Ayman
2005-09-10 21:30:25 UTC
you don't *know* that is of Allat. Allat may have been symbolized
in pagan times, but it is a firmer assumption that teh principle
sanctuary be that of Allah, not his original consort (Allat).
The rituals and symbols were reported by independent sources in bothin pagan times, but it is a firmer assumption that teh principle
sanctuary be that of Allah, not his original consort (Allat).
pre-quranic and early post-quranic times as associated with the female
goddess Allat. Of course later pious fiction will not admit that.
Allat's sanctuary is elswhere, and apaprently superstitious Arabs
secretly venerated it until recently ("Travels in Arabia Deserta")
There were sanctuaries similar to the one in the place presently calledsecretly venerated it until recently ("Travels in Arabia Deserta")
Mecca allover Arabia.
you are dealing with too many intangibles.
whatever the internal symbolism of the Ka`ba, it is described
as a temple for Allah in the Qur'an (both are mentioned, aand
since we know from external evidnece that the Ka`ba was a cultic
object, there is very good reason to believe bth are the same),
and that there should have been such a temple is in harmony of
what we know about the Arabian religion from inscriptions, i.e.
that there was a High God alongside numerous deities.
What is mentioned is the common noun "kaaba", which means "base". Thewhatever the internal symbolism of the Ka`ba, it is described
as a temple for Allah in the Qur'an (both are mentioned, aand
since we know from external evidnece that the Ka`ba was a cultic
object, there is very good reason to believe bth are the same),
and that there should have been such a temple is in harmony of
what we know about the Arabian religion from inscriptions, i.e.
that there was a High God alongside numerous deities.
first time we hear of the term "kaaba" describing a temple is from Jacob
of Edessa and even then, he indisputably points to a location WEST of
Hira, i.e. somewhere in Northern Arabia and NOT in the location of
present day Mecca.
it is irrelevant what I believe.
millions of muslims belive it is not pagan, ergo it is not pagan.
This is a fallacious argument. Millions of pagan Hindus believe thatmillions of muslims belive it is not pagan, ergo it is not pagan.
their symbols and rituals are not pagan so this proves nothing except
that you like to appeal to popularity.
if there is hard evidence that there was no
circumabulation, fine, novel and interesting
if there was, fine with me too.
but I can't say there was no circumambulation because
because I or anyone belives it to be pagan! and
at present I have no evidence that there was none.
Nobody is saying that there was no circumambulation, so please stopcircumabulation, fine, novel and interesting
if there was, fine with me too.
but I can't say there was no circumambulation because
because I or anyone belives it to be pagan! and
at present I have no evidence that there was none.
making up an argument and then arguing against it. Let me make it clear.
We KNOW that there was circumambulation SEVEN times done by pagans for
Allat and Dhu-shara as verifiable in Epiphanius's manuscript. I don't
think that Epiphanius who lived a couple of centuries before the
revelation of the great reading conspired with me against you to prove
that such circumambulation is pagan.
The kissing and adoration of the Black Stone was described by early
post-quranic independent sources as related to Aphrodite (which was
sometimes the Hellenized Allat). The Black Stone was described as the
head of Aphrodite/Allat. We know from empirical observation that those
rituals are interrelated.
As one would expect, the "quran" doesn't describe such pagan rituals. It
doesn't describe spinning seven times around a stone cube, nor does it
discuss kissing the Black Stone or stoning some stone pillars, etc. None
of those pagan rituals are described and thus believers in those rituals
have to rely on post-quranic theological hearsay and propaganda.
circumabualtion is attetsed for Judaism.doesn't describe spinning seven times around a stone cube, nor does it
discuss kissing the Black Stone or stoning some stone pillars, etc. None
of those pagan rituals are described and thus believers in those rituals
have to rely on post-quranic theological hearsay and propaganda.
influences.
if the small Black Stone represents an idol's head then the black stone
cube represents an idol's body. Also, notice that this is related to the
previous observation about the pagan birth symbolism. The head is the
first part that comes out on birth. So the Black Stone head coming out
of the female pudenda shaped enclosure represents the annual re-birth of
the pagan idol. Notice also that traditions contend that whoever kisses
the stone (the head of the newborn idol) will have his sins wiped out
"as if he was newborn". This is not a coincidence and the rituals and
the traditions that are used to justify them reek of paganism.
