STUDIES BY CLASSICAL WRITERS SHOW THAT MECCA COULD NOT HAVE BEEN
BUILT BEFORE THE 4TH CENTURY A.D.
MECCA
WAS ABSENT FROM THE HISTORICAL TRAVELS AND WRITINGS OF STRABO.
The historian,
Strabo, shows us
clearly that the city of Mecca could not have existed during the time of Christ and, therefore,
not when the Muslims claim.
We
will continue to refute the Islamic claim that Mecca has existed since the time
of Abraham. To this end we will now study the works of Strabo, a Greek geographer who lived
between 64 B.C. and 23 A.D. In his geographical study, Strabo summarized the
most important works written by geographers before him and reported writings
done by his contemporaries. Among those whose work he referenced were:
Artemidorus, Eratosthenes and Agatharcides.[lxxiv]
I have mentioned these men in the past.
Athenodorus was a geographer who accompanied Strabo in some of his travels. In
Strabo’s own words, he was “a philosopher and companion of mine who had been in
the city of the Petraneans.”[lxxv]
By “Petraneans” Strabo means the city of Petra, and he quotes some of
Athenodorus’ writings about the city and its government. Strabo also
passionately and accurately gives us a detailed survey of many regions of Arabia
during his lifetime. He visited the region with other Greek historians,
philosophers and geographers and described the region, relying on his own
first-hand research and the observations of those who accompanied him in the
region. I mentioned previously that as a geographer and historian, Strabo
accompanied Gallus on the Roman Expedition. Strabo’s purpose was
to personally verify information about the region which he had gathered from
various sources. He discussed the goal of the expedition in these words:
Many
of the special characteristics of Arabia have been disclosed by the recent expedition
of the Romans against the Arabians, which was
made in my own time under Aelius Gallus as commander. He was sent by
Augustus Caesar to explore the tribes and the places.[lxxvi]
So
we see that one of the aims of the expedition was to explore the “tribes and
the places” of Arabia. Strabo mentioned Augustus Caesar’s
particular interest in western Arabia when he said:
Caesar
saw that the Troglodyte country, which adjoins Egypt, neighbors upon Arabia,
and he saw also that the Arabian Gulf, which separates the Arabians from the
Troglodytes, is extremely narrow. Accordingly, he conceived the purpose of
winning the Arabians over to himself or of subjugating them.[lxxvii]
From
this we see that one main goal of the Romans was the pacification of the
northern and central regions of Arabia, which lay opposite to Troglodytes on
the shore of the Red Sea and the regions around it. This is also where the city
of Mecca was later built. Notice, also, that the control of this area was
important to the security of the land trade, which was beginning to flourish
around the start of the Christian era. Caesar, also, needed to protect the
marine route from piracy which was coming
from the Arabian regions adjoining the Red Sea.
Strabo’s work is important to my
argument that Mecca did not come into existence until more than 2,000 years
after Abraham lived. Although
this region was documented thoroughly by Strabo’s participation in the Roman Expedition, Mecca was not
mentioned at all. Though his survey quoted heavily the intensive research by
other geographers, Mecca was not mentioned in all of this. Neither was any
tribe mentioned that, according to Islamic tradition, was supposed to have
lived in Mecca since the time of Abraham, nor was any temple found in that
area. Strabo’s survey is also important because it verified the description
given by other geographers who wrote about the tribes and places along the Red
Sea, starting from the far north of Arabia and reaching south to Yemen.
Why doesn’t Strabo make any mention of Mecca or its
temple? This cannot be accidental. If a tourist with far less interest in
exploring a region had failed to mention the name of a main city, we might be
able to consider this an accident. But when a geographer, who is entrusted to
make a survey for a great empire like Rome, fails to mention a city like Mecca,
there is no possibility that he accidentally missed it. Add to that all the
geographers and experts who described the area, and didn’t mention once a city
like Mecca, and you can reach only one conclusion: Mecca did not exist in about
23 B.C. when Strabo wrote his reports.
"THE
PERIPLUS OF THE ERYTHRAEAN SEA"
“The
Periplus of the Erythraean Sea”
confirms Mecca didn’t exist during the end of the 1st century A.D.
I
have mentioned Artemidorus, Eratosthenes and Agatharcides, as well as
Strabo –
none of whom acknowledged the existence of Mecca in their time, which was prior
to Christ. Now I’d like to take you to
another source. This time, to a book considered to be one of the most reliable
historical documents on trade routes and the regions of Arabia. The book,
written between 58- 62 A.D.[lxxviii] by an unnamed author, is The
Periplus of the Erythraean Sea. It was written by a
resident in the city of Berenice, opposite to central
Arabia, and located about 200-220 miles from the place where Mecca was later
built.
