STUDIES BY CLASSICAL WRITERS SHOW THAT MECCA COULD NOT HAVE BEEN
BUILT BEFORE THE 4TH CENTURY A.D.
bagian 1....
By Dr. Rafat Amari
We refer the reader to the book of Dr. Amari, Islam in light
of History, for more arguments on the true history of Mecca
Accurate data from Greek geography also excludes the appearance of Mecca before the 4th century A.D.
There
is no mention of Mecca in the writings of any classical writer or
geographer. This fact is an important argument against Islam's claim that
Mecca has existed since the time of Abraham. We have complete records of
Greek and Roman writers, as well as many
geographers who visited Arabia from the 4th century B.C. through the 3rd
century A.D. Some of these people drew maps of Arabia telling us about
every city, village, tribe, and temple existing there, yet none mentioned
Mecca. If Mecca did indeed exist at the time of any of these geographers
and writers, surely someone would have told us about this city.
To give you a better understanding, we'll look at the work of some of these
classical writers. Greeks were well known for their accuracy in geography. So
much so, that they didn't put much stock in reports provided by
merchants. We can see this in the writings of Strabo, a famous Greek geographer and
historian , who lived
between 64 B.C. and 23 A.D. He
emphasized how important it is to not depend on reports from merchants, but to
depend upon the official findings provided by geographers and historians who
visited the regions themselves.[i] This makes the research on the
geography of Arabia provided by ancient Greek geographers and historians a
valuable resource, especially when they tell us which cities existed
in West Arabia since the end of the 5th century B.C. through the 4th
century A.D. We
see, then, that facts gathered by Greek geographers and historians are extremely
important in establishing the dates when these cities first appeared. Since
those geographers provided us with accurate reports dated between the end of
the 5th century B.C. and the 3rd century A.D., scholars
can easily determine within approximately 20 years the date of each city built
in West Arabia. With reliable accuracy, we find that Mecca is absent from all
the years documented by the Greek and Roman geographers. How ironic it is to claim that a
city like Mecca existed as early as the Muslims claim, when it was never
mentioned by the historians and the geographers who documented that time period. So, the case for Mecca
existing as a city since Abraham's time is more than a lost cause. It's
the most unhistorical assertion that anyone could claim or insert into
history.
THE GEOGRAPHERS
OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT AND ARABIA
Surveys prepared by naval expeditions
commissioned by Alexander the Great also
excludes the presence of Mecca from accounts in the 4th century B.C.
We come to the 4th century B.C. Alexander the Great sent naval expeditions to make a survey of Arabia in preparation for an invasion Alexander was planning. Although his death in 323 B.C. stopped the invasion, the men whom Alexander sent succeeded in providing the Greeks with detailed information about Arabia. Some of those who led the expeditions, developed important surveys which came to us through the Greek historians and geographers. In their surveys, they mentioned important details about the coast of the Red Sea and the surrounding region. If Mecca existed in the 4th century B.C., they couldn't have missed it. But there's no mention of Mecca in their reports.
