In the 2nd century, Maximus Tyrius wrote; "The Arabians pay homage to I know not what god, which they represent by a quadrangular stone." Maximus was most likely referring to the Kaaba of Mecca, which is exactly quandrangular shaped.
More well-known is the fact that the geographer Ptolemy, in the second century, described the region of a sanctuary which he called "Makoraba." This could well be a transliteration of the word written in South Arabian characters (which omit the vowel sounds) as mkrb, meaning "sanctuary" or "temple." The majority of scholars believe that Makoraba is indeed an ancient name for Mecca. This is the name that was known to the Greeks in the ancient times. Gabor Agoston and Bruce Alan Masters, for example, in the Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire, includes "Macoraba" as one of the ancient names for Mecca.
Elsewhere we are told: "It was known to the Greeks by the name Macoraba. and is called, by the Mussulmans, Omm-Alcora, or Mother of Cities, because it was the birthplace of Mohammed." - (Encyclopaedia Americana: A Popular Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, Literature, History, Politics and Biography, Brought Down to the Present Time; Including a Copious Collection of Original Articles in American Biography; On the Basis of the Seventh Edition of the German Conversations-Lexicon (Volume 5), by Francis Lieber, Wigglesworth, E., and Bradford, T. G., p. 367)
The word "Makoraba" having the meaning "temple" or a "sanctuary" is further supported by it's etymological origin, as indicated in a dictionary of an ancient South Semitic language, known as Ge'ez. See below.
Comparative Dictionary of Geʻez (Classical Ethiopic): Geʻez-English, English-Ge'ez, by Wolf Leslau, p. 341:
http://i.imgur.com/1eOrXdf.jpg
You might be thinking of citing one of your sham scholars like Patricia Crone to refute that idea, who argued that the Makoraba can't be Mecca since the words are very different in pronounciation, although one must naively ignore the root meaning and the origin of the word at the expense of merely looking for a similarity in pronounciation if Crone's argument is to be accepted, instead of considering both approaches. Dr. Rafat Amari also apparently cites Crone's opinion regarding the word Makoraba in his website, but it's still no use because historians have already dismissed and debunked her argument. To give you a referrence, a scholar named Dr. Amaal Muhammad Al-Roubi has written an excellent rebuttal of many of her anti-Islamic arguments, including her double-dealing wordplay regarding the word "Makoraba" (on page 22):
http://www.sultan.org/books/Patricia_crone_english_reply.pdf
Finally, you might argue that there were other temples or sanctuaries in ancient Arabia, which wouldn't be incorrect, as far as i know. But that argument still doesn't rule out the possibility that the temple in Mecca (i.e. the Kaabah) could have been established before all those other temples which you are referring to. In order to prove that there were other temples in Arabia before the existence of the Kaabah, first you need to be able to prove how old the Kaaba is. But of course, you still haven't been able to prove that and it's precisely because you can't. Your comically dishonest Rafat Amari couldn't do it either as I demonstrated earlier, in a previous post.
Muhammadan "scholars" also believe and advance that Muhammad rode around on a flying donkey-mule, so it's no surprise that someone that is compelled to buy into that, would denigrate the sound scholarly work of actual scholars.
For the benefit of objective readers of this thread, here are the findings of an actual scholar (whose first language is Arabic) in this 21st century information age, that also had the benefit of air travel to study original source material, geography and archaeology of Arabia. We can let the reader decide which would seem to be most credible.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1081.msg7337#msg7337"PTOLEMY'S SURVEY AND THE LOCATION OF MACORABA
The Greek geographer, Claudius Ptolemy of Alexandria, Egypt, was born in the year 90 A.D. and died in 168 A.D. He wrote Almonagest, a chief astronomical work, and another work about astrology called Tetrabilos. Around the year 150 A.D. he dedicated himself to the study of the earth's geography - more specifically, cartographical representation, or mapping of the earth. He was inspired by the work of several other geographers who lived before him, including Marinus, who lived from 70 A.D. to 130 A.D. These geographers pioneered the concept of latitude and longitude lines for world maps. Ptolemy enhanced the concept of the latitude and longitudes. Ptolemy reduced the latitude and longitude that Marinus has established before.[lvi][56] Ptolemy tried to document in his geographical work, simply called Geography, the latitude and longitude coordinates, also called meridians lines, for the important locations marked on the maps of his time. Most scholars doubt that the maps which included his latitude and longitude coordinates were actually drawn by him. But they do believe that other geographers used his information when making their maps.[lvii][57]
Ptolemy's geography provides valuable help in locating places that existed in his time, but we should consider some disclaimers that he mentions in his work. In second book Ptolemy mentions that the locations of some of the places or cities that were documented more recently, with respect to his time, are actually estimated regarding their proximity to more established places or cities.[lviii][58] When compared to the latitude and longitude system we use today, his system seems crude and inaccurate, yet, it is still helpful to know about the recently-discovered places which didn't appear in previous geographical surveys. We can establish where newer cities are located in relation to older ones. It's helpful to know whether the cities in question are south or north of an old city, or whether they are east or west.
