How kaaba became a pagan idol
Ayman
> and just what about the Ka`ba did a christian patriarch witness, I wonder.
> Chabar or Chobar was what early christian sources called the Black Stone.
> Hoylands reconstructs what was going on from the sources themselves. p. 106
John of Damascus is not the only source mentioned by Hoyland in relation
to the temple of the Saracens. One must look at all the early sources in
chronological order to see how this temple evolved over time. I hope
that you will agree that looking at one or two early sources in
isolation through the traditional lens will not give the right picture.
While the Sira and other pious stories date from the 9th century Abbasid
era at the earliest, the documents that Hoyland presents are from the
early seventh to early eighth centuries. Thus, those early sources
predate the earliest theological accounts by at least a hundred years
(and sometimes hundreds of years). The whole purpose of looking at
independent early sources that are supported by verifiable manuscripts
is to start from an unbiased point of view and without preconceptions.
With this in mind, let's start with a blank sheet of paper and put
ourselves in the shoes of an early 8th century historian looking at
those documents long before Sira writers Ibn Hisham or Tabari were even
born.
One shortcoming of Hoyland's book is that the sources are not arranged
chronologically so it is a little difficult to see the evolution of a
certain theological trend. Below, I will try to arrange the sources
talking about the Saracen temple in chronological order.
Let me start with Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (died 639) who
wrote the following:
"The godless Saracens entered the holy city of Christ our Lord,
Jerusalem, with the permission of God and in punishment for our
negligence, which is considerable, and immediately proceeded in haste to
the place which is called the Capitol. They took with them men, some by
force, others by their own will, in order to clean that place and to
build that cursed thing, intended for their prayer and which they call a
"Midzgitha"."
So here we have an account, which can be dated to 637CE (the year of the
capture of Jerusalem). This account shows that building a temple at this
specific location in Jerusalem was a paramount objective of the
Saracens.
Around 660CE, Sebeos also tells us about a temple but this time it is a
Jewish temple (or at least it started out as so):
"Now I shall speak about the plot of the Jewish rebels, who, finding
support from the Hagarenes for a short time, planned to [re]build the
temple of Solomon. Locating the place called the holy of holies, they
constructed the temple with a pedestal, to serve as their place of
prayer. But the Ishmaelites envied [the Jews], expelled them from the
place, and named the same building their own place of prayer. [The Jews]
built a temple for their worship, elsewhere."
The question that arises of course is whether this Jewish temple is the
same Saracen temple that was hastily built upon the conquest of
Jerusalem. By comparing the accounts, it seems unlikely, since one was
built in "haste" by the Saracen, while the other was built by the Jews
later. So here we have two temples in Jerusalem. However, at some point
before 660CE, the Saracens took over the Jewish temple so that now they
have TWO temples in Jerusalem.
We know that afterwards and up to today there have been two "Islamic"
temples in Jerusalem, Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock.
However, the picture we get from the evidence of how those temples came
about is certainly very different from the traditional picture.
As a side note, we can also see that after being expelled from "the holy
of holies" the Jews built another Jewish temple elsewhere in Jerusalem.
In another report, Arculf, a Pilgrim wrote the following in the 670s:
"In that famous place where once stood the magnificently constructed
Temple, near the eastern wall, the Saracens now frequent a rectangular
house of prayer which they have built in a crude manner, constructing it
from raised planks and large beams over some remains of ruins. This
house can, as it is said, accommodate at least 3000 people."
Again, this confirms that a Saracen temple was built in an area where it
was thought that once stood the Jewish Temple.
Let's continue with more interesting evidence. Here is what Rabbi Simon
ben Yohai wrote in a manuscript dated to 680CE or so:
"The second king who arises from Ishmael will be a lover of Israel. He
restores their breaches and the breaches of the Temple. He hews Mount
Moriah, makes it level and builds a Hishtahawaya (mosque) there on the
Temple rock, as it is said: "Your nest is set in the rock."
As typical of rabbinical tradition at the time, he writes in a
pretentious prophetic style using the future tense to describe past
events. Hence, researchers who studied this document have concluded that
he is likely to be talking about Umar I, the second Caliph. So here a
Jewish witness talks about a joint Saracen-Jewish temple that was built
on the rock. Undoubtedly, he means the Dome of the Rock.
As an interesting side note, the fact that Rabbi Simon ben Yohai wrote
this favorably of Arabs around 680 CE demonstrates that unlike the
Abbasid era pious fiction of Sira contends, the Jewish-Arab alliance
remained strong well into the Umayyad dynasty.
Up to this point we have heard nothing of any place named Kaaba or any
temple of the Saracen outside Jerusalem or its vicinity. The first
reference to a place named Kaaba comes to us from Jacob of Edessa.
This is what you refer to here:
> the question is what is the overall reason of all these alignments.
> Jacob of Edessa, bishop of Eddessa (684-688) actually says:
> from
> http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Dome_Of_The_Rock/qibla...
> and
> R. G. Hoyland, Seeing Islam As Others Saw It: A Survey And Evaluation
> Of Christian, Jewish And Zoroastrian Writing On Early Islam, 1997,
> The Darwin Press, Inc.: Princeton (New Jersey), p. 565-
<<
> Your question is in vain ... for it is not to the south that
> the Jews pray, neuthe rdo the the Muslims (mhaggrayye:).
> The Jews who live in Egypt, as likewise Mahgraye there,
> as I saw with my own eyes and will now set out for you,
> prayed to the east, and still do, both people - the Jews
> towards Jerusalem, and the Mahgraye towards the Ka`bah (K`bt').
> And those Jews who are in the south of Jerusalem pray to the
> north; and those in Babylonia and nhrt'(Hira) and bwst' (Basra)
> pray to the west. And also the Mahgraye who are there pray to
> the west, towards the Ka`ba; and those who are to the south
> of the Ka`ba pray to the north, towards the place. So from all
> this it is clear that it is not to south that the Jews
> and Mahgraye here in the regions of Syria pray, but towards
> Jerusalem or Ka`bah, the patriarchial places of their races.
In all the above locations that Jacob gives, Jews and Muhajirin prayed
in the SAME EXACT direction. So For example, in Babylonia and Hira, the
Jews and Muhajirin prayed east. It is indisputable that had their
objective been to attempt to face present day Mecca then they would have
faced south. Given that the directions reported by Jacob of Edessa are
the same for the Jews and Muhajirin no matter what location they are in,
this implies that the place named Kaaba was in the vicinity of
Jerusalem.
The Jews faced Jerusalem in general. On the other hand, the Muhajirin
faced a particular place in its vicinity (we know that the temple mount
is at the eastern wall on the edge of Jerusalem) and that place is
called Kaaba. This account from Jacob is consistent with the earlier
accounts talking about the two Saracen temples in Jerusalem.
> Jacob of Edessa had earier studied in Alexandria, Egypt,
> and there were muslims in Edessa (now Urfa, Turkey) as well,
> according to Hoyland. so he not only knew about the qibla
> of the mosques but also of the intent behind them. Jacob
> also adds, acc. to Hoyland, Jacob also implies that
> Muslims prayed towards the general direction of the
> Ka`ba and did not try to be acurate (in his tiem).
The quotes from Jacob of Edessa provide very valuable information about
the intention and the direction. He tells us that the intention of Jews
was to face Jerusalem, while the intention of the Muhajirun was to face
a specific place called Kaaba. However, in all the locations he gives
such as Hira (Western Iraq) and Egypt, he says that Jews and Muhajirun
faced the same direction. On the other hand, Mecca would have been due
south from Hira. So as we saw, the only possible conclusion is that at
the time, Jerusalem and Kaaba were in the same vicinity.
So although this beginning of the 8th century reference is the first
reference to a place named Kaaba, we can see that it was in the vicinity
of Jerusalem and, up to this point, we still haven't heard anything
about any place called Mecca.
The first reference to some kind of temple in the south in the desert is
in a documented sermon by Patriarch Germanus, which took place sometimes
between 715-730CE, he lashes out at the Jews and Saracens who have
allied against the Roman Christians. In his criticism of the Saracens,
he wrote the following:
"With respect to the Saracens, since they also seem to be among those
who urge these charges against us, it will be quite enough for their
shame and confusion to allege against them their invocation which even
to this day they make in the wilderness to a lifeless stone, namely that
which is called Chobar, and the rest of their vain conversation received
by tradition from their fathers as, for instance, the ludicrous
mysteries of their solemn festivals."
Above we notice two very interesting references to Saracen rituals. The
first is the reference to the Saracens making invocation to a "lifeless
stone" in the wilderness. Unlike the temple in Jerusalem or its vicinity
that the earlier Arcluf described and which Jacob later named Kaaba,
this "lifeless stone" is in the wilderness and was called Chobar. John
of Damascus wrote around 730CE that Chobar was a symbol of the morning
star and Aphrodite that the Saracens worshipped. Aphrodite is the
Hellenized Nabataean goddess Allat.
This description by Patriarch Germanus of pagan practices fits a "holy"
stone in the middle of nowhere in the desert. Given that the town which
was later named Mecca, didn't exist on any maps or in any pre-quranic
inscriptions, this description fits the present Black Stone that
Sectarians venerate.
Secondly, Patriarch Germanus mentions festivals that those pagans
received by traditions from their forefathers NOT through a prophet
(even a false one) or a book of any sorts. Those festivals are likely to
be the same festivals that Epiphanius described some 300 years earlier.
Epiphanius mentioned that the festivals were related to Allat and
Dhu-Al-Shara around the winter solstice and they culminated with the
pagans spinning seven times around the inner sanctuary of the temple.
Another interesting point is that Patriarch Germanus refers to the stone
being in "the wilderness" at a nameless location. This contradicts the
traditional picture of so-called Mecca being an important town in Arabia
and confirms that up to this point the location didn't have much
significance and the common noun "mecca" in the great reading hasn't
been hijacked yet.
More confirmation comes from the writings of John of Damascus, which you
referred to here:
> and just what about the Ka`ba did a christian patriarch witness, I wonder.
> Chabar or Chobar was what early christian sources called the Black Stone.
> Hoylands reconstructs what was going on from the sources themselves. p. 106
Here is what John of Damascus actually wrote on the subject in the 730s:
"They misrepresent us as idolaters because we prostrate ourselves before
the cross, which they loathe. And we say to them: "How then do you rub
yourselves on a stone at your Chabatha and hail the stone with fond
kisses?" . . . This, then, which they call "stone," is the head of
Aphrodite, whom they used to worship and whom they call Chabar."
> John of Damascus gives a deliberate distortion of alla:hu 'akbar(u),
> whose correct form and meaning is given by other sources at an early
> date, as: Alla oua Koubar i.e. in his words: Alla (God) oua (and) Koubar
No the above is patently false. John of Damascus doesn't mention Allah
at all. He simply reports that the Saracens adored a stone called Chabar
and this same name was also reported earlier as we have already seen by
Patriarch Germanus as relating to a lifeless stone in the wilderness. He
never relates the stone to Allah. He relates it to Aphrodite (the
Hellenized Allat).
> the last according to him being the planet Venus (star of Aphrodite).
> this might be a corruption of (al-)kubra" mixed up with 'akbar .
> in traditions or words transmitted thorugh Syriac kaf is rendered
> in greek with the letter Chi (Khi). thus Chabar or Chobar develops, and
> Syriac sources do alledge that this means "great". Greeks alledged
> Aphrodite worship because Herodotus had identified Allat with
> Aphrodite. this does not mean Muslims believed it, nor is it an
> accurate description of Arab paganism.
We know for certain that the Arab pagans worshiped Allat. Whether Allat
is the Hellenized Aphrodite or not is irrelevant because either way John
of Damascus was referring to pagan idols and rituals that clearly
survived well into the 8th century and were not eradicated by the early
Muslims as Sira contends. The 8th century seems to be the time when
those pagan idols and rituals were revitalized and integrated into
mainstream Islam.
We know from other sources that Arab paganism continued to flourish in
the early Islamic era and did not end as Sira contends. For example, the
Synod of 676, which instructs Christians on how to deal with the new
rulers, forbids Christians to bury their dead in the manner of their new
rulers, and says that they wrapped the deceased in rich and precious
clothes, which was a pagan custom.
Interestingly, another report from Jacob of Edessa that Hoyland provided
gives us strong evidence that Arab paganism continued to flourish well
into the Umayyad dynasty. Here is what he said:
"Priests may give the blessing of the saints to Muhajireen or pagans and
may teach the children of Muslims, Harranians and Jews."
He also said:
"We should not rebaptise a Christian who becomes a Muhajir or pagan then
returns."
So at the time "pagans" were a distinct entity from Muhajireen
(Muslims). So this is further indication that Arab paganism continued to
flourish despite what the later pious fraud of Sira claims.
Let's summarize our observations below:
1. Earlier accounts such as those of Sophronius (around 638) and Sebeos
(660s) talk about the temple of the Arabs but they never call it by the
name Kaaba. So probably until that time that common noun in the great
reading hasn't been hijacked yet.
2. Some 30-40 years later in his Letter to John the Stylite, Jacob of
Edessa calls the Arab temple Kaaba but the direction he gives points to
it being in the vicinity of Jerusalem. Jacob of Edessa also indicated in
his writings that pagans and Muhajireen coexisted.
3. Afterwards Patriarch Germanus around 715-730 or so talks about the
Arabs having a pagan temple in the desert of Arabia but he calls it
Chobar.
4. John of Damascus in the 730s writes about a pagan temple and
simultaneously calls it Chabar and possibly a tongue twist on Kaaba.
So here is the chronology of the corruption:
Prophet time - 630s:
No specific Saracen Temple.
638-660s:
The first Saracen Temple in Jerusalem is established
660s-700:
The second Saracen Temple in Jerusalem is established by taking over the
Jewish Temple next to it.
700-715:
One of the Saracen Temples in Jerusalem acquired the name of Kaaba and
the practice of facing this structure during prayer is noted.
715-730:
The Saracen Temple shifts to the desert of Arabia and its focal point
was a stone named Chobar. This particular period seems to be a period of
revival of paganism.
730s-740s:
The Saracen Temple in the desert of Arabia is named a tongue twist on
Kaaba (or something similar) in a gradual shift of the name from the
Jerusalem Temple to this one. The revival of paganism continues by
integrating pagan symbols and rituals into Islam. This is done by, for
example, appropriating common nouns from the great reading as proper
names of pagan symbols and rituals.
740s-Present:
The place in the desert where the Arab Temple is acquires the name Mecca
and the name Chobar quickly dies out and the name Kaaba and Black Stone
take over. The earliest reference to a town called Mecca appears after
740CE in the Continuatio Byzantia Arabica. The integration of paganism
into the new religion is now in full force and a period of wholesale
manufacture of supporting traditions follow.
As we can see, the corruption of how the common noun "kaaba" in the
great reading was hijacked and transformed into the pagan idol of Allat
had plenty of time to gradually occur in well over a hundred years.
Peace,
Ayman
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Does exactly what it says on the tin
Yusuf B Gursey
Ayman wrote:
BTW you really ought to state your sources.
unless you are an archivist with access to all
the material you quote, and translate it yourself,
you ought to give the source you get it from.
a google search shows that you cut paste and
otherwise use the wording of unscholarly
polemical sites. you ought to mention them.
> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> > and just what about the Ka`ba did a christian patriarch witness, I wonder.
> > Chabar or Chobar was what early christian sources called the Black Stone.
> > Hoylands reconstructs what was going on from the sources themselves. p. 106
>
> While the Sira and other pious stories date from the 9th century Abbasid
> era at the earliest, the documents that Hoyland presents are from the
> early seventh to early eighth centuries. Thus, those early sources
> predate the earliest theological accounts by at least a hundred years
included in such accounts are things that were used
in polemics against muslims, as one can also find
in these early sources.
> (and sometimes hundreds of years). The whole purpose of looking at
> independent early sources that are supported by verifiable manuscripts
they are not unbiased sources, and not all are quoted from the original
manuscripts. source criticism goes for all, and you have done little
in this regard, and ignored the source criticism of others, when it
comes
to the sources you quote.
futhermore they were for a naive audience ion terms
of Islam and the Arabs, and coudl get away with ommisions
or propaganda (which was a high priority objective).
> is to start from an unbiased point of view and without preconceptions.
you hardly start with "no preconceptions" as a-priori you
state that many Islamic rituals are "pagan" and therefore
coudl not have been part of the message of the Qur'an or
Muhammad.
> With this in mind, let's start with a blank sheet of paper and put
> ourselves in the shoes of an early 8th century historian looking at
> those documents long before Sira writers Ibn Hisham or Tabari were even
> born.
but with those sources you end up as an 8th century Byzantine
historian, not one with direct knowledge about Islam or Arabs.
>
> Up to this point we have heard nothing of any place named Kaaba or any
> temple of the Saracen outside Jerusalem or its vicinity. The first
> reference to a place named Kaaba comes to us from Jacob of Edessa.
because it is not the subject matter of what you quoted.
the words "SAME EXACT" is yours, it's something you are reading into,
and contradicted by the text which says it is noticeably different.
> Jews and Muhajirin prayed east. It is indisputable that had their
> objective been to attempt to face present day Mecca then they would have
> faced south. Given that the directions reported by Jacob of Edessa are
which is what John bar Penkaye says, they faced South in Mesopotamia.
errors of longitude where frequent in pre-modern times, esp. in the
7th cent CE.
as I had said:
<<
furthermore, John bar Penkaye, from northern Mesopotamia,
says, acc. to Hoyland, that this is the "House of God"
and "the locality in the South where their sanctuary was."
at least this is what his muslim informants claimed.
>>
> the same for the Jews and Muhajirin no matter what location they are in,
> this implies that the place named Kaaba was in the vicinity of
> Jerusalem.
that doesn't confrom to the same "archeaological evidence"
i.e. the orientation of early mosques that you have been
yapping about before.
it is also what the website you refered to refutes:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Dome_Of_The_Rock/qibla.html
in Egypt they certainly didn't pray towards Jerusalem, which
is in the wrong latitude, and latitude measurements were much
more accurate.
and for the Negev, Jerusalem is nearly 180 degrees off!
>
> The Jews faced Jerusalem in general. On the other hand, the Muhajirin
> faced a particular place in its vicinity (we know that the temple mount
> is at the eastern wall on the edge of Jerusalem) and that place is
> called Kaaba. This account from Jacob is consistent with the earlier
> accounts talking about the two Saracen temples in Jerusalem.
if it was the Kaaba, that would certainly have been explicitly
mentioned. and there was no tradition of Arabs as having
originated there.
also see above.
>
> > Jacob of Edessa had earier studied in Alexandria, Egypt,
> > and there were muslims in Edessa (now Urfa, Turkey) as well,
> > according to Hoyland. so he not only knew about the qibla
> > of the mosques but also of the intent behind them. Jacob
> > also adds, acc. to Hoyland, Jacob also implies that
> > Muslims prayed towards the general direction of the
> > Ka`ba and did not try to be acurate (in his tiem).
>
> The quotes from Jacob of Edessa provide very valuable information about
> the intention and the direction. He tells us that the intention of Jews
> was to face Jerusalem, while the intention of the Muhajirun was to face
> a specific place called Kaaba. However, in all the locations he gives
> such as Hira (Western Iraq) and Egypt, he says that Jews and Muhajirun
> faced the same direction. On the other hand, Mecca would have been due
> south from Hira. So as we saw, the only possible conclusion is that at
> the time, Jerusalem and Kaaba were in the same vicinity.
it's not. Jerusalem or vicinity is not usually thought of
as the homeland of the Arabs, which Jacob of Edessa implies,
and John bar Penkaya does state a southerly direction.
furthermore, see the architecture.
these guys did not have a compass, neither was architecture
or astronomy their field or what they were reporting. they
are just using "ballpark terms" for a non-specialist audience
written by non-specialists in architecture or astronomy.
>
> So although this beginning of the 8th century reference is the first
> reference to a place named Kaaba, we can see that it was in the vicinity
> of Jerusalem and, up to this point, we still haven't heard anything
you do not see so.
> about any place called Mecca.
>
> The first reference to some kind of temple in the south in the desert is
it isn't the first reference.
it is in John bar Penkaya, a contemporary of Jacob of Edessa.
> in a documented sermon by Patriarch Germanus, which took place sometimes
my point: it was a sermon, designed for propaganda.
> between 715-730CE, he lashes out at the Jews and Saracens who have
> allied against the Roman Christians. In his criticism of the Saracens,
> he wrote the following:
>
> "With respect to the Saracens, since they also seem to be among those
> who urge these charges against us, it will be quite enough for their
> shame and confusion to allege against them their invocation which even
> to this day they make in the wilderness to a lifeless stone, namely that
well, "wilderness" my not describe the vicinity of Jerusalem, but
would qualify for Mecca!
> which is called Chobar, and the rest of their vain conversation received
ansd "Chobar" is unattested epigrpahically, but can be explained as a
fiction of propoganda.
> by tradition from their fathers as, for instance, the ludicrous
> mysteries of their solemn festivals."
>
> Above we notice two very interesting references to Saracen rituals. The
> first is the reference to the Saracens making invocation to a "lifeless
> stone" in the wilderness. Unlike the temple in Jerusalem or its vicinity
but there was no claim in these that the Temple of Jerusalem was ever
a direction of prayer of the Muslims!
> that the earlier Arcluf described and which Jacob later named Kaaba,
Arcluf doesn't claim that he talks about was a direction of prayer.
> this "lifeless stone" is in the wilderness and was called Chobar. John
> of Damascus wrote around 730CE that Chobar was a symbol of the morning
> star and Aphrodite that the Saracens worshipped. Aphrodite is the
> Hellenized Nabataean goddess Allat.
that is the opinion based on Herodotus. the Nabataeans identified Allat
with Athena (Minerva).
>
> This description by Patriarch Germanus of pagan practices fits a "holy"
> stone in the middle of nowhere in the desert. Given that the town which
> was later named Mecca, didn't exist on any maps or in any pre-quranic
you should at least say "we know as Mecca". you have no
concrete evidence it was "renamed".
> inscriptions, this description fits the present Black Stone that
> Sectarians venerate.
OK.
>
> Secondly, Patriarch Germanus mentions festivals that those pagans
> received by traditions from their forefathers NOT through a prophet
that they recieved their traditions from a book and form the teachings
of Muhammad is well established by earlier authors.
> (even a false one) or a book of any sorts. Those festivals are likely to
> be the same festivals that Epiphanius described some 300 years earlier.
> Epiphanius mentioned that the festivals were related to Allat and
> Dhu-Al-Shara around the winter solstice and they culminated with the
> pagans spinning seven times around the inner sanctuary of the temple.
what the Nabataeans did around the temple of Dhu~l-Shara may
well be similar to what Hijazis did around the sanctuary of Allah.
it's just that the greeks had read about the Nabataeans.
>
> Another interesting point is that Patriarch Germanus refers to the stone
> being in "the wilderness" at a nameless location. This contradicts the
> traditional picture of so-called Mecca being an important town in Arabia
it's still relatively speaking, for people coming from up north,
a town "in the wilderness", and yes, traditioanl muslim accounts
were likely to have exagerated its importance. that's not the
issue.
> and confirms that up to this point the location didn't have much
> significance and the common noun "mecca" in the great reading hasn't
> been hijacked yet.
>
> More confirmation comes from the writings of John of Damascus, which you
> referred to here:
>
> > and just what about the Ka`ba did a christian patriarch witness, I wonder.
> > Chabar or Chobar was what early christian sources called the Black Stone.
> > Hoylands reconstructs what was going on from the sources themselves. p. 106
>
> Here is what John of Damascus actually wrote on the subject in the 730s:
>
> "They misrepresent us as idolaters because we prostrate ourselves before
> the cross, which they loathe. And we say to them: "How then do you rub
> yourselves on a stone at your Chabatha and hail the stone with fond
> kisses?" . . . This, then, which they call "stone," is the head of
> Aphrodite, whom they used to worship and whom they call Chabar."
as I said, the origin of this propaganda claim can be reconstructed.
>
> > John of Damascus gives a deliberate distortion of alla:hu 'akbar(u),
> > whose correct form and meaning is given by other sources at an early
> > date, as: Alla oua Koubar i.e. in his words: Alla (God) oua (and) Koubar
>
> No the above is patently false. John of Damascus doesn't mention Allah
I didn't say "John of Damascus said that". it was a later author,
Constantine VII, basing himself an earlier sources who says that.
but it explains how the fiction came about.
> at all. He simply reports that the Saracens adored a stone called Chabar
> and this same name was also reported earlier as we have already seen by
> Patriarch Germanus as relating to a lifeless stone in the wilderness. He
> never relates the stone to Allah. He relates it to Aphrodite (the
> Hellenized Allat).
the greeks weren't familiar with peninsuslar arabs, so they wrote
from what they read about the Nabataeans. sure, the Nabataeans were
Arabs, but not all their dieties or practices were shared by all other
Arabs.
>
> > the last according to him being the planet Venus (star of Aphrodite).
> > this might be a corruption of (al-)kubra" mixed up with 'akbar .
> > in traditions or words transmitted thorugh Syriac kaf is rendered
> > in greek with the letter Chi (Khi). thus Chabar or Chobar develops, and
> > Syriac sources do alledge that this means "great". Greeks alledged
> > Aphrodite worship because Herodotus had identified Allat with
> > Aphrodite. this does not mean Muslims believed it, nor is it an
> > accurate description of Arab paganism.
>
> We know for certain that the Arab pagans worshiped Allat. Whether Allat
> is the Hellenized Aphrodite or not is irrelevant because either way John
> of Damascus was referring to pagan idols and rituals that clearly
he refers to what he could have read in earlier standard greek sources.
> survived well into the 8th century and were not eradicated by the early
> Muslims as Sira contends. The 8th century seems to be the time when
> those pagan idols and rituals were revitalized and integrated into
> mainstream Islam.
so you claim.
>
> We know from other sources that Arab paganism continued to flourish in
> the early Islamic era and did not end as Sira contends. For example, the
> Synod of 676, which instructs Christians on how to deal with the new
> rulers, forbids Christians to bury their dead in the manner of their new
> rulers, and says that they wrapped the deceased in rich and precious
> clothes, which was a pagan custom.
well, yes, proper Islamic burial customs were too austere to
be adhered to properly.
>
> Interestingly, another report from Jacob of Edessa that Hoyland provided
> gives us strong evidence that Arab paganism continued to flourish well
> into the Umayyad dynasty. Here is what he said:
>
> "Priests may give the blessing of the saints to Muhajireen or pagans and
> may teach the children of Muslims, Harranians and Jews."
there were pagans all around then.
>
> He also said:
>
> "We should not rebaptise a Christian who becomes a Muhajir or pagan then
> returns."
>
> So at the time "pagans" were a distinct entity from Muhajireen
> (Muslims). So this is further indication that Arab paganism continued to
> flourish despite what the later pious fraud of Sira claims.
>
> Let's summarize our observations below:
>
> 1. Earlier accounts such as those of Sophronius (around 638) and Sebeos
> (660s) talk about the temple of the Arabs but they never call it by the
he just talks about one mosque!
we can't infer anything else from that.
> name Kaaba. So probably until that time that common noun in the great
> reading hasn't been hijacked yet.
so you claim.
>
> 2. Some 30-40 years later in his Letter to John the Stylite, Jacob of
> Edessa calls the Arab temple Kaaba but the direction he gives points to
> it being in the vicinity of Jerusalem. Jacob of Edessa also indicated in
it doesn't!
> his writings that pagans and Muhajireen coexisted.
that does not neccesarily follow. there were pagans all around the
Byzantine empire then.
>
> 3. Afterwards Patriarch Germanus around 715-730 or so talks about the
> Arabs having a pagan temple in the desert of Arabia but he calls it
> Chobar.
which is unattested in arabic and whose origin can be inferred
as a distortion of a well known Islamic formula.
>
> 4. John of Damascus in the 730s writes about a pagan temple and
> simultaneously calls it Chabar and possibly a tongue twist on Kaaba.
but we know the origin of that, which is a distortion of
alla:hu 'akbar .
>
> So here is the chronology of the corruption:
>
> Prophet time - 630s:
> No specific Saracen Temple.
because they didn't know much or care much about pagan or muslim
arabs at that time!
>
> 638-660s:
> The first Saracen Temple in Jerusalem is established
so what?
>
> 660s-700:
> The second Saracen Temple in Jerusalem is established by taking over the
> Jewish Temple next to it.
non-sequitor!
>
> 700-715:
> One of the Saracen Temples in Jerusalem acquired the name of Kaaba and
> the practice of facing this structure during prayer is noted.
there is absolutley no evidence of that!
>
> 715-730:
> The Saracen Temple shifts to the desert of Arabia and its focal point
> was a stone named Chobar. This particular period seems to be a period of
> revival of paganism.
acc. to you, Muhammad is just a singularity with
paganism before and after him. in other words,
in your logic, we can't prove anything about
Islam, as Muhammad preached, and you feel free
to fill in the blanks as you choose.
>
> 730s-740s:
> The Saracen Temple in the desert of Arabia is named a tongue twist on
> Kaaba (or something similar) in a gradual shift of the name from the
> Jerusalem Temple to this one. The revival of paganism continues by
> integrating pagan symbols and rituals into Islam. This is done by, for
> example, appropriating common nouns from the great reading as proper
> names of pagan symbols and rituals.
so you claim, from your reconstructions that result in bad arabic.
>
> 740s-Present:
> The place in the desert where the Arab Temple is acquires the name Mecca
> and the name Chobar quickly dies out and the name Kaaba and Black Stone
> take over. The earliest reference to a town called Mecca appears after
> 740CE in the Continuatio Byzantia Arabica. The integration of paganism
Continuatio Byzantia Arabica is from an earlier eastern source as
Hoylands claims. of course, it was composed in Spain and had
to rely on earlier and eastern sources.
Mecca is mentioned because of Ibn Zubayr.
Mecca suddenly becomes the focal point of a major political
event, and a schism in muslim ranks was certainly of great
interest to the Christian side. so you find it in a
account of political events. Muslim rituals were only of
incidental interest to them. so it is not inexplicable
that a town of significance of only to Muslims, and
formerly to Arab pagans or caravaneers, fails to get
mentioned.
> into the new religion is now in full force and a period of wholesale
> manufacture of supporting traditions follow.
>
> As we can see, the corruption of how the common noun "kaaba" in the
> great reading was hijacked and transformed into the pagan idol of Allat
> had plenty of time to gradually occur in well over a hundred years.
and given the vast extent of the territories and through
all those civil wars, did even just one faction
object to these alledged fabrications?! NO!
on the contrary Mecca is where the pious faction sets up
headquarters.
furthermore as Hoyland points out, in Mecca and the
surrounding area - including "along pilgrimage routes"
are found among the earliest Islamic inscriptions,
leading Hoyland to conclude that there should be no
doubt as to the importance of this place to early
Islam. Hoyland also points out early traditions about
extensive development in this area (things about
lesser people are less likley to be manufactured),
combined with some actual attestations to this.
ever thought of writing a "muslim equivalent"
to "the Da-Vinci Code"?
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> Ayman wrote:
>
> > > Jacob of Edessa does not give that year as the raid into
> > > Palestine. in
> > > R. G. Hoyland, Seeing Islam As Others Saw It: A Survey
> > > And Evaluation Of Christian, Jewish And Zoroastrian
> > > Writing On Early Islam, 1997, p. 165. footnote n. 180
> > > the date of the raids is placed 625-626 .
> >
> > The 625-626 date is a footnote and is not what Jacob of Edessa said and
>
>
>
> also the dates 626- 627 are given.
>
> the footnote is about a chronological chart of Jacob Edessa not
> in the text that was quoted. so Jacob of Edessa did not regard
> the two events as simultaneous.
>
so that one concludes, as Hoyland p. 584, for a 626 date.
as Hoyland points out, on footnote 170 on that page,
this corresponds to the 5AH / 626 CE date given
by the Sira on Muhammad's raid on a tribal chief
client of the Byzantines, given as the first of
the raids on the Byzantines (i.e. "Romans").