple, in his own words, "is highly revered by all the Arabs."[xviii][18]

Many Muslims claim that Agatharchides' temple was actually the temple of Mecca. To fix the exact place of that temple, let's follow the narration of Agatharchides, as reported by Photius and Diodorus. Agatharchides began to describe regions north of this temple, including the Nabataeans around the Gulf of Aqaba, which was called the Laeanites Gulf. In Photius and Diodorus, Agatharchides says:

One encounters the Laeanites Gulf around which there are many villages of the so-called Nabataean Arabs. They occupy much of the coast and not a little of the adjacent country which extends into the interior and contains a population that is unspeakably great as well as herds of animals that are unbelievably numerous. In ancient times they led a just life and were satisfied with livelihood provided by their flocks, but later, after the kings in Alexandria had made the gulf navigable for merchants, they attacked those who suffered shipwreck. They also built pirate vessels and plundered sailors, imitating the ferocity and lawlessness of the Tauri in the Pontus. But later they were caught at sea by quadriremes and properly punished. After what is called the Laeanites Gulf, around which Arabs live, is the land of the Bythemaneas.

Notice that the land of Bythemaneas is connected  to the south of the Nabataeans' region, close to Gulf of Aqaba. ( See FIG. 2, at the end of the article). Musil, a famous scholar on Arabia, declared that this land was the  "lower portion of the Wadi al- Abjaz, namely the so-called Wadi al 'efal[4][d], a lowland 50 Km long by 20 km. wide just east of the Gulf of Aqaba."[xix][19] The narration of Agatharchides continues:

Next after this section of the coast is a bay which extends into the interior of the country for a distance of not less than five hundreds stades. Those who inhabit the territory within the gulf are called Batmizomaneis and are hunters of land animals.

The stade, or stadia, according to the system of Eratosthenes, equals one tenth of an English mile,[xx][20] thus making the land of Bythemaneas only about 50 miles. He is placing the inhabitants of Batmizomaneis within the gulf region, as we see from his statement, "Those who inhabit the territory within the gulf are called Batmizomaneis." He means that these people lived within the Laeanites Gulf, which was the old name for the Gulf of Aqaba. The narration of Diodorus is parallel to that of Photius because both copied the writings of Agatharchides in his fifth book On the Erythraean Sea. Diodorus says:

The people who inhabit the country beside the gulf ,who are named the Banizomenes , support themselves by hunting and eating the flesh of land animals. A very sacred temple has been established there which is highly revered by all the Arabs.

We see that both Photius and Diodorus placed the people of Banizomenes or (Batmizomaneis) beside the gulf of the Laeanites, or the Gulf of Aqaba, many miles from where Mecca was eventually built. Mecca is in central western Arabia, very close to Yemen. Following their comments on Banizomenes, the two authors speak of another area in the south, the Thamud territory. They describe it in these words, "after these it is the territory of the Thamoudeni Arabs." [xxi][21] The Thamud tribe was known in history to inhabit northern Arabia close to the Aqaba gulf, they never reached to the south, toward the area where Mecca was later built. So the temple described by Diodorus was between the Thamud region and the city of Petra, within the Gulf of Aqaba region."

Much more at the link:
http://www.brotherpete.com/index.php?topic=1081.msg4276#msg4276

PeteWaldo

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 3854
    • View Profile
    • False Prophet Muhammad
In the 2nd century, Maximus Tyrius wrote; "The Arabians pay homage to I know not what god, which they represent by a quadrangular stone." Maximus was most likely referring to the Kaaba of Mecca, which is exactly quandrangular shaped.

More well-known is the fact that the geographer Ptolemy, in the second century, described the region of a sanctuary which he called "Makoraba." This could well be a transliteration of the word written in South Arabian characters (which omit the vowel sounds) as mkrb, meaning "sanctuary" or "temple." The majority of scholars believe that Makoraba is indeed an ancient name for Mecca. This is the name that was known to the Greeks in the ancient times. Gabor Agoston and Bruce Alan Masters, for example, in the Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire, includes "Macoraba" as one of the ancient names for Mecca.