did you consider writing a novel which is a muslim versioncube represents an idol's body. Also, notice that this is related to the
previous observation about the pagan birth symbolism. The head is the
first part that comes out on birth. So the Black Stone head coming out
of the female pudenda shaped enclosure represents the annual re-birth of
the pagan idol. Notice also that traditions contend that whoever kisses
the stone (the head of the newborn idol) will have his sins wiped out
"as if he was newborn". This is not a coincidence and the rituals and
the traditions that are used to justify them reek of paganism.
of "the da Vinci Code"?
of Dr. Rashad Khalifa's Code 19 who hold the patent on this one :)
what is pagan or not is a mattter of ones beliefs. of you find it
pagan, thta's your bussiness. but Islam asserts that "pagans" were
once given revelation as well. so it introduces the idea that
some pagan rituals are correct.
Epiphanius clearly said that circumambulation SEVEN times was done bypagan, thta's your bussiness. but Islam asserts that "pagans" were
once given revelation as well. so it introduces the idea that
some pagan rituals are correct.
pagans for Allat and Dhu-shara. Your assertion that "pagans were once
given revelation" is entirely your conjecture and has nothing to do with
"Islam". Please don't respond by saying that 28:46, 32:3, 36:6, etc.
were abrogated.
moreover, circumambulation is mentioned in Psalm 26:6 and
Enc. of the Qur'an refers to a seven time circumambulation
in 2nd Temple Period judaism.
How does Enc. of the Qur'an mention it when the great reading itselfEnc. of the Qur'an refers to a seven time circumambulation
in 2nd Temple Period judaism.
doesn't?
As for Judaism, who said that Judaism was not influenced by paganism (as
was Christianity and Islam)? What makes you think that Judaism is immune
to pagan influences?
one can argue taht the Ka`ba is no more pagan than the Jerusalem
Temple, which is also centered on a rock.
Both are pagan. In fact, the measurements and design of the JewishTemple, which is also centered on a rock.
Temple is entirely based on pagan Gematria. I advise you to read G.
Ifrah "The Universal History of Numbers" to see the pagan origin of
Gematria.
suppose a 6th cent. arabian diary or inscription was found and
it turned out that Muhammad actaully performed these rituals
as tradition tells us. then what are you going to do?
I am dealing with empirically verifiable reality not with hypotheticalit turned out that Muhammad actaully performed these rituals
as tradition tells us. then what are you going to do?
wishful thinking.
right now, either you tentativley go along with tradition or just
say, "We don't know" and stop there.
The default is not to "go with the tradition". I can't say "we don'tsay, "We don't know" and stop there.
know" because we do know some things. What we do know is in conflict
with tradition. As we learned more in the last twenty years, we have
seen that the conflict grows. This is not just the case with sectarian
Islamic dogma. It is also true for Christianity and Judaism. More
advanced research tools in the past twenty years haven't been as "going
along" as you are with the traditional dogma of those religions either.
it's not *me*!
the authors that you mention give responsible criticism, nad
their criticism has been under scrutiny as well. it is
the "over the deep end" baseless criticism that I am objecting to.
I have provided logical arguments based on evidence. Now you seem tothe authors that you mention give responsible criticism, nad
their criticism has been under scrutiny as well. it is
the "over the deep end" baseless criticism that I am objecting to.
know the traditional dogma and pious fiction pretty well. If the
tradition was so ironclad, one would not see you constantly resorting to
apologetic counter-arguments such as abrogation. This is very telling.
but it didn't.
why shouldn't a "fundamental" diety like Allat not be found in
Central and Southern Arabia? moreover there is *evidence* so.
arguing is pointless.
Are Allat, Al-3uzza and Manat Nabataean idols or not? Please answer. Ifwhy shouldn't a "fundamental" diety like Allat not be found in
Central and Southern Arabia? moreover there is *evidence* so.
arguing is pointless.
they are (and we know that they are) then Arabs elsewhere in Arabia
adopted them from Nabataeans so they must have had influence in those
other areas. This is logical.
not important based on what?
Allat and al-Uzza are well attested everywhere, Hubal isn't attested at
all epigraphically in the South.
But according to traditions and pious fiction (that you appeal to) HubalAllat and al-Uzza are well attested everywhere, Hubal isn't attested at
all epigraphically in the South.
was the most important in the alleged town of Mecca.
the Qur'an is not an inventory of idols. it mentions when them when
there is occassion to. the goddesses were thougth to have a special
relationship to Allah, so it was neccessary to refer to them, in the
manner that they didn't, of course.
One can argue that there are indeed many occasions in the great readingthere is occassion to. the goddesses were thougth to have a special
relationship to Allah, so it was neccessary to refer to them, in the
manner that they didn't, of course.
to mention what is according to traditions the most important idol of
the prophet's people. Yet we see Allat, Al-3uzza and Manat mentioned.
Out of the three, Allat is mentioned first and probably was the most
important of the three. Not surprisingly, it is also Allat that we hear
about from independent pre-quranic and early post-quranic sources. So
those sources confirm the great reading but not the traditional
accounts.
but it was not addressed to the Northern Arabs, since they weren't
there. and the Nabataeans were not even around at the time anywhere.
The Nabataeans stopped being a political entity but I am sure that theythere. and the Nabataeans were not even around at the time anywhere.
didn't disappear into thin air or were kidnapped by aliens. We know that
as a people their descendents and their culture continued to exist
because their idols continued to be venerated and their pagan rituals
continued to be performed (and in fact continue to this day).
The word al-ilah, allah, "the deity", "the deity previously mentioned"
is generic exactly like God is generic.
in the first two instances it is generic, in the last it is specific.is generic exactly like God is generic.
But we know from archeological evidence that the stone cube is
distinctly a representation of the Nabataean goddess Allat.
you know from some reports, not "archaeological evidence".distinctly a representation of the Nabataean goddess Allat.
idols were represented by stone blocks. Sometimes the stone blocks were
un-worked and sometimes they were enhanced with facial features as you
can see here:
Loading Image...
Notice how like the stone block idol in present day Mecca, the stone
block idol in the picture has a height which is slightly longer than the
other dimensions. What many people don't know is that the term "cube" as
applied to the so-called Kaaba is actually a misnomer.
you also can't rule out a stone as representing or marking
the sanctuary of other deities.
I totally agree that stone blocks also marked the sanctuary of otherthe sanctuary of other deities.
pagan idols. You don't have to convince me here.
Both the stone and the edifice are lifeless stones that are symbols of
Allat. The sources you refer to (Patriarch Germanus and John of
Damascus) indicate that Saracenes made invocations to a lifeless stone
named Chobar. The same sources tell us that this stone that the pagans
kissed represented the head of Allat/Aphrodite. So this is consistent,
NO! you don't have any evidence that it was for Allat!Allat. The sources you refer to (Patriarch Germanus and John of
Damascus) indicate that Saracenes made invocations to a lifeless stone
named Chobar. The same sources tell us that this stone that the pagans
kissed represented the head of Allat/Aphrodite. So this is consistent,
you have to do source criticism for these christian sources as well.
they were not objective, and nowhere is an arabic word *kubar or *kabar
attested. the evolution of the word in christian polemics can be accounted
for.
Germanus could have mispronounced it a little bit. However, John ofthey were not objective, and nowhere is an arabic word *kubar or *kabar
attested. the evolution of the word in christian polemics can be accounted
for.
Damascus was likely a Christian Arab and his real name was Mansour (see
Hoyland page 480-1). Thus, he knew more about the Arabic language of his
time than even the father of Arabic Grammar Sibaweh (who came later and
was not even an Arab). So his testimony of the Black Stone being named
Kabar must be taken as the best information on the matter and Hoyland is
clearly a little hasty with his footnote #107 on page 486 in which he
inexplicably refers to the footnote on Germanus. It is evident that John
knows Arabic because unlike Germanus, he even gives the meaning of the
word kabar as "great" and this agrees with the only known etymology of
the word. Keep in mind that at the time of John of Damascus Classical
Arabic has not been even codified or standardized yet. Moreover,
undoubtedly Arabs in different regions vocalized the words slightly
differently and proper names can have strange vocalization anyway. All
those facts would explain why the vocalization of the proper name Kabar
may sound strange today but was perfectly normal during John's time.
and besides, this only shows that it was an early muslim practice
to face the Ka`ba!
This particular independent report doesn't.to face the Ka`ba!
the association of Allat with Aphrodite is problematic. some
arabs considered the Venus star masculine (3a*th*tar).
Nabataeans associated Allat with Athena. etc.
that is the opinion based on Herodotus. the Nabataeans identified Allat
with Athena (Minerva).
Under Hellenization Allat was identified with the Athena/Minerva andarabs considered the Venus star masculine (3a*th*tar).
Nabataeans associated Allat with Athena. etc.
that is the opinion based on Herodotus. the Nabataeans identified Allat
with Athena (Minerva).
sometimes with Aphrodite or Urania/Venus. Those associations are not
mutually exclusive.
In pre-quranic times, every city was known as "the city/al-madina". It
was a common noun. This is indisputable. You are just being
argumentative.
I'm not. it is releavnt information. madi:na(t) means "city",was a common noun. This is indisputable. You are just being
argumentative.
but REFERING TO BIG CITIES as just "the City" is COMMON
and thus credible when applied to yathrib.
COMMON. So again you are implicitly contradicting yourself and agreeing
that it is a common noun. This is indisputable so stop wasting
everyone's time by being argumentative.
it could be used as an idol, but then it may not. it is what
people regard it is.
Spinning seven times around it and kissing it is attested as pagan bypeople regard it is.
independent sources so people who do so are indeed taking it as an idol.
that the cult of betyls and the cult of statues is different is agreed
to by Peters in "Muhammad ...", it is presented as distinct in Arab
tradition (which make sense), and moreover here are different words
for them!
Maximus of Tyre comments in his book Philosophoumena in the 2nd centuryto by Peters in "Muhammad ...", it is presented as distinct in Arab
tradition (which make sense), and moreover here are different words
for them!
AD, "The Arabs serve I know not whom, but I saw this statue which was a
square stone." The Suda Lexicon states: "Theus Ares (Dushrara); this is
the god Ares in Arabic Petra. They worship the god Ares and venerate him
above all. His statue is an unworked square black stone."
Thus, it is evident and we can see from archeological evidence in places
such as Petra that these are not two different cults. The statues of the
Nabataean idols ARE square stones.
but it is not in the shape of a head!
It is in the shape of the crown of the head of a new-born baby goddessas she is coming out. Notice that the enclosure is in the shape of fully
dilated female pudenda. Moreover, kissing the head is a well known Arab
custom to show allegiance. One can immediately see the symbolism in
kissing the head of the new-born idol resulting in the pagan's sins
being wiped out like a new-born. We know for sure that the measly Black
Stone (it is in reality a bunch of broken stones) is not the head of the
creator of the heavens and the earth. However, it is a fitting head for
Allat.
The fact is that we have archeological evidence that black stones were
associated with Aphrodite/Allat. For example, the following picture
shows a Black Stone that was venerated at the Temple of Aphrodite, near
Paphos, Cyprus:
Loading Image...
Black phallic stones were also widely associated with the cult of
Cybele, the ancient Anatolian fertility goddess; and similar objects
are, to this day, revered in Indian temples to Hindu goddesses.
I don't think that it is a coincidence that Cyprus, the island of
Aphrodite is home to the highly venerated Hala Sultan Tekke shrine (many
consider it the third holiest shrine of Islam). Like the shrine in
Mecca, it too has a black rock, said to have fallen as a meteorite as
part of the tritholon over the shrine. The shrine is also to a woman
named Umm Haram, the alleged foster mother of the prophet.
it got cracked in a civil war.
In reality it is not just cracked. It consists of three large pieces andsome fragments, surrounded by a stone ring and held together with a
silver band. See Encyclopedia Britannica:
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9015514
So it is essentially a bunch of broken stone fragments held together
with a strap. So as I said the name Black Stone is a misnomer that only
naïve people believe. Who knows maybe it is the prophet himself who
broke the Black Stone head of Allat to smithereens and then the pagans
put it back together long after his death.