The
dating of the book is important to our study, and many external evidences
attest to the dating. For example, Pliny copied some of the ideas of
Periplus into his book, Natural History. Natural History was
written between 72-76 A.D., [8]
so we can conclude that Periplus was written before that.
Another important element in determining the date of Periplus is that the
author, in Chapter 57, mentions the monsoon on the Indian Ocean, which Hippalus documented around 47 A.D.
Because Hippalus noticed the periodic weather behavior, he was able to sail to
India at just the right time, thus shortening the time required for a
round-trip voyage to India. His discovery allowed trade with India to flourish.
The author of Periplus mentions the monsoon discovery, proving that the book
was written after 47 A.D. Some other proofs more accurately determine that the
book was even written a little later than that – somewhere between 60-62 A.D.
It is certain that the author of Periplus was a Greek merchant, and that he
traveled the Arabian regions as far as India. We also assume that he lived in
the city of Berenice on the Red Sea, opposite the
Arabian ports of Leuce Come, and not in the larger city of
Alexandria. How do we know this? Because the author didn’t describe the usual
voyage as going from Coptos in the interior of Egypt, along
the Nile, and through the Egyptian desert. Coptos later was known as Qift قفط.
It was about 43 Kilometers from Luxor, near the city of Thebes. Both Strabo and
Pliny describe this voyage, but the author of The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea failed to describe
it. This causes some scholars to assume that the writer lived in Berenice.
The city of Berenice is on the western coast of the
Red Sea, opposite the Arabian ports of Leuce Come and Egra. We know that Egra is about 137
miles away from Leuce Come, and only 62 miles from the village of Malathan, which is the closest village to
the place where Mecca was later built. This is important to us because the
author lived on the African shore of the Red Sea, not too far from the tract of
land on which Mecca was later built. Being very familiar with the central tract
of Arabia where Mecca was built in later times, he wrote about the regions
close to where he lived, making his book an extremely important document. We
also know that the book was not written by a person who only visited the
region, or made a survey during his lifetime, but by a person who knew in
detail the cities and villages near the area where he actually lived.
The distance between the city in which he lived and the place where Mecca was
built is between 200-250 miles. His knowledge of Mecca, if it had existed in
his time, is analogous to a contemporary resident of Paris knowing about the
city of Rome. Assuredly, the author would have known about the city if it had actually
been there. The accuracy of Periplus is corroborated by many geographical and
historical evidences. We find that descriptions in the book agree with
descriptions in the later book which Pliny wrote describing the Arabian
coasts.
Also, we find historical facts corresponding with those narrated by The
Periplus of the Erythraean Sea. For example, the author of the
book, in chapter 19, mentioned Malichas as king of the Nabat-aeans. Josephus, the Jewish Roman historian, mentioned this king,
under the name of Malchus, in more than one place.[lxxix] The author of The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea
mentioned Eleazus as a title of the king of
Frankincense country, that is, Hadramuot.[lxxx]
He also mentions Charibael as title for the king of two
Yemeni tribes, the Himyarites and the Sabaeans.[lxxxi]
This information is attested to be true by inscriptions discovered in southern
Arabia by archaeologist Glaser.[lxxxii]
The author mentioned many other cities which were distant from the shore of the
Red Sea. One example is Coloe, which he said is “a three days'
journey” from Adulis, a city on the African shore.[lxxxiii]
The author mentioned many other cities which were similarly distant from the
Red Sea. Therefore, not mentioning Mecca, which is only 30-40 miles from the
Red Sea, is a significant matter. While the author mentioned many cities in the
region which are of little importance, and are two or three times as far from
shore as Mecca, the author still does not mention the city of Mecca at all.
Think about it .The author of The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea described the regions adjacent to
the Red Sea and Indian Ocean, which were the western and southern regions of
Arabia. He mentioned the names of kings, tribal chiefs, and cities distant from
shore, but he did not mention Mecca. His report has significant importance
because he is a resident in the city of Berenice, opposite to central Arabia, and
a distance of about 200-220 miles from the place where Mecca was built in later
times. As an expert merchant and geographer, which his book clearly shows, it
cannot be attributed to him to be ignorant of the cities close to his home when
he described the Red Sea coastal regions. In fact, if he did succeed in
describing with such accuracy the cities, tribes and trade as far as India,
how, then, could he be ignorant of a city such as Mecca, which would be only
200–220 miles from his home? The fact is that he does not mention Mecca
because, in his time, Mecca did not exist.
