Islam, Muslim / Christian Forum - Welcome All

Quote from: Peter on January 17, 2012, 03:27:18 PM

Quote from: Dan Gibson on January 17, 2012, 10:56:27 AM
Some months ago now, I released a new book on Qur'anic Geography. In this book we examine the people of 'Ad, Tham'ud, Midian, Medina, etc., as well as the original holy city of Islam.

May as well get two threads going at the same time.

What sources of information did you use to examine the people of 'Ad?

Hi Pete

I may be able to offer a short speil on the people of AD based on Dan's research. The issue is that the people of AD is only found in Islamic literature and nowhere else. The word AD is not an Arabic one as it has no root as all Arabic words do. Dan explaines that the word is taken as a rendition of an earlier semitic language of Eber. Dan explaines that Arabic consonants can be interchanged that are similar so the word AD could be written in wither Ad, Ath or Az.

Based on this Dan proposes that the word AD can be rendered the same as the Biblical UZ in the land of Edom. Having established this. Dan examines the Geographic identifications of Ad in the Koran and the UZ in the Bible. The Geographic descriptions from both sources have the same Geography as each other being Mountainous, high places, strongholds in rocks, deep valleys, livestock etc etc.

Another identifications is that the word Thamud can be rendered as "Those that came after Ud".

There is plenty more in Dan's book on this identification of Ad and UZ as geographically the same place.

Quote from: Peter on July 19, 2011, 08:02:59 AM
There is no bay that matches this description along the coast near Mecca. Furthermore, Diodorus Siculus describes this area as lying between the Thamudites and the Nabataeans, not the Thamudites and the Sabeans as Gibbon erroneously stated, which would put it much farther to the north, around the area of Tabuk. It is widely believed that this bay and temple described by Diodorus is in fact the bay adjacent to Ash-Sharmah in Tabuk Province.

This Bay and Temple mentioned by Diodorus can't possibly be the one adjacent to Ash-Sharma as it is only 14 miles in lenght or roughly 123 Stades ! (See Pic below). The Bay is supposed to be "No less than 500 Stades and runs deep inland" which means it is probably more than 500. I believe this so called bay is actually the Gulf of Aqaba all the way up to Aila and Aqaba itself.



This second pic shows the yellow line from one end of the bay to the other which measures 14 Miles

Dan Gibson in this recent book explores the Geography of the Qur'an and associated Islamic documents. The theory is that Petra was the original Islamic Holy Mecca rather than where it is today. The evidence is well documented and presented and is a must read for any serious person wishing to study the history of Islam. Dan Gibson lived with the Beduin and in the Middle East for many years and is associated with the http://nabataea.net/ website.

http://books.google.com.au/books/about/Quranic_Geography.html?id=d4P7tgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y


The below link provides a PDF of some chapters contained in the book.

http://searchformecca.com/meccaquestion.html

Quote from: resistingrexmundi on August 17, 2011, 01:24:24 PM
In the immortal words of Paul Harvey..."And now the rest of the story"

There were another group of refugees that were caused by the Arab-Israeli conflict. You don't hear about them much for multiple reasons. Among them being media bias, overexposure of the "Palestinian" refugees etc. But the most prominent reason you don't hear about them too much is that Israel settled them and they are now full contributing members of society and citizens of Israel. These refugees were Jews. Between 1949 and 1954, about 800,000 Jews were forced to flee from the Arab and Muslim lands where they had lived for hundreds and even thousands of years-from Iraq, Morocco, Tunisia, Jordan and Iran, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, and other Muslim countries.

It is interesting to note that despite the recent creation of some of these nations and the extended period of a Jewish presence in those lands that no movement arose to fight for the Jewish "right" to those lands. Many of these families were tossed out unceremoniously with nothing but what they could carry while the rest of their belongings were taken. The only reason for this expulsion was vengeance against the Jewish citizenry or Arab countries for the shame of the Arab defeat in their war of aggression.

Most of the Jewish refugees came to Israel, where they were integrated into normalcy by the tiny fledgling Jewish state. The Arab states (and later PLO) refused to do this for the Arab refugees because they preferred to keep them an aggrieved constituency for their war against Israel.

Some observers have suggested that the dual refugee situation should be understood as a "population exchange"-Arabs fled to Arab countries as Jews fled to the Jewish country, both as a result of the 1948 war, both under conditions which their side regards as forced evacuations. On the other hand, no one on the Arab side has suggested the obvious: if Jewish refugees were resettled on land vacated by fleeing Arabs, why not resettle Arab refugees on the land vacated by the Jews who were forced to flee the Arab countries. One reason no one has suggested this is that no Arab stated with the exception of Jordan will even allow Arab refugees to become citizens.

Taking into account the Jewish refugees' assets that were confiscated when they fled from Arab and Muslim lands, one can conclude that the Jews have already paid a massive "reparations" to the Arabs whether warranted or not. The property and belongings of the Jewish refugees, confiscated by the Arab governments, has been conservatively estimated at about 2.5 billion dollars in 1948 dollars. Invest that money at a modest 6.5% over 57 years and you have today a sum of 80 billion dollars, which the Arab and Muslim governments of the lands from which the Jews were expelled could apply to the benefit of the Arab refugees. That sum is quite sufficient for reparations to Arab refugees. There is no way of accurately assessing the value of Arab property left in Israel's control; but there are no estimates as high as a 1948 value of 2.5 billion. So, hypothetically, the Arab side has already gotten the better end of the deal.

I will deal with the Arab refugee issue in more detail next time.

Hi Rex

I found a link to a document outlining the debacle   http://www.justiceforjews.com/resource_and_reference.pdf

Hi Pete

Have sent you a PM.

Quote from: Peter on July 21, 2011, 08:26:21 AM

Quote from: Phill on July 21, 2011, 07:33:26 AM
To me this letter is an appeal to the church in the East to try and keep it together in the wake of the Islamic invasion. It is interesting that the letter also states that the Muslims treat Christians pretty well ......

Stealing half their property and offering a pittance back is "treating them pretty well"?