Elsewhere we are told: "It was known to the Greeks by the name Macoraba. and is called, by the Mussulmans, Omm-Alcora, or Mother of Cities, because it was the birthplace of Mohammed." - (Encyclopaedia Americana: A Popular Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, Literature, History, Politics and Biography, Brought Down to the Present Time; Including a Copious Collection of Original Articles in American Biography; On the Basis of the Seventh Edition of the German Conversations-Lexicon (Volume 5), by Francis Lieber,  Wigglesworth, E., and Bradford, T. G., p. 367)

The word "Makoraba" having the meaning "temple" or a "sanctuary" is further supported by it's etymological origin, as indicated in a dictionary of an ancient South Semitic language, known as Ge'ez. See below.

Comparative Dictionary of Geʻez (Classical Ethiopic): Geʻez-English, English-Ge'ez, by Wolf Leslau, p. 341:
http://i.imgur.com/1eOrXdf.jpg

You might be thinking of citing one of your sham scholars like Patricia Crone to refute that idea, who argued that the Makoraba can't be Mecca since the words are very different in pronounciation, although one must naively ignore the root meaning and the origin of the word at the expense of merely looking for a similarity in pronounciation if Crone's argument is to be accepted, instead of considering both approaches. Dr. Rafat Amari also apparently cites Crone's opinion regarding the word Makoraba in his website, but it's still no use because historians have already dismissed and debunked her argument. To give you a referrence, a scholar named Dr. Amaal Muhammad Al-Roubi has written an excellent rebuttal of many of her anti-Islamic arguments, including her double-dealing wordplay regarding the word "Makoraba" (on page 22):
http://www.sultan.org/books/Patricia_crone_english_reply.pdf

Finally, you might argue that there were other temples or sanctuaries in ancient Arabia, which wouldn't be incorrect, as far as i know. But that argument still doesn't rule out the possibility that the temple in Mecca (i.e. the Kaabah) could have been established before all those other temples which you are referring to. In order to prove that there were other temples in Arabia before the existence of the Kaabah, first you need to be able to prove how old the Kaaba is. But of course, you still haven't been able to prove that and it's precisely because you can't. Your comically dishonest Rafat Amari couldn't do it either as I demonstrated earlier, in a previous post.

Muhammadan "scholars" also believe and advance that Muhammad rode around on a flying donkey-mule, so it's no surprise that someone that is compelled to buy into that, would denigrate the sound scholarly work of actual scholars.

For the benefit of objective readers of this thread, here are the findings of an actual scholar (whose first language is Arabic) in this 21st century information age, that also had the benefit of air travel to study original source material, geography and archaeology of Arabia. We can let the reader decide which would seem to be most credible.
http://www.brotherpete.com/index.php?topic=1081.msg7337#msg7337

"PTOLEMY'S SURVEY AND THE LOCATION OF MACORABA

The Greek geographer, Claudius Ptolemy of Alexandria, Egypt, was born in the year 90 A.D. and died in 168 A.D.  He wrote Almonagest, a chief astronomical work, and another work about astrology called Tetrabilos. Around the year 150 A.D. he dedicated himself to the study of the earth's geography - more specifically, cartographical representation, or mapping of the earth.  He was inspired by the work of several other geographers who lived before him, including Marinus, who lived from 70 A.D. to 130 A.D. These geographers pioneered the concept of latitude and longitude lines for world maps. Ptolemy enhanced the concept of the latitude and longitudes. Ptolemy reduced the latitude and longitude that Marinus has established before.[lvi][56] Ptolemy tried to document in his geographical work, simply called Geography, the latitude and longitude coordinates, also called meridians lines, for the important locations marked on the maps of his time. Most scholars doubt that the maps which included his latitude and longitude coordinates were actually drawn by him.  But they do believe that other geographers used his information when making their maps.[lvii][57]

    Ptolemy's geography provides valuable help in locating places that existed in his time, but we should consider some disclaimers that he mentions in his work. In second book Ptolemy mentions that the locations of some of the places or cities that were documented more recently, with respect to his time, are actually estimated regarding their proximity to more established places or cities.[lviii][58]   When compared to the latitude and longitude system we use today, his system seems crude and inaccurate, yet, it is still helpful to know about the recently-discovered places which didn't appear in previous geographical surveys. We can establish where newer cities are located in relation to older ones. It's helpful to know whether the cities in question are south or north of an old city, or whether they are east or west.

    From a practical standpoint, Ptolomy's criteria proves valuable when looking for other cities in the Middle East mentioned by him, or even those in his own country, Egypt. Based on these facts, his work helps us resolve the location problem for some cities, such as Macoraba, which appeared in his generation.

   In book six, chapter seven, of his work titled Geography, Ptolemy documents the latitude and longitude coordinates of several landmarks in Arabia.[lix][59]  By studying these locations and coordinates, we notice once again that the city of Mecca is never mentioned. In fact, Ptolomy doesn't mention any cities in the strip of land where Mecca was eventually built.

    Macoraba was a city in the Arabian interior which was mentioned by Ptolemy. Some people wanted to assume that Macoraba was actually Mecca. Macoraba had appeared recently, with respect to Ptolemy's time. This assumption would result in the conclusion that Mecca was built around the middle of the 2nd century A.D. However, even if this were true, it wouldn't support the claim that Mecca was an old city existing from the time of Abraham. Upon further study of the facts concerning Macoraba, we can conclude with certainty that Macoraba can't be Mecca, and we can refute the idea that Mecca was built in the 2nd century A.D. All the facts point to the historical argument that Mecca was constructed in the 4th century A.D. Since Macoraba is not pronounced similar to Mecca, the scholar Crone suggested that the location of Maqarib, near Yathrib, was actually Macoraba. Maqarib is mentioned by Yaqut al-Hamawi, an Arab geographer who lived from 1179 to1229 A.D., in his geographical dictionary Mujam al-Buldan.[lx][60] This location is more acceptable than Mecca for the modern-day location of Macoraba, because Maqarib is closer in pronunciation to Macoraba than Mecca.  Another reason is that Maqarib, though it does not exactly fit the documented location of Macoraba, is closer to the location, according to the latitude and longitude of Ptolemy, than Mecca is to the documented location of Macoraba.

    In order to determine the exact location of Macoraba, scholars have looked to the city of Lathrippa, mentioned by Ptolemy at longitude of 71, as a reference.  Lathrippa is accepted by most scholars as the city of Yathrib, a city documented in the historical record. Ptolemy placed the city of Macoraba at 73 20 longitude which means about three and a third degrees east of Yathrib, while Mecca is west of Yathrib. So Macoraba can't be the city of Mecca, nor a city in the direction where Mecca was later built.  Macoraba should be located deeper into the interior of Arabia, or toward the eastern coast of Arabia.

    We have just analyzed the longitude; now let's turn to the latitude. When we study latitude we find more data concerning the historical location of Macoraba. Ptolemy described Macoraba, not as the next city south of Lathrippa, or Yathrib, but the sixth city to the south. While the city of Carna is the first city to the south of Lathrippa, Macoraba is the sixth city to the south. Carna was a well-known Yemeni city, belonging to the Minaean kingdom mentioned by Strabo.  That is significant, because Strabo described the main tribes of southern Arabia in these words:

The extreme part of the country is occupied by the four largest tribes; by the Minaeans - whose largest city is Carna; next to these, by the Sabaeans, whose metropolis is Mariaba; third by the Cattabanians, whose royal seat is called Tamna; and the farthest toward the east, the Chatramotitae, meaning Hadramout, whose city is Sabata.[lxi][61]

Carna, in the past, was known as the most important and the largest city of the Yemen Kingdom of Ma'in. Carna was a significant city of Arabia which Ptolemy couldn't miss. Because Macoraba was listed as the fifth city south of Carna, we understand Ptolemy used Carna as a reference point for the five cities he listed south of Carna, included Macoraba. We can't make Lathrippa a reference point for locating Macoraba since Lathrippa is farther north of Macoraba,  but Macoraba's location is south of the famous old Minaean city of Carna. We can only conclude that by latitude, Macoraba is in south Arabia, south of the Yemeni city of Carna. However, by longitude, Ptolemy placed it closer to Carna.  By any measure, Macoraba must be near Carna, in Yemen.

    I think we should go more east of Yathrib to identify Mokoraba mentioned by Ptolemy. In fact, Pliny mentions a city with the name Mochorba, and he said it was a port of Oman on the Hadramout shore in South Arabia. It's also possible that Macoraba is derived from Mochorba.[lxii][62]

     Since Macoraba never appears in any literature other than the narration of Ptolemy, it must have been a small settlement or tiny village which disappeared in Ptolomy's time during the 2nd century A.D. Probably a small Omani tribe emigrated from the port of Mochorba toward the north of Yemen, near Carna the old Minaean city of Yemen, and established a small settlement which they named after their original city. The tribe would then have moved to another area in search of better living conditions, a usual migratory occurrence in Arabia. The fact that Macoraba never appears again in any other classical survey confirms the fact that it was a small provisional settlement of a small tribe, and not a significant town.

    If a case for the name of Machorba should be opened, it should be seen in relation with the southern Arabian city of Mochorba, and not with Mecca. In the same manner, we see the city of New London in the United States as being named after the original city of London.  We can't open a case for the origin of the name of the American city apart from the English city after which it was named."
http://www.brotherpete.com/index.php?topic=1081.msg7337#msg7337

The whole reason it has to be called "tradition" is because it is completely unhistorical.

Then, what is this: Traditional Historicism

As explained on the link that you apparently didn't even read the first paragraph of, that is a reference to the traditional approach to Bible prophecy that has been employed by Jews, as well as by Christians throughout the Christian era.

It has nothing to do with anything akin to pure created fiction of the 7th to 10th centuries AD, that Muslims can only label "tradition" because it is absolutely unhistorical, yet it masquerades as 4500 years of historical record without reference to any actual historical record that preceded the 5th century AD.

I would not be surprised at anything you wish to post, as I have seen the unhistorical "tradition" you wish to cite, before.

Then go ahead and tell me why the specific quotes that I cited above are unhistorical tradition.

Those quoted aren't peddling unhistorical tradition, as much of advancing false presumption, often parroting and embellishing the false presumptions of others, and each other.
http://www.historyofmecca.com/historical_claims.htm#diodorus

Please do not waste our mutual time in here by posting Islamic so-called "tradition" unless and until you provide a satisfactory answer to the following question. Please ask your Imam for help with this one if you need to. Feel free to invite him into the forum as well.

Jews, Christians and Muslims visit Abraham's grave near Hebron where Abraham lived. Muslims agree with the location of Hebron, as well as with Abraham and Ishmael both being in attendance to bury their father Abraham.

Gen 25:9 And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite, which [is] before Mamre;

Please explain how Ishmael traveled across 1200 kilometers of untraveled, uncharted, unknown dry barren desert wasteland, from Mecca to Hebron, a thousand years before the actual historical and archaeological records of Arabia tell us a caravan route was established along the Red Sea (about 6BC), in time to join Isaac for their father Abraham's burial in Hebron.

There is nothing really geographically impossible about that, contrary to what you've been saying, because there is the possibility that there were camels in Arabia, And there doesn't need to be any caravan routes for camels to go from one place to another because they live in the desert. Caravans and caravan routes are needed only for widespread trading and transportation which (predictably) occurred much later after camel domestication.

I remember that I posted a quote about the existence a large body of water in the Arabian Peninsula, which gradually disappeared by around 2000 BC. But if anything, that was only good for the rise of camels because they live and thrive primarily in desert environments as evidenced by the abundance of camels present in Arabia. That's why camels are sometimes called the "ships of the desert." Camels can travel on the barren desert sand for days and weeks. They are adapted for such harsh conditions. They can traverse through some of the most formidable deserts and arid areas of the planet.

"The dromedary camel (Camel dromedarius) is extremely well adapted to life in hot and arid lands. In terms of physiological adaptation to heat and water deprivation it surpasses by far every other large animal of which data have been collected." (Source)

And now new research shows that camels in the Arabian peninsula were most probably domesticated before they were domesticated in Judea. I'll get to that in just a minute.

No need to. Unless you're talking about flying camels, none of your dithering on about camels answered the question. How are you suggesting Ishmael could have traveled 1200 kilometers from Mecca to Hebron in time to join Isaac to bury their father? Abraham's corpse would have been a stinking, rotting, mess by the time Ishmael could have gotten to Hebron from Mecca unless it was a flying camel.

As Ibn Ishaq even desperately made up once he realized the geographical impossibility of Islamic so-called "tradition":

"The Buraq was also said to transport Abraham (Ibrahim) when he visited his wife Hagar and son Ishmael. According to tradition, Abraham lived with one wife in Syria, but the Buraq would transport him in the morning to Mecca to see his family there, and take him back in the evening to his Syrian wife.[4]"
http://www.brotherpete.com/index.php?topic=1713.0

Why don't you then explain why Ishmael would have wanted to separate himself from his 12 sons by a distance of 1,000 KM.

PeteWaldo

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 3854
    • View Profile
    • False Prophet Muhammad
Earlier you posted the following map:



And you posted that to show me that (somehow) what your own scripture says about Abraham's travels has a rich historical and archaeological record that is "perfectly supported geographically." But guess what? Recently, archaeologists in Tel Aviv University have shown that camels were not domesticated in the land of Israel until centuries after the Age of the Patriarchs (2000-1500 BCE), which you know is is in direct conflict with the Biblical passages about Abraham having camels. I'm not saying that it disproves the Scripture, but simply saying that there is an apparent contradiction between the Scripture and archaeological evidence.

Going by the map that you yourself posted, Abraham's journeys in total were well over a thousand miles no doubt, so there must have been domesticated animals at that time in order to make possible such long journeys.

I believe the journey may have taken over a decade, which would make your dithering on about camels as irrelevant and your false presumptions. Yet you are trying to fool yourself into believing that Ishmael could have traveled even further, from Mecca to Hebron, in time to join Isaac to bury their father. Can't even you see how such a notion would necessarily have to be 100% pure poppycock?

Genesis 24:10 says that Abraham's servant took ten camels from him to go somewhere, which implies that Abraham had not one but at least ten domesticated camels. But recent research doesn't support that idea:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140210-domesticated-camels-israel-bible-archaeology-science/

"Newly published research by two archaeologists at Tel Aviv University in Israel shows that camels weren't domesticated in the eastern Mediterranean until the 10th century B.C. - several centuries after the time they appear in the Bible."

"Camels were probably first domesticated in the Arabian Peninsula in the early first millennium B.C. Archaeologists base this date on mortality profiles of excavated skeletons, the gender of the animals, and lesions on leg bones that would have resulted from the repetitive stress of working as pack animals. The Arabian Peninsula borders the Aravah Valley, which would have been a logical gateway for camels into the Levant. In fact, Ben-Yosef and Sapir-Hen believe that the domesticated camels buried at sites in the Aravah Valley may have been among the first such creatures to leave Arabia. Archaeological excavations in the Aravah Valley have turned up bones of camels from earlier periods, perhaps even before the start of the Neolithic (about 9,700 B.C.), but those were probably wild animals that ran free, never burdened with the weight of copper ingots on their back."


The archaeologists concluded that camels were probably first domesticated in Arabia around the first millennium BC (i.e. 1000 BC). There is no certainty about that, however, so the sentence above includes the word "probably." That means it could have been much earlier or much later than 1st millennium BC. The date is just an approximate. However, the part that I highlighted says that domesticated camels may have been among the first such creatures to leave Arabia, meaning that such domesticated creatures most likely originated in Arabia and that they came from Arabia.

That being said, my point is not that the Scriptural records of Abraham's travels are necessarily invalidated by the above archaeological study.

Now you're just being silly. Gee, it took 3500 years for someone smart enough to come along to place Abraham's journey being, by ignoring the locations listed in scripture as pinned on the map.
http://www.bible-history.com/maps/6-abrahams-journeys.html

My point, rather, is that archaeological findings do not necessarily determine what really happened. If you think that this study reflects what really happened, then you must disbelieve what the Bible says about Abraham's journeys. But I know you won't do that, so you must dismiss this archaeological finding as being flawed or inconclusive.

It is stunning that you can't see the reasonableness of Abraham having traveled in the Fertile Crescent where there were rivers and streams as pictured on the map, and where there also would have been pasture and thus game and even folks along the way with domesticated animals and crops to eat, as compared to the abject unreasonableness of your nonsensical wishing he had instead traveled across harsh, dry, barren desert wasteland.

Additionally, the Ishmaelites were known for their flocks which would have also required the water and pasture that was present in the Fertile Crescent, and this is why scholars and historians place them in the Northern Arabia/Trans-Jordan area of the Fertile Crescent. Yet you are ignorantly and desperately trying to move their domain south to pasturing their flocks on land like this:



Why don't you then explain why Ishmael would have wanted to separate himself, from his 12 sons in the fertile crescent, by a distance of 1,000 KM.