PLINY'S SURVEY
Pliny's
Survey covered all of Arabia, mentioning all the cities, villages and tribes of
Arabia, but he never mentioned Mecca, or any tribe
which the Islamic tradition claims inhabited Mecca since ancient times.
Previously,
we looked at an important military campaign during the time of Caesar. The
Roman geographer and historian, Strabo, documented the campaign, but
nowhere did he mention the city of Mecca. This causes us to conclude that Mecca
had not been built during the time he lived, which was 64-23 B.C.
We move ahead in history to another important Roman author. We know him as Pliny, the Elder. Pliny was born at
Como, in northern Italy, in 23 A.D. He became a commander of a Roman cavalry
squadron, studied the law, became the Procurator – the financial manager – in
Spain, then returned to Rome and became part of the Emperor’s intimate inner
circle.[lxxxiv]
This gave him access to the Roman documents, especially about the expedition
into Arabia under Gallus, which Pliny mentioned in his
work. He then received a naval commission. He died in 79 A.D.
Pliny completed his book, Natural
History, in 77 A.D. It is his most
important contribution to the knowledge we have about Roman life and times. It is an
encyclopedia covering a wide variety of subjects, including: geography,
astronomy, botany, zoology, meteorology and mineralogy. In the preface to this
book, Pliny writes that he deals with 20,000 matters selected from 100
different authors. One of the authors Pliny consulted was Juba, a king in
Mauritania, who did a survey of Arabia, documenting various locations and
tribes in Arabia.
Pliny, in Natural
History, Book Five, chapter
12, deals with “the coasts of Arabia, situated on the Egyptian sea.” Then, in
the book six, in the lengthy chapters 32 and 33, he focuses with detail on
Arabia. The work of
Pliny is considered a true encyclopedia. He mentioned approximately 92 nations
and tribes in Arabia. Though he mentioned the least and most insignificant
tribes of Arabia which existed in his lifetime, he does not mention any of the
tribes which the Islamic tradition claims lived in Mecca during the first
centuries after Christ. Although he mentioned 69 cities
and villages in Arabia at this time, including villages of insignificant
tribes, he did not mention Mecca. This adds to all other documented proofs that
the Islamic claims regarding Mecca are unhistorical and without any foundation.
Pliny’s survey has significant value,
because he covered all the regions of Arabia. The survey starts in the far
north, proceeds to the eastern gulf region, then proceeds south until it reaches
the southeastern corner of Arabia. He goes west to the Red Sea, then north to
the Gulf of Aqaba, and finally returns by
proceeding south, all the while describing the interior land of Arabia. It is
easy to see that the survey didn’t overlook any area of Arabia which was
inhabited at that time. Pliny was so detailed that he mentioned tribes which
inhabited the desert, called the An-Nafud Desert today, such as the tribe of the
Agraei, but still he didn’t mention
Mecca or any tribe living in the area where Mecca eventually was built.
Considering that Pliny's research covered all regions of
Arabia, it is significant that there is a total absence in Pliny’s work of any
mention of any of the tribes, which were claimed by the Islamic tradition to
have existed, and which had an important role in the affairs of Arabia. I
firmly believe that the absence of such tribes confirms that Islamic tradition
wanted to back the Qur’an in its false claim concerning Mecca. Consequently,
the Muslims created false names of tribes, and a false history which doesn't
correspond with the true documented history of men like Pliny, Artemidorus, Agatharchides and Strabo. One of the tribes that
the Muslims created an imaginary history about is Jurhum. The Islamic narrators, such as Ubeid bin Sharayyah and ibn Abbass,
claimed that the people of Jurhum had lived in Mecca since the time of Abraham.
This assumes Ishmaelite tribes lived at Mecca since that date as well. For a
period of time, they say the Ishmaelites also dominated Arabia. If these claims were true, Jurhum
would have been superior to the documented nations of Arabia, such as Saba and
Main. Then archeology and the trips made by
classical geographers and historians would show the existence of the Ishmaelite
tribes at Mecca and would have confirmed the historical facts. But neither Greek nor Roman
historical or archaeological records mention or even allude to a tribe named
Jurhum. They don’t even mention that Ishmaelite tribes ever lived in the area
where Mecca was eventually built, even though
archaeology over many centuries B.C. had uncovered many nations and tribes who
lived north and south to the area where Mecca was later built. Jurhum might
have been an insignificant tribe which appeared only after the Christian era.