Quote from: Phill on July 21, 2011, 07:33:26 AM....... and actually give to the Churches, .....

While offering them back a pittance of what they stole from them to pretend they were nice guys.

Quote from: Phill on July 21, 2011, 07:33:26 AM..... yet in the East the Christians appear to have given in to the Muslims and abandoned their faith and become Muslims (possibly).

CHRISTIANS did not.

Mar 13:22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if [it were] possible, even the elect.

The choice for Christian posers was, do you want to be enslaved by a jizya tax, or play like you are a Muslim after having deluded yourself into believing you had been a Christian.

Quote from: Phill on July 21, 2011, 07:33:26 AMHe then talk about a man who was first seen in Radan (wherever that is) but failed in his mission where the Christians and pagans rejected him and forced him out. It appears then that this person ended in the East region where they embraced him whilst the Christians didn’t lift a finger to stop it occurring. I mentioned this because it sounds very similar to the Mohammad character we read in the Muslim stories about his rejection in Mecca and subsequent migration to Medina where he was embraced. However I am still looking into this place called region of Radan to find out where it is. I am not saying this event is related to Mohammad, I’m saying it sounds very similar and could be someone completely different.

In fact it could describe perhaps thousands of guys, yet you use it as though it becomes some sort of a basis, for you to be one of a couple guys in the world today, that does not believe that Muhammad was from the same Mecca that still exists today. If you are going to stand alone against history, you need something other than all the presumption you have presented here to make your case.

Not dissimilar to your stand-alone view, we had a couple guys a while back making a claim that the Vatican invented Islam, but were unable to get to first base in answering questions asked of them, and were found to be simply parroting a guy that, come to find out, is known to be a fraud.
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1870.0

What do you suppose this forum would look like if we simply sat back, and let folks lard it with whatever kind of unsupported nonsense they wanted to vomit onto these pages, without challenging it? Look at your thread. You are scrambling to try to construct it on the fly. Were your unique view correct, we could basically throw out half the forum threads, beginning with everything of Dr. Amari and Craig Winn. And this based on your popping around the internet frantically grabbing bits and pieces willy nilly to try to make your hopeless point.

Well Pete I can see that you are stuck in your ways and if someone wants to offer views other than those like Rafat Amari then you don't want to hear about it. I am surprised that you appear to not want want to discuss the earliest references we have to Islam. Rafat Amari used the Hadith extensively in his book to come to his conclusions, including other Islamic sources. But if I use the same thing, it's called "frantically grabbing bits and pieces". How do you think historians do their work ?. They do just exactly that to make assumptions based on the evidence. I have shown you plenty of evidence from both Islamic and non Islamic sources to form an opinion. You have even done so yourself by telling us about the Qiblas of the oldest Mosques. History is about learning what happened and using a variety of sources to gain a comprehension to advance knowlege. I am here to learn and talk to like minded people in order to improve and hopefully discuss issues that arise, like with this thread, that seem to go against the grain of what we already know. How are we going to advance our knowledge of this barbaric religion if the closed for business sign is up. I'm not here to ram my beliefs down your throat, I'm here to discuss them.

Quote from: Peter on July 21, 2011, 07:56:31 AM

Quote from: Phill on July 21, 2011, 07:33:26 AM
Pete, I seem to have a real issue with quoting post etc, so please bare with me ok.

I push the "quote" button, then I copy the first tag that appears
(like this [ quote author=Phill link=topic=2618.msg10930#msg10930 date=1311248006]
then I paste it after the last tag that looks like this
[ /quote].

Then anywhere I want to break the post, I copy and paste the pair of tags into that spot, and write in between them.

For a single quote just remove everything in between the first and last tag that you don't want to quote.

Ok , well let me work on that ok. Should be a pro by the end of this thread

Quote from: Peter on July 21, 2011, 06:38:25 AM
Please answer the prior post first. Feel free to break it up into pieces to answer each point. Part of what you seem to be doing is ignoring dating and chronology altogether and instead grabbing names of things willy-nilly, from different periods, and trying to put them together to make a point that is contrary to historical record, that you even began with .... "To find out these answers one has to put aside the Hadith and writings about the life of Mohammad and solely look at the Koran and evidence from non Islamic writings about him." ... Yet since the Quran is no more reliable, or less self-contradictory, than the Hadith this is simply an effort to reduce the amount of evidence that runs contrary to your idea. What you meant is that everything you are trying to do collapses with the Hadith (but, in my opinion, with historical reality as well). Did the writers of the hadith live in Midian too, but engaged in some giant conspiracy, to move Mecca 1,000 KM to the south?

Let's revisit some of what - rather than a reply to my response to your prior post - you instead went on to embellish with "What I am trying to show is that there are numerous external reports to Islam that about the location of Mecca that cause serious concerns and don’t add up against the Islamic stance." which your prior post didn't seem to "show" at all.

Let's revisit your post that you did not answer to my response to.
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2618.msg10839#msg10839

The author Isho'yahb III of Adiabene would seem to have been the patriarch of the church of the east from 649 to 659, and was describing conditions (which were about what would be expected at the beginnings of dhimmitude being imposed following Islamic conquest) and starting with Muslims stealing half of the property of the vanquished (which would, or course, have been followed with the slavery of the jizya tax).

If you look back at the list of battles posted prior to your post, you will find the above dating of the patriarch, is perfectly consistent with the 648 "campaign against the Byzantines" on the list.

You concluded with "looking at the above script I get the impression that it could relate too Mohammad's Hegira from Mecca to Medina don't you think."

Yet you didn't give a reason why you would get that impression. On what basis did you suggest such a conclusion?


(The patriarch's letter, by the way, to me smacks of the same sort of yellow bellied go-along-to-get-along sellout of Jesus Christ, that the Second Vatican Council engaged in perhaps to save their own skins. They can't be that ignorant to Islam being the EXACT OPPOSITE of the WHOLE SUBJECT of the Gospel.)
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=600.0

Hi Pete. Apologies for not replying to this. I have just spent the last 2 hours putting together a reply to you posts before this one. I will try and explain what your talking about here.