From Arrian, Anabasis, we know
that Alexander the
Great built a large harbor at Babylon as part of his preparation for conquering
Arabia. Arrian wrote:
“Near
Babylon, he constructed a harbor by excavation l enough to afford anchorage for
1,000 ships of war; and adjoining the harbor he built dockyards. Miccalus the
Clazomenian was despatched to Phoenicia and Syria with 500 talents to enlist
some men and purchase others who were experienced in nautical affairs… He made
these preparations for the fleet to attack the main body of the Arab.” [ii]
Arrian explained that Alexander
planned to occupy Arabia:
“...under
the pretext that they were the only barbarians of this region who had not sent
an embassy to him or done anything else becoming their position and showing
respect to him. But the truth was, as it seems to me, that Alexander was
insatiably ambitious of acquiring fresh territory.” [iii]
Arrian
cited other reasons that Alexander planned to occupy Arabia: its fertility and
the growth of certain plants there. Arrian wrote:
“The fertility of the land was a
secret inducement to him to invade it. He had heard that the people obtained
cassia from the lakes and myrrh and frankincense from the trees, that cinnamon
was cut from the shrubs, and that the meadows produced spikenard without any
cultivation.” [iv]
Alexander
sent three naval expeditions from Babylon. The first was under Archias, “who
was sent with a triacontor to investigate the course of the coasting voyage to
Arabia, and who went as far as the island of Tylus (Bahrain), but dared not
venture beyond that point.” [v]
Alexander then sent another naval
expedition under Androsthenes, who sailed to a part of the peninsula of Arabia.[vi]
Androsthenes wrote a
book describing his voyage. The book is lost, but his work was a subject of
study by the later Greek historians and geographers. For example, Strabo in his
16th book of Geography quoted Eratosthenes
who quoted Androsthenes
in his survey[vii]. A fragment of the
work of Androsthenes recounting his voyage is preserved by Athenaeus (iii.
p. 93).
The
third naval expedition Alexander sent was under Hieron of Soli. Arrian wrote:
“Hieron of
Soli, the pilot, also received a triacontor from Alexander and advanced
farthest of those whom he had despatched to this region; for he had received
instructions to sail round the whole Arabian peninsula as far as the Arabian Gulf
near Egypt over against Heroopolis. Though he had sailed round the greater part
of Arabia Hieron did not dare go further, but turned back to Babylon.”
[viii]
Hieron’s
sailing “round the greater part of Arabia” means that he sailed around western
Arabia. But he turned back. We suppose the reason Hieron turned back before
reaching the Egyptian Gulf opposite to Heroopolis was the arid tract of central
western Arabia. We can understand this from another document in which Arrian
wrote about a voyage of Nearchus, who was instructed “to find out what men
inhabit it, to discover the harbors and rivers in it, to ascertain the customs
of the people, and to see if any of the country was fertile and if any was
sterile. This was why Alexander’s naval expedition returned in safety; for if
it had sailed beyond the deserts of Arabia, it would not have returned in
safety. This is said also to have been the reason that Hieron turned back.” [ix]
This
means that Hieron turned back because he found deserted regions that were not
safe. There were no inhabitants or cities or harbors to give anchorage for his
fleet. This corresponds to the part of western Arabia where Mecca was later built,
a region that later Greek geographers described as uninhabitable.
The
words of Arrian in chapter 20: 10cited
above help us understand how the Greek explorers were explicitly instructed to
explore and learn about the inhabitants, their costumes, the fertility of the
lands, etc. They had to give a complete picture. Sailing around Arabia allowed
them to gather in-depth information about the lands and the cities that existed
in their day. The information they gathered became an important resource for the
later Greek explorers of Arabia, not one of whom mentioned Mecca. This suggests
that during the 4th century B.C. Mecca did not exist.
The
Expedition of Anaxicrates
A
previous expedition that Alexander sent while still in Egypt is very important.
He sent Anaxicrates from the Egyptian city of Heroopolis to explore western
Arabia. Scholars consider Anaxicrates’ reconnaissance very successful. In his
book The Archaeology of Seafaring in Ancient South Asia (published by
the Cambridge University Press), Dr. Himanshu Prabha Ray wrote:
“Anaxicrates surveyed the whole of the Western coast of Arabia as far as the
Bab-al-Mandeb.” [x] Dr. Stanley Burstein, an expert
in the ancient geography of Arabia, stated that Anaxicrates provided an
“accurate account of political conditions in Western Arabia.” [xi] This means that Anaxicrates rendered an accurate
account of the nations, cities, and tribes that dominated the region of western
Arabia.