Pliny’s survey helps us to see that the Islamic claim regarding
Adnan is false. Islamic genealogists claim that Adnan was the father of
Maed who was the 20th ancestor of Mohammed. They also claim the Adnanites
inhabited Hijaz. The Adnanites were perceived by Muslims as a great tribe which
descended from Ishmael, and they dominated all the regions of Hijaz. However,
we do not see in the Pliny’s survey any mention of Adnanites, nor the name of
any tribe the Islamic writers claimed the Adnanites descended from. This is
covered in more detail in our research on the Adnanites. All this proves
incisively that Muslims have forged a false history. Archaeology, surveys of
classical geography and historical studies convince us that the Islamic claim
was entirely false.
Pliny, along with his Greek predecessors, demonstrates clearly
that the history of Mecca is completely untrue and not historical. It wasn’t
until the time of Ubeid bin Sharayah and Ibn Abbass that Islamic writers began
to forge an ancient history for Mecca. We already saw the ignorance of people such
as Ubeid and Ibn Abbass. We saw that their forgery was mythological, not built
on documented material.
Of course, the work of both Pliny and the Greeks shows that these claims can’t
be substantiated.
Pliny’s survey, when
combined with other Greek and Roman surveys, didn’t mention Khuzaa'h, confirms the fact that, Khuzaa'h, the tribe which first built
Mecca, did not yet exist in the 1st century A.D. in the region
where Mecca was eventually built. This is a further confirmation that this
tribe appeared and emigrated from Yemen in later times, and built Mecca some
time after they emigrated from Yemen. Certainly Khuzaa’h was then a very small tribe. Perhaps it had not
separated from its mother tribe in Yemen. Khuzaa’h must have come from Yemen
sometime after the second century A.D., after the dam of Maarib was damaged.
Sometime during the Fourth Century A.D, the tribe moved near the land route and
built Mecca to enhance its trade.
Early
Islamic narrators and their ignorance of basic historical facts
Previously,
I mentioned the names of persons who first attempted to assign names to the
tribes living in Mecca,
and to create a history for Quraish. Among those men were Ubeid bin Sharayeh, ibn Abbass, Mohammed bin
al Kalbi and his son Hisham, Wahab bin Munebbeh and ibn Ishack.
I also
mentioned the ignorance of these persons, their limited
knowledge of history, and their confused chronology. In spite of this, the Muslims
still follow these men’s writings today, although they
showed ignorance in their narration about history and lack of any historical
basis for their writings. The writings of these
persons, who wrote in the 7th,
8th and 9th centuries A.D., became the foundation on which other Muslim
historians built a history for Muslims to read instead of the officially
documented history.
According to Ibn Ishak, Christianity originated in Rome
through a Roman emperor who was converted to
Christianity by the twelve disciples of Christ. Ibn Ishak thought that the
Roman emperor, Constantine, who lived in the 4th century A.D., was a
contemporary of Jesus.[lxxxv]
We know that these claims about Christianity, Constantine and Jesus are not
true.
The writings of
early Islamic narrators are full of enormous mistakes
and myths which less-informed and ignorant elementary students would not make. How can he be considered a
reliable historian for Muslims when they write mythological narratives which
disagree with documented history? And they did all this in order to convince
people that Ishmael lived in Mecca and built the
temple with Abraham’s help! Sadly, these untrustworthy persons became the
fathers of a false history which has kept many Muslims from reading true and documented
history. They have also kept many Muslims from reading the Bible, a dependable source for
understanding ancient history.
It is time for Muslims to think for themselves, to go beyond false claims, and
to challenge what they have believed for years. Once they find the truth about
Islam, they will also find the truth about Jesus Christ, the One who died as the
sacrifice for sin, and the only way to heaven.
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 70-130 A.D.
These geographers pioneered the concept of latitude and longitude lines for
world maps. Ptolemy enhanced the concept of the
latitudes and longitudes. Ptolemy reduced the latitude and longitude that
Marinus has established before.[lxxxvi]
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.[lxxxvii]
Ptolemy’s geography provides valuable
help in locating places that existed in his time, but we should consider some
disclaimers which he mentions in his work. In his 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.[lxxxviii]
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 by 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.[lxxxix]
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 cannot 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 like 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 1179-1229 A.D., in his geographical dictionary Mujam
al-Buldan.[xc] This location is more acceptable
than Mecca for the modern-day location of Macoraba, because Maqarib is closer
in pronunciation to Macoraba than to 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 a 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 cannot 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. This 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.[xci]
In the past, Carna 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.
Considering where
Ptolemy placed the longitude of Macoraba it is a great distance from where
Mecca was later built. Its longitude would bring it east of
Yathrib. 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.[xcii]
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, south
of 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 to the southern Arabian city of Mochorba, and not to 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.
bersambung ke bagian 5>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar