The article presents itself as the answer to: "I was prompted to write something on this issue when someone argued me about the historicity of Ka'bah and Makkah.", as if its content were sufficient evidence of a 3500-year pre-4th century, historical and archaeological record of Mecca.
After the intro it begins with a brief detail of the location of Mecca.
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/kaaba.htmlThen goes on to the first subtitle.
Ka'bah & Makkah In HistoryIt begins in typical fashion, with him parroting Ahmed Deedat's promotion, of Edward Gibbon's false presumption. By Gibbon's 18th century the kaaba in Mecca had been the only kaaba in Arabia for many centuries, since all of the other kaabas and non-Muslim places of worship, had been destroyed by Muhammad and his followers long before. So it shouldn't be a surprise that Gibbons leaped to an unsound presumption regarding Ptolemy's description, since the Kaaba in Mecca was the only one that still survived in Arabia, during Gibbon's days which ended in 1794. But look at how the author of that website, or Ahmed Deedat who he parrots, quoted it:
"
Edward Gibbon writes about the Ka'bah and its existence before the Christian era in his book:
..... of blind mythology of barbarians - of the local deities, of the stars, the air, and the earth, of their sex or titles, their attributes or subordination."
So what did he leave out, and replace with the "....." at the beginning?
"
I am ignorant, and I am careless, of the blind mythology of the Barbarians: of the local deities, of the stars, the air, and the earth, of their sex or titles, their attributes or subordination."
http://www.historyofmecca.com/historical_claims.htmSo what we find is an omission of Edward Gibbon's admitting to his ignorance and carelessness regarding pagan Arabia's Barbarians, blind mythology and pagan deities - obviously because his interest was in writing about the Roman Empire, not Arabia. It was an aside or tangent to his subject. Gibbon was obviously unaware that the Ptolemy's reference was likely to a famous temple that had been located at the northern end of the Gulf of Aqaba.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1138.msg4433#msg4433Or the temple near Dedan where the pagans used to sacrifice she-camels, or any one of the many other kaabas where Arabian pagans venerated black stone idols or meteorites.
http://www.historyofmecca.com/historical_claims.htm#qiblaLong after they had built the Kaaba in Mecca, the Quraish pagans went on pilgrimages at least twice a year, obviously to two more significant places of worship than Mecca.
Quran 106:1
For the covenants by the Quraish, 2 Their covenants journeys by winter and summer,- 3 Let them adore the Lord of this House,So what we find through the web author's omission of the first part of the quote, is an excellent example of an exercise in the half-truths of Islamic dissimulation/taqiyyah, in efforts to paint Gibbon's false presumption as being arrived at through other than self-admitted "ignorance" and "carelessness".
Next this history section goes on to list a number of Arabian towns that are indeed ancient Arabian towns (for whatever reason as they have nothing to do with Mecca), like Medayin Salih that do in fact have historical and archaeological records, which obviously drives the final nail in the coffin of any suggestion that Mecca was was an ancient Arabian town, since it doesn't have a historical or archaeological record that dates prior to the 4th century AD while
actual ancient Arabian towns do.
Interesting he would provide the following quote too, because at the same time this section confirms the existence of other temples: "
His Thaim is Teima, now known for its inscriptions to have had temples and some sort of civilization as far back as 500 BC."
Which is the whole point because nobody can know which one of the many pagan Arabian temples Ptolemy referred to. But most likely one in the northern part of Arabia, and it wouldn't be surprising if it is near the Dedan site which the Qibla of the oldest mosques point toward, and perhaps was one of the sites that the Quraish pagan's continued to go on pilgrimage to.
But then the Quran also talks about Quraish pilgrimages to other sites long after the kaaba was built.
Finally he pulls the ole "Macoraba" rabbit out of the hat with:
"Apart from this a place called Macoraba is also shown which is identified as Mecca (please refer to the map facing page 17 of reference [3]). G E von Grunebaum says:
Mecca is mentioned by Ptolemy, and the name he gives it allows us to identify it as a South Arabian foundation created around a sanctuary.[4]"G E Von Grunebaum apparently parroted Wensinck's impression. But Macoraba was not only an interior settlement, but was established some time around the beginning of the Christian era. So either way, even if it had been Mecca, it was not an ancient town.
There are lots of refutations to the whole Macoraba notion. Let's begin with this
Muslim Eastern history teacher:
"Upon further study of the facts concerning Macoraba, we can conclude with certainty that Macoraba can’t be Mecca, and we can refute the idea that Mecca was built in the 2nd century A.D. All the facts point to the historical argument that Mecca was constructed in the 4th century A.D."http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2860.msg15835#msg15835Also from Dr. Rafat Amari on Macoraba not being Mecca:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1138.msg4433#msg4433When I presumed Ahmed Deedat's fingerprints would be on this unhistorical nonsense, and googled it, I found it in the description of Deedat's book of which I was greatly amused by the title. Here's why it is so entertaining:
Quran 4.152
And those who believe in Allah and His Messengers and make no distinction between any of them (Messengers), We shall give them their rewards; and Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.So did Deedat get gypped out of the "rewards" of Muhammad's chicken and wine serving bordello he called paradise for exalting one "messenger" above the others, or is he being made to guzzle boiling water in the hell of Muhammad's overactive imagination?