God is not a "generic" description because "God" or even, "the Chief
Deity of the Pantheon" is not "generic" because it is by definition unique.
A pagan also calls his god "God". So in reality it is not a uniqueDeity of the Pantheon" is not "generic" because it is by definition unique.
description.
authors refer to a "Great Temple" in Arabia. it is a valid assumption
that the Great Temple be dedicated to the chief of the pantheon.
Such temple is not associated with Allah. According to the same type ofthat the Great Temple be dedicated to the chief of the pantheon.
sources, we are told that it is specifically associated with
Allat/Aphrodite.
that the chief of the pantheon was called alla:h , al-'ila:h and
variations according to dialect, and 'il (i.e. /'l/) in Sabaic is
attested from inscriptions. the same words were used by jews and
christians.
The word is simply a generic word like God (or literally The God). Therevariations according to dialect, and 'il (i.e. /'l/) in Sabaic is
attested from inscriptions. the same words were used by jews and
christians.
is no implication in it of a chiefdom of any pantheon and certainly Jews
and Christians would not have seen it as such. So the fact that they
used it tells us that it has nothing to do with a pagan pantheon.
not all idols had the same importance at different places and dates.
I agree.that's untrue, since they weren't terribly interested in the
Arabs and wrote little about them, and didn't venture much
beyond their borders. OTOH we have the benefit of reading
arabian inscriptions, as well as arab tradition whichis not
discarded completely.
What are you talking about? The Romans were certainly interested in theArabs and wrote little about them, and didn't venture much
beyond their borders. OTOH we have the benefit of reading
arabian inscriptions, as well as arab tradition whichis not
discarded completely.
Arabs and made alliances with them and so did the Persians. Many
prominent Christian reporters were Arab Christians. For example, John of
Damascus (Mansur) WAS AN ARAB.
stop this silly "you". I am not alone in what I am defending.
OK. You and the majority of the world. :)because that's the only ritual that the greeks witnessed only
a portion of the Arabs and didn't know much about inner Arabia.
Inner Arabia took their idols from the Nabataeans and it is logical thata portion of the Arabs and didn't know much about inner Arabia.
they took the rituals too. We can empirically verify that people to this
day spin the SEVEN times like the pagans described in pre-quranic
sources.
included in such accounts are things that were used
in polemics against muslims, as one can also find
in these early sources.
When the polemics agree with what we can observe and with pre-quranicin polemics against muslims, as one can also find
in these early sources.
sources then they are observations not polemics.
they are not unbiased sources, and not all are quoted from the original
manuscripts. source criticism goes for all, and you have done little
in this regard, and ignored the source criticism of others, when it
comes to the sources you quote.
futhermore they were for a naive audience ion terms
of Islam and the Arabs, and coudl get away with ommisions
or propaganda (which was a high priority objective).
I will try to keep this in mind as I am looking at the sources.manuscripts. source criticism goes for all, and you have done little
in this regard, and ignored the source criticism of others, when it
comes to the sources you quote.
futhermore they were for a naive audience ion terms
of Islam and the Arabs, and coudl get away with ommisions
or propaganda (which was a high priority objective).
you hardly start with "no preconceptions" as a-priori you
state that many Islamic rituals are "pagan" and therefore
coudl not have been part of the message of the Qur'an or
Muhammad.
I didn't think that they were pagan a few years ago. After seeing thestate that many Islamic rituals are "pagan" and therefore
coudl not have been part of the message of the Qur'an or
Muhammad.
evidence and using my God-given mind, I changed my mind.
but with those sources you end up as an 8th century Byzantine
historian, not one with direct knowledge about Islam or Arabs.
They are more direct and contemporaneous than Ibn Hisham or Tabari.historian, not one with direct knowledge about Islam or Arabs.
because it is not the subject matter of what you quoted.
We don't hear about it from any source, whether I quoted it or not.the words "SAME EXACT" is yours, it's something you are reading into,
and contradicted by the text which says it is noticeably different.
It says the intent is different. It doesn't say that the direction isand contradicted by the text which says it is noticeably different.
different.
which is what John bar Penkaye says, they faced South in Mesopotamia.
errors of longitude where frequent in pre-modern times, esp. in the
7th cent CE.
You are the one who brought up Jacob of Edessa and now you are implyingerrors of longitude where frequent in pre-modern times, esp. in the
7th cent CE.
that he is a babbling fool who made a 90 degrees error when you realized
that facing WEST from Hira as he said demolishes the idea that the
direction was towards present day Mecca (which is due South).
furthermore, John bar Penkaye, from northern Mesopotamia,
says, acc. to Hoyland, that this is the "House of God"
and "the locality in the South where their sanctuary was."
at least this is what his muslim informants claimed.
Hoyland says on page 194 that John bar Penkaye was from NORTHWESTERNsays, acc. to Hoyland, that this is the "House of God"
and "the locality in the South where their sanctuary was."
at least this is what his muslim informants claimed.
Mesopotamia NOT "northern Mesopotamia" as you misquote.
When we combine Jacob's account of West from Southern Mesopotamia (Hira)
with John Bar Penkaye's "south from northwestern Mesopotamia", we get
the intersection at a location somewhere in northern Arabia.
that doesn't confrom to the same "archeaological evidence"
i.e. the orientation of early mosques that you have been
yapping about before.
It confirms that there was ample confusion and possibly multiplei.e. the orientation of early mosques that you have been
yapping about before.
competing "sanctuaries". The so-called Mecca location seems to have
gained more importance later.
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Dome_Of_The_Rock/qibla...
in Egypt they certainly didn't pray towards Jerusalem, which
is in the wrong latitude, and latitude measurements were much
more accurate.
and for the Negev, Jerusalem is nearly 180 degrees off!
In Egypt the website clearly says that the orientation was towards thein Egypt they certainly didn't pray towards Jerusalem, which
is in the wrong latitude, and latitude measurements were much
more accurate.
and for the Negev, Jerusalem is nearly 180 degrees off!
winter sunrise.
The Jews faced Jerusalem in general. On the other hand, the Muhajirin
faced a particular place in its vicinity (we know that the temple mount
is at the eastern wall on the edge of Jerusalem) and that place is
called Kaaba. This account from Jacob is consistent with the earlier
accounts talking about the two Saracen temples in Jerusalem.
if it was the Kaaba, that would certainly have been explicitlyfaced a particular place in its vicinity (we know that the temple mount
is at the eastern wall on the edge of Jerusalem) and that place is
called Kaaba. This account from Jacob is consistent with the earlier
accounts talking about the two Saracen temples in Jerusalem.
mentioned. and there was no tradition of Arabs as having originated there.
claims to that location?
The quotes from Jacob of Edessa provide very valuable information about
the intention and the direction. He tells us that the intention of Jews
was to face Jerusalem, while the intention of the Muhajirun was to face
a specific place called Kaaba. However, in all the locations he gives
such as Hira (Western Iraq) and Egypt, he says that Jews and Muhajirun
faced the same direction. On the other hand, Mecca would have been due
south from Hira. So as we saw, the only possible conclusion is that at
the time, Jerusalem and Kaaba were in the same vicinity.
it's not. Jerusalem or vicinity is not usually thought ofthe intention and the direction. He tells us that the intention of Jews
was to face Jerusalem, while the intention of the Muhajirun was to face
a specific place called Kaaba. However, in all the locations he gives
such as Hira (Western Iraq) and Egypt, he says that Jews and Muhajirun
faced the same direction. On the other hand, Mecca would have been due
south from Hira. So as we saw, the only possible conclusion is that at
the time, Jerusalem and Kaaba were in the same vicinity.
as the homeland of the Arabs, which Jacob of Edessa implies,
and John bar Penkaya does state a southerly direction.
Lakhmids were not Arabs, Northern Arabia is the homeland of the Arabs.
Portions of Northern Arabia are in the vicinity of Jerusalem.
furthermore, see the architecture.
these guys did not have a compass, neither was architecture
or astronomy their field or what they were reporting. they
are just using "ballpark terms" for a non-specialist audience
written by non-specialists in architecture or astronomy.
They would not be off by 90 degrees.these guys did not have a compass, neither was architecture
or astronomy their field or what they were reporting. they
are just using "ballpark terms" for a non-specialist audience
written by non-specialists in architecture or astronomy.
it isn't the first reference.
it is in John bar Penkaya, a contemporary of Jacob of Edessa.
See aboveit is in John bar Penkaya, a contemporary of Jacob of Edessa.
my point: it was a sermon, designed for propaganda.
He describes that the Saracens venerated a lifeless stone. They still doto this day and we can empirically verify it!! So this is not
propaganda, this is an observation.
well, "wilderness" my not describe the vicinity of Jerusalem, but
would qualify for Mecca!
I agree. As I said, this is the first hint at a location that would inwould qualify for Mecca!
the future be renamed to Mecca. At this stage he doesn't say Mecca
because the common noun hasn't been hijacked yet.
ansd "Chobar" is unattested epigrpahically, but can be explained as a
fiction of propoganda.
As I mentioned above John of Damascus, who was an Arab attested tofiction of propoganda.
Chabar and as a native speaker who understood the word, he translated
the meaning for his non-Arab audience. I am surprised that Hoyland
missed this consideration and simply refers to his footnote on Germanus.
but there was no claim in these that the Temple of Jerusalem was ever
a direction of prayer of the Muslims!
A temple in Northern Arabia or the vicinity of Jerusalem as shown above.a direction of prayer of the Muslims!
Arcluf doesn't claim that he talks about was a direction of prayer.
I didn't say he did.you should at least say "we know as Mecca". you have no
concrete evidence it was "renamed".
We know that the common noun fits in the 48:24. This cannot be aconcrete evidence it was "renamed".
coincidence. What a better way to gain the upper hand amongst competing
sanctuaries and silence the opposition but to claim that the great
reading supports your location? This is why this common noun was
hijacked.
Secondly, Patriarch Germanus mentions festivals that those pagans
received by traditions from their forefathers NOT through a prophet
that they recieved their traditions from a book and form the teachingsreceived by traditions from their forefathers NOT through a prophet
of Muhammad is well established by earlier authors.
what the Nabataeans did around the temple of Dhu~l-Shara may
well be similar to what Hijazis did around the sanctuary of Allah.
it's just that the greeks had read about the Nabataeans.
Both Nabataeans and Hijazis worshipped Allat. This is why the ritualswell be similar to what Hijazis did around the sanctuary of Allah.
it's just that the greeks had read about the Nabataeans.
are similar. They are for the same idol.
it's still relatively speaking, for people coming from up north,
a town "in the wilderness", and yes, traditioanl muslim accounts
were likely to have exagerated its importance. that's not the issue.
The great reading calls the town of the prophet "um al-qura" which isa town "in the wilderness", and yes, traditioanl muslim accounts
were likely to have exagerated its importance. that's not the issue.
something akin to "the cradle of civilization" and certainly portrays it
as a very important cosmopolitan city with a religiously diverse
population. Do you think that The God is exaggerating too? I certainly
hope not.
It is more logical to think that the town of the prophet was somewhere
in Northern Arabia where many towns better fit such profile.
"They misrepresent us as idolaters because we prostrate ourselves before
the cross, which they loathe. And we say to them: "How then do you rub
yourselves on a stone at your Chabatha and hail the stone with fond
kisses?" . . . This, then, which they call "stone," is the head of
Aphrodite, whom they used to worship and whom they call Chabar."
as I said, the origin of this propaganda claim can be reconstructed.the cross, which they loathe. And we say to them: "How then do you rub
yourselves on a stone at your Chabatha and hail the stone with fond
kisses?" . . . This, then, which they call "stone," is the head of
Aphrodite, whom they used to worship and whom they call Chabar."
to so-called Mecca and you will see the same exact circus going on to
this day. This is empirically verifiable observation NOT propaganda.
No the above is patently false. John of Damascus doesn't mention Allah
I didn't say "John of Damascus said that". it was a later author,Constantine VII, basing himself an earlier sources who says that.
but it explains how the fiction came about.
didn't mention Allah. The source also ignores that John of Damascus was
an Arab who knew his contemporaneous Arabic language better than any
later source.
from what they read about the Nabataeans. sure, the Nabataeans were
Arabs, but not all their dieties or practices were shared by all other Arabs.
Allat, Al-3uzza and Manat were shared. Those rituals are alwaysArabs, but not all their dieties or practices were shared by all other Arabs.
mentioned as relating to Allat.
he refers to what he could have read in earlier standard greek sources.
He referred to what we can clearly observe even today. Allah's head iscertainly not some measly broken stones with saliva allover. However,
this does certainly fit the description of the head of Allat/Aphrodite
as can be seen in other Aphrodite temples, which have similar black
stones representing her head.
there were pagans all around then.
He was specifically telling Christians how to deal with the new rulers.acc. to you, Muhammad is just a singularity with
paganism before and after him. in other words,
in your logic, we can't prove anything about
Islam, as Muhammad preached, and you feel free
to fill in the blanks as you choose.
The only thing that we can prove is that he preached the great reading.paganism before and after him. in other words,
in your logic, we can't prove anything about
Islam, as Muhammad preached, and you feel free
to fill in the blanks as you choose.
Anything else is speculation.
As for being a singularity, all the prophets were a pretty much a
singularity. Why do you think he should be treated any better?
Continuatio Byzantia Arabica is from an earlier eastern source as
Hoylands claims. of course, it was composed in Spain and had
to rely on earlier and eastern sources.
Mecca is mentioned because of Ibn Zubayr.
John Bar Penekeye mentions Ibn Zubayr and much less significant detailHoylands claims. of course, it was composed in Spain and had
to rely on earlier and eastern sources.
Mecca is mentioned because of Ibn Zubayr.
but doesn't mention Mecca at all. This actually doesn't bode well for
the historicity of the proper name Mecca.
Mecca suddenly becomes the focal point of a major political
event, and a schism in muslim ranks was certainly of great
interest to the Christian side. so you find it in a
account of political events.
This is precisely it. You don't find any reference to Mecca until aboutevent, and a schism in muslim ranks was certainly of great
interest to the Christian side. so you find it in a
account of political events.
740AD or the early Abbasid era.
Muslim rituals were only of
incidental interest to them. so it is not inexplicable
that a town of significance of only to Muslims, and
formerly to Arab pagans or caravaneers, fails to get mentioned.
But that is not how the town of the prophet is portrayed in the greatincidental interest to them. so it is not inexplicable
that a town of significance of only to Muslims, and
formerly to Arab pagans or caravaneers, fails to get mentioned.
reading. It is portrayed as an important cosmopolitan town of
significance.
and given the vast extent of the territories and through
all those civil wars, did even just one faction
object to these alledged fabrications?! NO!
on the contrary Mecca is where the pious faction sets up
headquarters.
The factions were only seemingly pious. All of them were only afterall those civil wars, did even just one faction
object to these alledged fabrications?! NO!
on the contrary Mecca is where the pious faction sets up
headquarters.
political power. Some party thought of the idea of hijacking the common
noun from the great reading to name their sanctuary. From that point on,
any objection could be dismissed as an attack on the great reading,
which would probably be political suicide. So this is how objection was
silenced.
furthermore as Hoyland points out, in Mecca and the
surrounding area - including "along pilgrimage routes"
are found among the earliest Islamic inscriptions,
leading Hoyland to conclude that there should be no
doubt as to the importance of this place to early
Islam. Hoyland also points out early traditions about
extensive development in this area (things about
lesser people are less likley to be manufactured),
combined with some actual attestations to this.
Please give a page number. I don't recall seeing any early Islamic orsurrounding area - including "along pilgrimage routes"
are found among the earliest Islamic inscriptions,
leading Hoyland to conclude that there should be no
doubt as to the importance of this place to early
Islam. Hoyland also points out early traditions about
extensive development in this area (things about
lesser people are less likley to be manufactured),
combined with some actual attestations to this.
pre-Islamic inscriptions in Mecca or mentioning Mecca.
You can see that the following apologetic web site mentions several
early inscriptions and NONE is in so-called Mecca:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/
Had there been any earliest Islamic inscriptions in Mecca as you claim
they would have certainly been boasting about it by now.
Peace,
Ayman
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - And now for something completely different
http://www.fastmail.fm - And now for something completely different