To me this letter is an appeal to the church in the East to try and keep it together in the wake of the Islamic invasion. It is interesting that the letter also states that the Muslims treat Christians pretty well and actually give to the Churches, yet in the East the Christians appear to have given in to the Muslims and abandoned their faith and become Muslims (possibly). He then talk about a man who was first seen in Radan (wherever that is) but failed in his mission where the Christians and pagans rejected him and forced him out. It appears then that this person ended in the East region where they embraced him whilst the Christians didn’t lift a finger to stop it occurring. I mentioned this because it sounds very similar to the Mohammad character we read in the Muslim stories about his rejection in Mecca and subsequent migration to Medina where he was embraced. However I am still looking into this place called region of Radan to find out where it is. I am not saying this event is related to Mohammad, I’m saying it sounds very similar and could be someone completely different.

When I talk about the non Islamic references we have for Mohammad. These actually trump any known Islamic literature by more than 100 hundred years. The conclusion is that these sources have Mecca anywhere from Midian to the bottom of Mesopotamia. But not a single reference to where Mecca is today. Don’t you think that is odd ?

Pete, I seem to have a real issue with quoting post etc, so please bare with me ok.

Hi Pete

I am not having a go at Rafat Amari as I have read his book and have a copy of it saved where I can access it any time. I love the book and have a lot of respect for him, so I would like it on the record that this is so.

What is apparent to me is that Rafat says that that Mecca could never be a station for the Hajj (Pilgrimage) due to the barren nature and quite simply can’t support and influx of pilgrims, and he is exactly right. It is a barren moonscape landscape where nothing grows and the Meccan’s of “today” still have to bring everything in to support the Pilgrims.

To gain any understanding of pre Islamic history and even the earliest years of Islam the only “majority” we only really have the Hadith and the Quran to go by. The Hadith was written 150 years + after Mohammad was here and the Quran is not much better, yet this is history is pretty much the only historical source historians (like Rafat Amari) have to use.
Yet this is not entirely the case because we have Byzantine sources in the form of letters that were written at the precise moment from people who were there as Islam exploded from the deserts of Arabia and shortly there after.

Now looking at Hadith it brings one to assume that the various tribes of Arabia all descended on Mecca and that’s exactly what it wants to show you !. So if Rafat Amari is saying that Mecca was never a destination of the annual pilgrimage well where the hell was it ??. It’s obvious (to me) that it was some place else!!, and I agree with him 110% The Quran itself says that the Quraysh went elsewhere and that they should adore the lord of this house ie, at Mecca (which Muslims want you to believe it is in the same place as it is today.) Unfortunately since we can only really get an idea of where Mecca is and what went on there in Mohammad’s time we have to go to the Hadith to find out. I’m not really a supporter of Hadith firstly because it was written way to late (hundreds of years) after Mohammad and extremely biased unless of course it can be supported by external sources. But saying that, if  Muslims want us to believe that that’s what really occurred then I am more than happy to use it against them!!.

Here is a pearler that pretty much blows the theory of Mecca being where it is today right out of the water!!


Hadith 104:

Narrated Abu Huraira:
In the year of the Conquest of Mecca, the tribe of Khuza’a killed a man from the tribe of Bani Laith in revenge for a killed person, belonging to them. They informed the Prophet about it. So he rode his Rahila (she-camel for riding) and addressed the people saying, “Allah held back the killing from Mecca. (The sub-narrator is in doubt whether the Prophet said “elephant or killing,” as the Arabic words standing for these words have great similarity in shape), but He (Allah) let His Apostle and the believers over power the infidels of Mecca. Beware! (Mecca is a sanctuary) Verily! Fighting in Mecca was not permitted for anyone before me nor will it be permitted for anyone after me. It (war) in it was made legal for me for few hours or so on that day. No doubt it is at this moment a sanctuary, it is not allowed to uproot its thorny shrubs or to uproot its trees or to pick up its Luqatt (fallen things) except by a person who will look for its owner (announce it publicly). And if somebody is killed, then his closest relative has the right to choose one of the twoâ€" the blood money (Diyya) or retaliation having the killer killed. In the meantime a man from Yemen came and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Get that written for me.” The Prophet ordered his companions to write that for him. Then a man from Quraish said, “Except Al-Iqhkhir (a type of grass that has good smell) O Allah’s Apostle, as we use it in our houses and graves.” The Prophet said, “Except Al-Idhkhiri.e. Al-Idhkhir is allowed to be plucked.”

Note the tree’s and the sweet smelling grass that apparently grow in and around Mecca, now have a look at the Geography of Mecca where nothing grows whatsoever including a vast distance around it…period!!.

It is quite obvious that the Mecca of today is certainly not the Mecca of Mohammad’s time. And yet Muslims internet sites even say that the hunting of water animals is permissible in Mecca ??, where is one going to be able to do this I ask??...by wetting a fishing line in the Zam Zam well ?? (no thanks).

Now let’s get to the Pledge of Al Aqabah as I mentioned in a previous post. As far as I can tell no one has ever picked this anomaly up before in the past that I can find on the internet. It is again a Muslim tradition of what they believed to have actually occurred and it “centered” around what occurred on the “annual” pilgrimage which even mentions that the pagans were right with them…including Mohammad and the Quraysh. The pledge is said to occurred around where Mecca is today during the annual pilgrimage to Mecca, but we know from Hadith, the Quran, and which Rafat Amari also told us about that the Quraysh went elsewhere on the annual pilgrimage and Mecca was deserted as Rafat quotes from another source. But this pledge of Aqaba tells us that the Mohammad, the Medina pagans and the Quraysh are all located in the same spot (whilst on the annual pilgrimage). And it even says that the same exact thing happened the same time the following year. This statement clearly shows that the pilgrimage they were on was the yearly major pilgrimage all pagan Arabians undertook !!. Rafat  Amari says in his book that the major pilgrimages were to the North to Al Uza and south to Elat at Taif. And that during this time Rafat also quotes a source as saying that Mecca was empty during this period.

So it safe for me to assume that the pledge of Al Aqaba actually occurred around the Aqaba region just as it’s name suggests.

Pete you mentioned in another post today that the temple which was “revered by all the Arabs” is in North West Arabia. I actually agree 100% on this, and it is the most likely place these Meccan’s and Medina’s went on that annual pilgrimage and not to where modern day Mecca is located today.

Have a look at this map which was produced some time in the 1700s. You can see where Medina is located and modern day Mecca, but now have a look right down to the South Western Arabia just under the letters ADEN. What do you see ...If my eyes aren’t deceiving me it is a place also called “Mecca” ?

 

Pete, even your own studies show that the direction of the oldest Quiblas point to the Aqaba Gulf region and not modern day Mecca at all even when the quibla direction was supposedly canonized in 622 A.D. Theophanes the confessor told us that Mohammad was from the Midian region which is where these quiblas point to before going to Medina. Historian Patricia Crone alludes to the exact same place.
That video I posted was actually made by a Muslim….yes a Muslim !!. The only known Temple of Al Uza is located at Petra which in Rafats book we are told is where one of these pilgrimages went to.

The Quran tells us that Mohammad was a successor to the same land that Shoaib of Madyan (Midian) and Salih ( Mad’in Saleh) and tells of the destruction that occurred and how even the Quran tells us that they live in the houses of the very people he destroyed.

The evidence is actually quite amazing which shows that the Mecca in Mohammad’s time was this area of Aqaba/Midian.

I have just found this wonderfully put together youtube video which pretty much emcompasses everything I have spoken about in this thread (and probably does a better job).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4RHRu3VWJg

Have been researching more on this matter and have come up with some very interesting details:


"The Pledges of Al Aqaba"


Here is a link which talk about these pledges of Al Aqba   http://realmuhammad.info/Aqabah.html


The pledges of Al Aqaba are significant in Islamic history and it is where the first Muslims from Medina pledged allegiance to Mohammad whilst he was still living in Mecca.
The first pledge of Al Aqaba occurred around June 621 A.D during the Hajj/Pilgrimage season. The first pledge saw 12 Medinan’s swear allegiance to Mohammad and become Muslims.
The second Pledge of Al Aqaba occurred a year later around June 622 A.D where a second group of Medinan’s (approx 70) met with Mohammad when they arrived at Mecca whilst on their pilgrimage. They too pledged allegiance with Mohammad. The role of these converts was to return to Medina after the pilgrimage to propagate the religion of Islam in Medina prior to his emigration from Mecca.

What we can glean from this story is that the polytheist were also with these people on this annual pilgrimage which tells us that the inhabitants of Medina in pre Islam times practiced the same annual pagan rituals as the Meccan’s did. The story also tells us that this small group met with Mohammad at night in secret in a ravine at Al Aqaba a short distance away from the Polytheist encampment.

Modern day Islamic tradition says that this place where the pledges of Al Aqaba occurred is a few miles East of modern day Mecca called Mina and it is where Muslims today stone the Devil called Jamrat Al Aqaba.

Now historians all agree that the pagan tribes of Arabia in pre Islamic times conducted an annual pilgrimage and some conducted two pilgrimages. The Koran tells us that the Meccan’s themselves went on an annual pilgrimage to a far away place in which most agree was “North” of Mecca.

Excerpt from Rafat Amari’s book “Islam in the light of history” States this:

“Through a phrase attributed to Amru bin Luhy, we understand that the tribes in north western Arabia performed the Hajj to two main places. Luhy’ phrase is, “The Lord passes his winters in al Taif with Ellat, and his summers with al-Uza which reveals that many tribes in that area made the Hajj to the city of Taif, where there was a Kaaba dedicated to Ellat. Tribes went at other times during the year to other Kaabas dedicated to al Uza.”

And also states this:

“Wellhausen quotes the words of al-Kalbi, “people would go on a pilgrimage and then disperse, leaving Mecca empty.” In their thinking, another temple had pre-eminence over Kaabah, the temple at Mecca.”


If we note the phrase from Amru bin Luhy then it appears Taif is the place of the winter pilgrimage and Al Uza is far to the North. Al Uza was a Nabatean Idol along with Manat, so it is likely that this is the general destination area of the summer pilgrimage for the Arabs.

Now back to the “Pledges of Al Aqaba” which occurred during the pilgrimage season, it tells us that the Medinan’s met with Mohammad at Mecca when they arrived. This means that since Mecca is south of Medina that they traveled South, but the problem is that the Pledge of Aqaba occurred in June which is the summer months in Arabia and if Amru bin Luhy is correct then they (The Arabs) traveled North to Al Uza in the summer months as would also have the Meccans done so ??. So in effect you have the Meccan’s traveling North and the Medinan’s traveling South during the Pilgrimage season?.

The name Al Aqaba is a major town located at the top of the Gulf of Aqaba at the southern most tip of modern day Jordan and was a major port for trade coming up the Gulf of Aqaba by boat in Mohammad’s time.

It is my hypothesis is that the Pledge of Al Aqaba or sometimes called the Pledge of Aqaba is given this name because that is where it actually happened since it occurred at the time of the annual pilgrimage and not where modern day Mecca is situated today!!.

The Quraish pagans went North on the annual Pilgrimage (Hajj) which means that they didn’t consider their own Kaaba as very important at all. But Muslims are appearing to show that the Pagans of Medina on their annual pilgrimage did think the Kaaba of Mecca was the most important in the land. Not likely in my view !!!.

In another interesting point to make is the comment made by Al-Kalbi above where he mentions that the Meccan’s would go on the Pilgrimage and leave Mecca “empty”. But the descriptions given in the account of the Pledge of Al Aqaba show that the Polytheist Meccan’s and the Medinan’s are in close proximity to each other at the same time which shows that they are on the same pilgrimage.

Hi All

I found this vid link to Pat Condell which pretty much sums up everything. Disregard the bit of swearing he uses. This guy is good. Although he's an Athiest he appears to have a healthy respect for the Jews and the State of Israel in general.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIesXORjBps

Hi Pete

What I am trying to show is that there are numerous external reports to Islam that about the location of Mecca that cause serious concerns and don’t add up against the Islamic stance.

Theophannes places Mohammad as a Midian Arab.

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

Another Historian (link to be added) mentions that troops departed from Medina to Iraq via Mecca. Now looking at a map one would see Mecca isnt' north of Medina by a long shot. Now if I was leading thousands of troops form Medina to Iraq I wouldnt take them in a B line as the desert would swallow them before they got there. I would head North West up the established trade routes to Jordan then the also well established Kings highway to Iraq.

So it appears there is confusion to even where Mecca is. Maybe Mecca was known as being several places ??, but history doesn’t support this notion as far as I know.

Theophannes mentioned some things that can be backed up from the Islamic account, being:
1 That he was a trader.
2:He married a widow named Khadija.
3:He ended up going to Medina to continue the heresy.
4: A group of Jews converted and joined Mohammad.

Some things he mentioned that I didn’t know are:

1: He traded between Palestine and Egypt. (doesn’t mention anywhere else?. If I was a trader to Egypt and Palestine. I certainly wouldn’t be living in Mecca to conduct that business but somewhere between the two.)
2: he suffered from epilepsy and feigned to Khadija that Gabriel spoke to him to cover it up. (Had heard about the possible epilepsy).
3: Those Jews that joined him thought he was the Messiah until they saw him eat camel meat (dont think this is in the Islamic account?) and that they ended up knowing he was false but were to scared to leave.

As for the Quraish Pete I don’t think they were a tribe as such like all the others that were known pre Islam. The most likely etymology for Quraysh comes from the Elamite 'Kuraysh' which is also behind the name Cyrus. It meant ''Those Who
Bestow Care'. So it isn’t a tribe as in the meaning which is why they were never known as a tribe pre Islam. It’s a job description or something of a federation of long distance caravaners.

Quote from: Peter on June 28, 2011, 07:53:02 AM

Quote from: Phill on June 28, 2011, 06:01:11 AMAs I have posted above about Theophanes the Confessor. It is information like this that needs to be looked at further and investigated before following the Islamic line of what happened.

What part of Muhammad's life are you suggesting wasn't in Mecca? His early years when he was abused by his uncle? His marriage of his sugar momma Khadijah and operation of her caravan business?

It simply doesn't make sense to me to try to place Muhammad somewhere other than where the Quraish lived. Citing a single source, and making a presumption that requires discarding the Hadith altogether, and goes against the entirety of the history and geography of the Quraish, seems beyond a stretch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophanes_the_Confessor

Hi Pete

Here is one mention from the link I provided

Isho'yahb III of Adiabene (d. 659 AD)

You alone of all the peoples of the earth have become estranged from every one of them. And because of this estrangement from all these, the influence of the present error came to prevail with ease among you. For the one who has seduced you and uprooted your churches was first seen among us in the region of Radan, where the pagans (hanpe) are more numerous than the Christians. Yet, due to the praiseworthy conduct of the Christians, the pagans were not led astray by him. Rather he was driven out from there in disgrace; not only did he not uproot the churches, but he himself was extirpated. However, your region of Persia received him, pagans and Christians, and he did with them as he willed, the pagans consenting and obedient, the Christians inactive and silent. As for the Arabs, to whom God has at this time given rule (shultana) over the world, you know well how they act towards us. Not only do they not oppose Christianity, but they praise our faith, honour the priests and saints of our Lord, and give aid to the churches and monasteries. Why then do your Mrwnaye [inhabitants of a city in Persia] reject their faith on a pretext of theirs? And this when the Mrwnaye themselves admit that the Arabs have not compelled them to abandon their faith, but only asked them to give up half of their possessions in order to keep their faith. Yet they forsook their faith, which is forever, and retained the half of their wealth, which is for a short time. (Isho'yahb III, Ep. 14C, 251 [pp. 180-181]).

looking at the above script I get the impression that it could relate too Mohammad's Hegira from Mecca to Medina don't you think. I need to look into this to find out where RADAN is.

The issue is that with any historical account it needs to be verified by independent sources external to Islam. The Haddith are notoriously unreliable and biased and simply written to late. The only way to authenticate them is by other sources external to Islam. When we look at these non Islamic sources, gapping holes start to appear in the traditional accounts that tell a different story altogether.

Pete:

I am confident Patricia Crone never said that the Quiblas of the earliest Mosques never pointed directly to Jerusalem. In think what she did say was that they pointed to a place that was further north of modern day Mecca that was closer to Jerusalem than it was Mecca. Looking at your triangulation on a map she would have been correct as it is closer. By the way we have to thank the Islamist website at Islamicawareness.com for their specific coordinates that allowed people like yourself to triangulate those directions. It shows that yet again Islam is quick to show evidence to support the line but subsequently gibe direct evidence that blows the religion apart. A very similar occurrence happened when they were trying to debunk a story about Arabic script on a rock. They showed a pick of a rock inscription called the Abraha inscription and his victories over the Arabs. The bad part is that it blows Ishaq’s story on the year of the elephant as happening in 570 apart as it says it happened in 552 AD. No Elephants involved and no miracle by Allah that wiped Abraha out by dropping baked stones on his soldiers. I did a post on this a while back on this forum.

Anyway…so back to what I am trying to get at. The Muslim account is totally unreliable in my view unless external evidence is available that at least corroborates in some way the version the world has as we know it.
Rafat Amari has done a sterling job in my view and is right about the paganism and the Jinn religion involved, but there is so much more we don’t know. As I have posted above about Theophanes the Confessor. It is information like this that needs to be looked at further and investigated before following the Islamic line of what happened.

In the meantime I have attached a link below that pulls together a list of non Islamic passages written a lot closer to the time of Mohammad who detail what was happening around them.

http://www.christianorigins.com/islamrefs.html

Quote from: resistingrexmundi on June 26, 2011, 07:52:37 AM
I don't think Pete was arguing so much as pointing out a possible problem with the general thrust of your post. It is possible that Muhammad wasn't actually from Mecca but using verses from the koran that gave descriptions of things that didn't generally exist in Mecca could just as easily be attributable to Muhammad describing things he saw in his travels. Muhammad wasn't exactly careful with his revelations as he contradicted himself so much that his contemporaries made fun of the fact he had a hard time remembering older surahs. So he could have just been sloppy. But please continue with your posts I am really interested to see how these turn out. I myself wondered if perhaps Muhammad himself wasn't even all that big during his lifetime and that much of the glory of Islam's conquest was attributed to him later by his followers when they penned their history.

Hi Rex

If your thinking Mohammad wasn't all that big in his lifetime you be exactly right. He simply wasn't !!!. He only became legend when the Hadith machine started in 750 A.D by the Abbasids when they came to power. It is interesting that Islamic coins that were minted around 690 A.D by the Ummayads had one of the earliest references to him being "MHMT". The only problem is that the coinage had Christian Iconography on it being The Cross. Historical evidence also show that the Kabba in Mecca wasn’t the epicentre of Islam either as it is recorded that  Ummayad rulers refused to do the pilgrimage to Mecca but the Temple Mount instead. They went to Mecca alright, but to see why Muslims went there. Apparently they were not happy about it. I will find these references for you today some time and post them.

Hi Pete

Not sure if your agreeing or not ?. I have no doubt that Mohammad's ancestors came from Yemen probably sometime after the dam break at..... (Not sure of the dam name ?). Patricia Crone did a lot of work on the whereabouts of Mohammad and came to the same conclusion as I have in that he was a North Western Arab. I'm not convinced Mohammad was talking to the whole world as there are to many "You do this, and you do that...and you pass by this and you pass by that" as if it is directed at a peoples directly. It think it is well established that Mohammad was trying to convert the very people he lived with.

The Quraish are another interesting group all together. As mentioned in Rafat Amari's book the history of Arabia and it's towns and tribes are well attested to. I haven't looked deeply into this to much, but are the Quraish mentioned in anyway in Pre-Islam text or inscriptions...If not why not I say. I have seen a good post on another forum which I will read about this.

Part 2: Cont

Geographic/Historical evidence

Now lets have a look at the Koran and all the Meccan verses which relate to the Geographic area Mohammad was preaching to his polytheist opponents. As seen in my first post it would appear that Mohammad’s opponents could not have been Meccan’s due to agricultural activites the Koran said they undertook. Can the Koran’s verses give us clues as to where he and the pagans were ??. Absolutely…let’s have a close look.


46:27 Surely We destroyed many a town around you. We sent Our Messages to them repeatedly and in diverse forms that they may eschew (their evil ways) and return (to Allah).

Are there towns or cities around Mecca that have been destroyed ?. NO
Did Mecca receive previous messengers ?. NO
Prophet Saleh mentioned in the Koran was sent to Mad’in Saleh in North West Arabia and it was hence destroyed!.

29:38 (Remember also) the 'Ad and the Thamud (people): clearly will appear to you from (the traces) of their buildings (their fate): the Evil One made their deeds alluring to them, and kept them back from the Path, though they were gifted with intelligence and skill.

The Thamud lived in the North West of Arabia in Petra/Mad’in Saleh. The traces of the devastated buildings can still be seen today.

10:13 Surely We destroyed the nations (which had risen to heights of glory in their times) before you when they indulged in wrong-doing and refused to believe even when their Messengers brought clear signs to them. Thus do We recompense the people who are guilty.

Again talkes about the nations that were destroyed and not believing the messengers. Again there were no previous messengers to the Meccans, but again prophet Saleh to the North Western Arabia area where numerous destroyed cities exist.

10:14 Now We have appointed you as their successors in the earth to see how you act.

This clearly says Mohamamd is appointed as a successor to the land from the ones God destroyed. Is there any historical evidence that Mecca came to calamity ?. No

20:128 Is it not a guidance for them (to know) how many a generation We destroyed before them, amid whose dwellings they walk ? Lo! therein verily are signs for men of thought.

This verse is implying that Mohammad and the pagans are actually living in the dwellings of the people that were destroyed by God!!!.

37:133-138: So also was Lut among those sent (by Us).
                  Behold, We delivered him and his adherents, all
                      Except an old woman who was among those who lagged behind   
                           Then We destroyed the rest.
                           Verily, ye pass by their (sites), by day-
                           And by night: will ye not understand.

The above verses are in relation to LOT and what happened to Sodom & Gamorrah. Here Mohammad is telling the pagans that they pass by these ruins in the day and come back by them by night. This could not be achieved if they lived in Mecca due to the vast distance. It could only be achieved if they lived close by to this geographical area.

Summary:

So based on these Meccan verses. It is trying to show the Meccan’s all the destroyed cities and people around them and that they dwell in the houses the destroyed peoples once owned, and that they see all the ruins in the morning and in the evening.


As far as I know, Mecca has never been an area of a vanquished Nation, there are no ruins of ancient peoples or towns around Mecca. So once again I asked the question “Was Mohammad living in Mecca prior to leaving for Medina” It appears the answer to that is an emphatic NO.

From all the evidence shown in my first post and this post it is clear that these Meccan verses are talking about some other place other than Mecca. Based on the Koranic evidence the place most likely to be talked about is North Western Arabia around Southern Jordan. We know that Sodom & Gamorrah lie somewhere around the southern part of the Dead Sea. We know that there are numerous destroyed cities around this area including Madian â€" Saleh aka Petra.

So if Mohammad was from North Western Arabia Is there any historical evidence from Non Islamic sources that may back this up?....Yes there certainly is !!!

Theophanes The Confessor

I will first insert the part which talkes about Mohammad. I will then insert the whole entry from his chronicles about Mohammad. Theophanes names him as MOUAMED.

“I consider it necessary to give an account of this man's origin. He
was descended from a very widespread tribe, that of Ishmael, son of
Abraham; for Nizaros, descendant of Ishmael, is recognized as the
father of them all. He begot two soris, Moudaros and Rabias.
Moudaros begot Kourasos, Kaisos, Themimes, Asados, and others
unknown. 3 All of them dwelt in the Midianite desert and kept cattle,
themselves living in tents”.

Theophanes clearly states here that Mohammad lived in the region of Midian  which is in North Western Arabia and kept cattle. This statement backs up claims directly from the Koran.

Here is the full account of Theophanes about Mohammad:

“In this year died Mouamed, the leader and false prophet of the
Saracens, after appointing his kinsman Aboubacharos (to his chieftain-
ship.llal At the same time his repute spread abroad) and everyone was
frightened. At the beginning of his advent the misguided Jews
thought he was the Messiah who is awaited by them, so that some of
their leaders joined him and accepted his religion while forsaking that
of Moses, who saw God. Those who did so were ten in number, and
they remained with him until his murder. 2 But when they saw him eat-
ing camel meat, they realized that he was not the one they thought him
to be, and were at a loss what to do; being afraid to abjure his religion,
those wretched men taught him illicit things directed against us,
Christians, and remained with him.
I consider it necessary to give an account of this man's origin. He
was descended from a very widespread tribe, that of Ishmael, son of
Abraham; for Nizaros, descendant of Ishmael, is recognized as the
father of them all. He begot two soris, Moudaros and Rabias.
Moudaros begot Kourasos, Kaisos, Themimes, Asados, and others
unknown. 3 All of them dwelt in the Midianite desert and kept cattle,
themselves living in tents. There are also those farther away who are
not of their tribe, but of that of lektan, the so-called Amanites, that is
Homerites. And some of them traded on their camels. Being destitute
and an orphan, the aforesaid Mouamed decided to enter the service
of a rich woman who was a relative of his, called Chadiga, as a hired
334 worker with a view to trading by camel in Egypt and Palestine. Little by
little he became bolder and ingratiated himself with that woman, who
was a widow, took her as a wife, and gained possession of her camels
and her substance. Whenever he came to Palestine he consorted with
Jews and Christians and sought from them certain scriptural matters.
He was also afflicted with epilepsy. When his wife became aware of
this, she was greatly distressed, inasmuch as she, a noblewoman, had
married a man such as he, who was not only poor, but also an epilep-
tic. He tried deceitfully to placate her by saying, 'I keep seeing a vision
of a certain angel called Gabriel, and being unable to bear his sight, I
faint and fall down.' Now, she had a certain monk 4 1iving there, a friend
of hers (who had been exiled for his depraved doctrine), and she
related everything to him, including the angel's name. Wishing to sat-
isfy her, he said to her, 'He has spoken the truth, for this is the angel
who is sent to all the prophets.' When she had heard the words of the
false monk, she was the first to believe in Mouamed and proclaimed to
other women of her tribe that he was a prophet. Thus, the report
spread from women to men, and first to Aboubacharos, whom he left
as his successor. This heresy prevailed in the region of Ethribos,llb in
the last resort by war: at first secretly, for ten years, and by war another
ten, and openly nine. He taught his subjects that he who kills an
enemy or is killed by an enemy goes to Paradise; and he said that this
paradise was one of carnal eating and drinking and intercourse with
women, and had a river of wine, honey, and milk,llc and that the
women were not like the ones down here, but different ones, and that
the intercourse was long-lasting and the pleasure continuous; and
other things full of profligacy and stupidity; also that men should feel
sympathy for one another and help those who are wronged”.


Summary of Theophanes:

So here Theophanes has chronicled that Mohammad came from Midian. He was a trader and married Hadiga who we know as Khadija (read somewhere that the name Khadija is a Nabatean name ?).

10 Jews thought he was the Messiah and followed him (Haddith proves this claim about the Jews). He then moved to Ethrib which is modern day Medina. Nowhere is mentioned Mecca at all.

Although I have no doubt that Mohammad did arrive in Mecca and conquer it from Medina, the evidence shows that he wasn’t originally from there as Muslims would have us believe.

Part 1

We all know from Hadith that says Mohammad was born and raised in Mecca and all Muslims believe this to be true and even most non Muslims as well. However, it has been well established that the life of Mohammad was first penned by IBN ISHAK in which his writings attributed to him are the only ones the world has to go by to know who Mohammad was.

Since even early Islamic scholars called Ishak a fraud, is it possible that Mohammad’s early life in Mecca has also been fabricated?. To find out these answers one has to put aside the Hadith and writings about the life of Mohammad and solely look at the Koran and evidence from non Islamic writings about him.

So can we geographically place Mohammad just by using the Koran as a guide and by using non Islamic sources ?. I believe we can!!.

Most will know that the Koran is broken up into two parts being the Meccan verses and Medina verses. Mohammad allegedly began his ministry in 610 A.D in Mecca and the verses are allegedly directly aimed at the pagans of Mecca. The current Geography of modern day Mecca probably isn’t all that different in Mohammad’s time, it’s hot, harsh and rocky with little rainfall most of the time. In Mohammad’s time agriculture in Mecca was non existent as it pretty much is today where everything has to be trucked in.

Let’s have a look at the Koran to see what Mohammad was preaching to his fellow Meccan’s to see what type of lives they lived.

The following verses are all Meccan verses:

Sura 6-141: It is He Who produceth gardens, with trellises and without, and dates, and tilth with produce of all kinds, and olives and pomegranates, similar (in kind) and different (in variety): eat of their fruit in their season, but render the dues that are proper on the day that the harvest is gathered. But waste not by excess: for Allah loveth not the wasters.

Sura 13:4 And in the earth are tracts (diverse though) neighbouring, and gardens of vines and fields sown with corn, and palm trees - growing out of single roots or otherwise: watered with the same water, yet some of them We make more excellent than others to eat. Behold, verily in these things there are signs for those who understand!

Sura 16:11 With it He produces for you corn, olives, date-palms, grapes and every kind of fruit: verily in this is a sign for those who give thought.

Sura 16:10 It is He who sends down rain from the sky: from it ye drink, and out of it (grows) the vegetation on which ye feed your cattle.

Sura 16:66 And verily in cattle (too) will ye find an instructive sign. From what is within their bodies between excretions and blood, We produce, for your drink, milk, pure and agreeable to those who drink it.


Sura 18:32 Set forth to them the parable of two men: for one of them We provided two gardens of grape-vines and surrounded them with date palms; in between the two We placed corn-fields.

Sura 23:19 With it (rain) We grow for you gardens of date-palms and vines: in them have ye abundant fruits: and of them ye eat (and have enjoyment.

Sura 23:19 With it We grow for you gardens of date-palms and vines: in them have ye abundant fruits: and of them ye eat and have enjoyment.

Sura 23:20 Also a tree springing out of Mount Sinai, which produces oil, and relish for those who use it for food.

Sura 23:21 And in cattle (too) ye have an instructive example: from within their bodies We produce (milk) for you to drink; there are, in them, (besides), numerous (other) benefits for you; and of their (meat) ye eat.

Sura 36:34 And We produce therein orchard with date-palms and vines, and We cause springs to gush forth therein:

Sura 80:27 â€" 80-32 And produce therein corn, And Grapes and nutritious plants, And Olives and Dates, And enclosed Gardens, dense with lofty trees, And fruits and fodder, For use and convenience to you and your cattle.

So here we have numerous verses in relation to what Mohammad’s polytheist opponents did for a living that Mohammad was trying to get through to. They appear to be farmers and agriculturalists in an area that would need to be rich and fertile.

It is rather striking when one looks at where Mecca is today that none of the activities mentioned in the above verses could ever occur in this vicinity even today let alone in Mohammad’s time.

Up next I will discuss the Geographical/Historical evidence from the Koran for clues as to where Mohammad started his ministry.

Another good post Rex, and yes I stand corrected that there is no such peoples called the "Palestinians" but a conglomerate of Arab neighbors instead. Your right that the Israelis didn't create the refugee problem but the Arabs. The Arab aggressors ordered these refugees to leave their homes and towns so they could decimate Israel and wipe it off the map and they were quite confident that this would happen and the refugees could come back home in no time at all. Well history shows it ended very badly for the Arabs and they lost a war they never should have based on sheer numbers, (Divine intervention I say ).

It was the Arab army ego that caused the current mess. Israel offered to have the refugees come back and settle in their homes and become citizens as Rex mentioned but again the Arabs stopped as many as possible from returning to become the political pawns that they are today.

I find it strange and laughable that Fatah have to get approval from the "Arab League" to negotiate peace with Israel. The Arab League is a joke in my view. And whilst i'm talking about the Arab League...where are they with the uprisings in the Middle East Arab countries at the moment ? NOWHERE and I haven't heard boo from them.

Great post

Look forward to the next one. It's a pity the world stage doesn't see through the deceit the Arabs are trying to show. Yasser Arafat wasnt even a so called Palestinian...he is Egytian, born in Egypt to Egyptian parents.

Carry on Rex, and don't forget to mention Housseini

I have found an interesting article on this subject of Makka. Beleive it or not I think a Muslim wrote it (an opened minded one at that). He has done some research into the word Makka. I have copied it below:

"According to classical Arabic dictionaries, the word "maka(t)" mainly means "destruction/wearing down", among other meanings. It is listed in classical Arabic dictionaries under either MKK or MK.

Al-Mohit lists it under MKK, the meaning given is destruction and wearing down which is consistent with the context of standoff in 48:24. It also lists the meaning of TMKK as an adversary's insistence on something, which is also consistent with the standoff in 48:24.

Lisan Al-Arab lists it under MK and the meaning of MK(t) is given as "destruction" and TMK as "destroy".

Al-Wasit lists it under MK, the meanings given are: sucking everything out, insisting on revenge from an adversary, and the thing, which is worn down or destroyed.

Al-Ghani lists it under MKK, the meanings given are: sucking, insisting with demands on an adversary.

Here is a translation of 48:24 using Classical Arabic dictionaries and the context of war from the verses to translate the common description "maka(t)":

48:24. And it is He Who has restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of destruction after that He gave you the victory over them. And Allah sees well all that ye do.

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

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

As for it being mentioned (Mecca) in Sura 33:50 it has clearly been added. I did a Google search on Sura 33:50 and the first few hits didn’t even mention Mecca just, “who have emigrated with you”.
So what do we have here ??....Well we now have the word Maka rendered as MK or MKK which means “Destruction or Wearing down” we can safely exlude the word Maka as meaning Mecca from Sura 48:24. We can also exlude Mecca from Surah 33:50 as it has been inserted in some translation and not others.

In the end it seems that Mecca has been exluded form the Koran altogether.

We all know that the year of the Elephant is the year in which Mohammad was allegedly born. The year Islam credits for this event is the year 570 A.D. Islamic tradition says that another major event took place in the same year which is narrated in Sura 105 “The Elephant”, and what happened to the army that was marching on Mecca to destroy it and the Kaaba.
In a nutshell Allah sent flights of birds pounding the army of Abraha and his elephants with stones of baked clay and totally annihilated Abraha’s army and Mecca and the Kaaba were saved by the grace of Allah.
Abraha apparently escaped with serious injuries and died a short time later from them.

Lets have a look at real history through archaeology to see if this event really happened !!



The above rock carving was found in SaudiArabia and it talks about Abraha’s military expedition against he Arabs. Below is a translation of the event:

The inscription is now dated 552ce and reads:

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

As one can clearly see, there is no mention of Mecca or Elephants for that matter and actually ended very badly for the Arabs as Abraha was victorious over all the Arab tribes he came up against.

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

Peter, I have tried the Mecca thing...all  got was zip...not 1 response. I guess they just cant question it !!. Am building up some courage to enter a Muslim only website to try my luck soon

I found this link: http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=3511&page=7

It sort of resembles what you are looking for...It is under the heading "The Celebration". Maybe not from where his had was buried but from reading it I assume that the head spoke after it was cut off.

Regards
Phill