From a practical standpoint, Ptolomy's criteria proves valuable when looking for other cities in the Middle East mentioned by him, or even those in his own country, Egypt. Based on these facts, his work helps us resolve the location problem for some cities, such as Macoraba, which appeared in his generation.
In book six, chapter seven, of his work titled Geography, Ptolemy documents the latitude and longitude coordinates of several landmarks in Arabia.[lix][59] By studying these locations and coordinates, we notice once again that the city of Mecca is never mentioned. In fact, Ptolomy doesn't mention any cities in the strip of land where Mecca was eventually built.
Macoraba was a city in the Arabian interior which was mentioned by Ptolemy. Some people wanted to assume that Macoraba was actually Mecca. Macoraba had appeared recently, with respect to Ptolemy's time. This assumption would result in the conclusion that Mecca was built around the middle of the 2nd century A.D. However, even if this were true, it wouldn't support the claim that Mecca was an old city existing from the time of Abraham. Upon further study of the facts concerning Macoraba, we can conclude with certainty that Macoraba can't be Mecca, and we can refute the idea that Mecca was built in the 2nd century A.D. All the facts point to the historical argument that Mecca was constructed in the 4th century A.D. Since Macoraba is not pronounced similar to Mecca, the scholar Crone suggested that the location of Maqarib, near Yathrib, was actually Macoraba. Maqarib is mentioned by Yaqut al-Hamawi, an Arab geographer who lived from 1179 to1229 A.D., in his geographical dictionary Mujam al-Buldan.[lx][60] This location is more acceptable than Mecca for the modern-day location of Macoraba, because Maqarib is closer in pronunciation to Macoraba than Mecca. Another reason is that Maqarib, though it does not exactly fit the documented location of Macoraba, is closer to the location, according to the latitude and longitude of Ptolemy, than Mecca is to the documented location of Macoraba.
In order to determine the exact location of Macoraba, scholars have looked to the city of Lathrippa, mentioned by Ptolemy at longitude of 71, as a reference. Lathrippa is accepted by most scholars as the city of Yathrib, a city documented in the historical record. Ptolemy placed the city of Macoraba at 73 20 longitude which means about three and a third degrees east of Yathrib, while Mecca is west of Yathrib. So Macoraba can't be the city of Mecca, nor a city in the direction where Mecca was later built. Macoraba should be located deeper into the interior of Arabia, or toward the eastern coast of Arabia.
We have just analyzed the longitude; now let's turn to the latitude. When we study latitude we find more data concerning the historical location of Macoraba. Ptolemy described Macoraba, not as the next city south of Lathrippa, or Yathrib, but the sixth city to the south. While the city of Carna is the first city to the south of Lathrippa, Macoraba is the sixth city to the south. Carna was a well-known Yemeni city, belonging to the Minaean kingdom mentioned by Strabo. That is significant, because Strabo described the main tribes of southern Arabia in these words:
The extreme part of the country is occupied by the four largest tribes; by the Minaeans - whose largest city is Carna; next to these, by the Sabaeans, whose metropolis is Mariaba; third by the Cattabanians, whose royal seat is called Tamna; and the farthest toward the east, the Chatramotitae, meaning Hadramout, whose city is Sabata.[lxi][61]
Carna, in the past, was known as the most important and the largest city of the Yemen Kingdom of Ma'in. Carna was a significant city of Arabia which Ptolemy couldn't miss. Because Macoraba was listed as the fifth city south of Carna, we understand Ptolemy used Carna as a reference point for the five cities he listed south of Carna, included Macoraba. We can't make Lathrippa a reference point for locating Macoraba since Lathrippa is farther north of Macoraba, but Macoraba's location is south of the famous old Minaean city of Carna. We can only conclude that by latitude, Macoraba is in south Arabia, south of the Yemeni city of Carna. However, by longitude, Ptolemy placed it closer to Carna. By any measure, Macoraba must be near Carna, in Yemen.
I think we should go more east of Yathrib to identify Mokoraba mentioned by Ptolemy. In fact, Pliny mentions a city with the name Mochorba, and he said it was a port of Oman on the Hadramout shore in South Arabia. It's also possible that Macoraba is derived from Mochorba.[lxii][62]
Since Macoraba never appears in any literature other than the narration of Ptolemy, it must have been a small settlement or tiny village which disappeared in Ptolomy's time during the 2nd century A.D. Probably a small Omani tribe emigrated from the port of Mochorba toward the north of Yemen, near Carna the old Minaean city of Yemen, and established a small settlement which they named after their original city. The tribe would then have moved to another area in search of better living conditions, a usual migratory occurrence in Arabia. The fact that Macoraba never appears again in any other classical survey confirms the fact that it was a small provisional settlement of a small tribe, and not a significant town.
If a case for the name of Machorba should be opened, it should be seen in relation with the southern Arabian city of Mochorba, and not with Mecca. In the same manner, we see the city of New London in the United States as being named after the original city of London. We can't open a case for the origin of the name of the American city apart from the English city after which it was named."
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1081.msg7337#msg7337The whole reason it has to be called "tradition" is because it is completely unhistorical.
Then, what is this: Traditional Historicism
As explained on the link that you apparently didn't even read the first paragraph of, that is a reference to the
traditional approach to Bible prophecy that has been employed by Jews, as well as by Christians throughout the Christian era.
It has nothing to do with anything akin to pure created fiction of the 7th to 10th centuries AD, that Muslims can only label "tradition" because it is absolutely unhistorical, yet it masquerades as 4500 years of historical record without reference to any actual historical record that preceded the 5th century AD.
I would not be surprised at anything you wish to post, as I have seen the unhistorical "tradition" you wish to cite, before.
Then go ahead and tell me why the specific quotes that I cited above are unhistorical tradition.
Those quoted aren't peddling unhistorical tradition, as much of advancing false presumption, often parroting and embellishing the false presumptions of others, and each other.
http://www.historyofmecca.com/historical_claims.htm#diodorusPlease do not waste our mutual time in here by posting Islamic so-called "tradition" unless and until you provide a satisfactory answer to the following question. Please ask your Imam for help with this one if you need to. Feel free to invite him into the forum as well.
Jews, Christians and Muslims visit Abraham's grave near Hebron where Abraham lived. Muslims agree with the location of Hebron, as well as with Abraham and Ishmael both being in attendance to bury their father Abraham.
Gen 25:9 And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite, which [is] before Mamre;
Please explain how Ishmael traveled across 1200 kilometers of untraveled, uncharted, unknown dry barren desert wasteland, from Mecca to Hebron, a thousand years before the actual historical and archaeological records of Arabia tell us a caravan route was established along the Red Sea (about 6BC), in time to join Isaac for their father Abraham's burial in Hebron.
There is nothing really geographically impossible about that, contrary to what you've been saying, because there is the possibility that there were camels in Arabia, And there doesn't need to be any caravan routes for camels to go from one place to another because they live in the desert. Caravans and caravan routes are needed only for widespread trading and transportation which (predictably) occurred much later after camel domestication.
I remember that I posted a quote about the existence a large body of water in the Arabian Peninsula, which gradually disappeared by around 2000 BC. But if anything, that was only good for the rise of camels because they live and thrive primarily in desert environments as evidenced by the abundance of camels present in Arabia. That's why camels are sometimes called the "ships of the desert." Camels can travel on the barren desert sand for days and weeks. They are adapted for such harsh conditions. They can traverse through some of the most formidable deserts and arid areas of the planet.
"The dromedary camel (Camel dromedarius) is extremely well adapted to life in hot and arid lands. In terms of physiological adaptation to heat and water deprivation it surpasses by far every other large animal of which data have been collected." (Source)
And now new research shows that camels in the Arabian peninsula were most probably domesticated before they were domesticated in Judea. I'll get to that in just a minute.
No need to. Unless you're talking about flying camels, none of your dithering on about camels answered the question. How are you suggesting Ishmael could have traveled 1200 kilometers from Mecca to Hebron in time to join Isaac to bury their father?
Abraham's corpse would have been a stinking, rotting, mess by the time Ishmael could have gotten to Hebron from Mecca unless it was a flying camel.As Ibn Ishaq even desperately made up once he realized the geographical impossibility of Islamic so-called "tradition":
"The Buraq was also said to transport Abraham (Ibrahim) when he visited his wife Hagar and son Ishmael. According to tradition, Abraham lived with one wife in Syria, but the Buraq would transport him in the morning to Mecca to see his family there, and take him back in the evening to his Syrian wife.[4]"
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1713.0Why don't you then explain why Ishmael would have wanted to separate himself from his 12 sons by a distance of 1,000 KM.