The
rich information Anaxicrates gathered on his expedition explains in large part
why the Greeks had such extensive knowledge about western Arabia. As such,
Anaxicrates was an important source for later geographers. He gave measurements
of the regions, and the geographer Strabo (in XVI.iv.4) cited Anaxicrates’
estimation of distance. This proves that Anaxicrates’ works were studied by
important geographers and historians such as Strabo, Agatharchides, and others
who described the cities and tribes of the region of western Arabia--none of
whom mentioned Mecca. Strabo
even accompanied the Roman military campaign into western Arabia. The Roman
army stopped in the city of Hegra, the Nabataean city of al-Hijr in north
Arabia. The army then followed the route that passed through the area where
Mecca was later built en route to the city of Nejran (on the northern border of
Yemen). Then the army proceeded until it reached the city of Maarib, the
capital of Saba. The Roman expedition cited the names of the cities that
existed on that tract of western Arabia at the time of their expedition (around
23 B.C.) but made no mention of Mecca.
Scholars
such as Stanely Burstein hold that Agatharchides drew heavily from Anaxicrates’ voyage to South and West Arabia. [xii]
Since
Anaxicrates was meticulous enough to study the distances between the cities in
the regions he explored, would he not have given an account of the inhabitants
who lived in the coastal region, such as the region where Mecca was later
built, and the cities that existed in those regions in his day?! Yet he made no
mention of Mecca.
Burstein
has written: “Three explorers who surveyed the coasts of the Red Sea during
reigns of Ptolemy II (282-246 B.C.) and Ptolemy III: Satyrus, Simmias and
Ariston repeated the voyage of Anaxicrates.” [xiii] They began in the north, describing the peoples and
tribes of northwestern Arabia, until they reached Yemen. Agatharchides and
other Greeks who wrote about western Arabia consulted the reconnaissances of
those earlier explorers, which proves that the information about western Arabia
substantiates the accounts rendered in the 4th and 3rd centuries B.C.
A
religious city that was a center of monotheism, according to the claims of
Islam, could simply not have been missed by those explorers of the 4th and 3rd
centuries B.C., especially in light of the claim that it had a temple, and the
Greeks report every important temple that existed in the vast regions they
explored. That they made no mention of the Kaabah temple, which Islam claims
was on the very route connecting north Arabia with Yemen that the Greek
explorers walked and described, is an important proof that neither the temple
of Mecca nor Mecca itself existed in their times.
The expeditions sent by Alexander the Great is of special importance, because Alexander is known to have studied the cultural, historical and religious aspects of each country before battle, in order to determine how to deal with its inhabitants. If Mecca had existed at the time of Alexander's expedition, it would have attracted attention from the expeditions whom he sent ahead.
If the Muslim's claim that Mecca, as the center of a monotheistic religion, had existed since the time of Abraham, it would have attracted worshippers from tribes in Arabia, including Yemen. Therefore, it would have been the subject of Alexander's explorers. In fact, no other city would have been more important to present to their master Alexander the Great, who doted passionately on religion and the history of religions, than a center of monotheism with a temple. The fact that they did not mention Mecca, though the Islamic claim that Mecca was a pilgrimage city in Arabia from ancient times, is historical proof that Mecca did not exist in the 4th century B.C. This leads us to the conclusion that the Qur’an and the Muslim claims about this city are historically inaccurate.
When comparing the historical claims of the Qur’an with those of the Bible, we find that the Biblical claims are true and historically accurate. By contrast, I cannot find a single critic in history who has argued the non-existence of Jerusalem and its central importance for the Israelites. Records concerning Jerusalem and its monotheistic faith have come from each generation since the time the Israelites entered into the Promised Land in the 15th century B.C. Records from Mesopotamia and Egypt all contain important entries about Jerusalem.
We find in Hebrew literature complete records about the kings who reigned in the city of Jerusalem. Much literature attested to by both internal and external records tells about the monotheistic worship by the Jews in the Temple of Jerusalem.
These facts should convince our Muslim friends to return to the historical legacy of a monotheistic worship as proclaimed in the Bible and known throughout documented history – and not to give heed to claims which create a worship without any historical foundation housed in a pagan temple built in the 5th century A.D.
bersambung ke bagian 2>>>>>>
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar