CIRA international explore early Muslim dilemma; praying to Jerusalem?

In answer to the video "The Unknown History of Islam 04 - Modern Mecca, Ancient Qibla"

In Medina, when the prophet and the Muslims prayed northward they could not afford the opportunity of praying with the Kaaba in front of them anymore, like they did in Mecca. In addition their backs were now turned to the Kaaba when facing Jerusalem. This matter greatly disturbed them. They had in addition to contend with the annoying talk of the people of the book who saw in this a proof of themselves being on the right path, and that the Muslims were trying to compete with them in this regard. But they are told

2:145"even if you bring to those who have been given the Book every sign they would not follow your qibla, nor can you be a follower of their qibla, neither are they the followers of each other's qibla, and if you follow their desires after the knowledge that has come to you, then you shall most surely be among the unjust".

The prophet is told that no sign will make the rejectors among the people of the book follow his qibla since their confusion and prejudice is so deep that, although they read the same scriptures, they follow divergent qibla (ways) and accuse eachother of being misguided 2:113.

This early Medinian period was a means of seperating the obedient from the disobedient just as all the previous hardships and sacrifices seperated the believers from others, the submissive from the arrogant. The Muslims were not only uprooted from their homes but had now lost the comforting sight of what they regarded as their spiritual center

2:144"Indeed We see the turning of your face in heaven, so We shall surely turn you to a qibla which you shall like".

The experience was so difficult that the prophet's face was in heaven, conveying the picture that Muhammad was anxiously awaiting the day the qibla would be restored to its original foundation to the extent that it was as if he was in heaven, awaiting for the command. We can almost feel the restrained desire of the Prophet and his reluctance even to say a prayer that reflected his desire. TSuch a decision is one that is only up to God and the servants cannot but patiently endure that hard trial. After several months of waiting, the command for changing the Qibla was finally revealed. It was while the Prophet was praying the noon prayer and he had already performed only two rak'at of the prayer in Bani-Salim Mosque towards the direction of Jerusalem. According to tradition Gabriel took his arm, turning his body so as to make him face the direction of the Kaaba. At the same time Muslims immediately changed their rows, too. Because they had to face southward, the women had to change place and stand in rows behind the men.

In Medina and aproximately a year after the Hijra, the first Temple of monotheism, the Kaaba, was thus definitively established as the Muslims' qibla

2:144"turn then your face towards the Sacred Mosque, and wherever you are, turn your face towards it, and those who have been given the Book most surely know that it is the truth from their Lord; and Allah is not at all heedless of what they do".

This SECOND change of qibla, from Jerusalem towards/ash-Shatr the Kaaba in Mecca was an event of greatest religious significance, and one of the most important commandments given to the Muslims, further cementing their unity and fulfilling the promise made to Ibrahim and Ismail as they were building the Temple long ago. The unity of the divine is thus reflected in the unified manner in which the prayer is performed, which obviously would not be the case if every individual prayed toward a separate direction or in dispersive rows. Wherever Muslims are, they are to turn towards the direction of the sacred Mosque 2:146-150.

This obviously implies during the act of ritual prayers, unless one wants to believe that the verse is telling Muslims to constantly live facing a specific direction. Only one location is said to be dedicated to those performing the ritual prayers, as well as the pilgrimage and it is the Kaaba, Becca, the Ancient House and al masjid al haram, all names referring to one same place with the definite article 2:125,158,196,9:19,22:26,29. This unquestionably links the Kaaba with some of the most important rituals of Islam.

The verses 2:142-152 dealt with all the controversies surrounding the 2 qibla changes, comforting the believers and preparing their minds for the ultimate change of qibla. This was done first by revealing the story of Ibrahim, the various honors bestowed on him by Allah, as well as the honor accorded to his son, Ismail; their prayers for the Kaaba and Mecca, as well as for a prophet and a nation submitted in Islam; their construction of the House and the order then received to cleanse it for the sole worship of Allah, by all the nations, until the Day of Resurrection 5:97,22:25-7.

If Ibrahim's seed was to be blessed in Ismail's progeny, as even stated in the Torah, it was necessary that the new Spiritual Centre should be the house built and purified by Ibrahim and Ismail, and make their nation the inheritors of all those Divine blessings which had been promised to the seed of Abraham.

This ultimate establishement of the Kaaba as the Muslims' Qibla is firstly alluded to in 2:142 (future tense) with an anticipation of the fools' reaction to the command; why would the Muslims turn away from Jerusalem if it was a correct qibla and why had they not always faced the Kaaba if it was the original and true qibla? It then goes back to the past 2:143 with a reminder of how changing the old qibla was a big issue except to the rightly guided and the passage ends with 2:144 establishing the Kaaba as the definite qibla. It is obvious 2:142-144 were revealed at once. It ends the previous test of knowing

2:143"who follows the footsteps of the messenger from who turns upside down on the back of his feet"

by establishing the Kaaba as the final qibla 2:144.

CIRA international do geopolitics; why change Qibla?

In answer to the video "The Unknown History of Islam 04 - Modern Mecca, Ancient Qibla"

In Mecca before the Hijra, the prophet and his early followers prayed facing the Kaaba which was always regarded as the first temple ever dedicated to the One God, for all mankind 3:96. All previous places of worship were meant for a particular community. The universal character of the Kaaba came to fruition with the rise of the last prophet. It is also mentioned several times as the Ancient House because it was so old that it came to be known throughout Arabia by that name 22:29,33 and its history went back to the days of Ibrahim and Ismail 2:125,14:35-41.

But to the pagans who overtime had transformed this symbol of monotheism by including polytheistic innovations, this stance of the prophet was unacceptable since he was reforming the spiritual meaning of the most sacred pagan shrine.

The first change of Qibla occured in Mecca itself, where the believers were commanded to face Jerusalem in prayer. This means the prophet was facing Jerusalem at a time when the Jewish involvement in his life was totally insignificant. Also, the political, cultural, social and every other interests in Mecca were to stay with the Kaaba as the center of prayer.

The Prophet's purpose from the very beginning was to restore the Abrahamic religion to its purity, which included cleansing the House of God from idolatry. This move, openly declaring a new direction of prayer was contrary to all political wisdom. The Arabs and Muslim hypocrites would argue that those who turned away from the Kaaba were traitors that abandoned the age-old Arabian traditions, customs, heritage, and culture, so intertwined with it.  Some critics argue that at the first stage of his migration to Medina the prophet sought validation from the Jews, but due to their rejection, the qibla to Jerusalem was changed to Mecca. Yet when the prophet arrived in Medina, among the first people to convert and join Muslim ranks was Abdullah ibn Salam, the most respected and knowledgeable religious figure of the local Jewish community. Had the prophet's motivations been what the critics allege, he would have kept Jerusalem as the qibla regardless of the Jewish layman's rejection of him. The revelations as regards the qibla, as will be shown below, were unrelated to these suppositions.

It was, before anything, a tense period of spiritual resolve among the Muslims. The idea that Muhammad would then change the qibla to appease a minority group of people is absurd. The religious, political and economical centers of interest were, as stated earlier, in Mecca and controled by the pagan Arabs, some of whom had recently converted to Islam.

And in fact we read in the Quran that it was the Jews and Christians themselves, out of envy and jealousy, who wanted him to follow their religion and join their ranks, not the other way around 2:109,2:120.

The pagans similarly went out of their way and tried all possible means to make him yield somehow to their position and compromise some of his principles with theirs. It is also interesting to note that, when the second change of qibla was issued in Medina, away from Jerusalem to the Kaaba exclusively, the people of the book took offence and protested.

This is contrary to what one would expect from someone claiming to be on the truth, but everything one would expect from a group of people looking at another out of jealousy

2:109"after the truth has become manifest to them".

Besides basic tribal prejudice, these envious Jews and Christians disliked the Qibla change away from Jerusalem because of a deeper reason. And while some learned men among the Jews and Christians let go of their pride, joining the Muslim ranks, many remained blinded by their prejudice

2:147"Those whom we have given the Book recognize him as they recognize their own sons, and a party of them most surely conceal the truth while being aware".

They could not help but see the unfolding of the divine will infront of their eyes, through the change of qibla, the removal of a group from being the torch bearers of the truth to the nations, in favor of another group which their scriptures despised

2:142-6"..what has turned them from their qibla which they had?...those who have been given the book most surely known that it is the truth from their Lord. And Allah is not at all heedless of what they do...and if you follow their desires after the knowledge has come to you, then you shall surely be among the unjust".  

The Quran then clarifies how this first qibla change, that occurred in Mecca, away from the Kaaba to Jerusalem was extremely difficult, for the Kaaba was the very symbol of the Abrahamic religion that Muhammad was sent to revive. Muhammad was supposed to be the answer to Ibrahim and his son's prayers centuries ago as they raised the Kaaba, praying God to send a prophet from among the inhabitants of the land, to purify them and dedicate them to God 2:129,62:2.

The descendants of Ibrahim and Ismail, Arab Muslims and pagans alike, held the Kaaba in great veneration. This exposed the prophet to more opposition and those who rejected him would argue that he claims to revive the way of Ibrahim through his spiritual claim over the Kaaba, but is now telling his followers to face Jerusalem. The verse 2:143 refers to that incident

"And we did not make the direction of facing/Qibla that you were on, except to know who follows the footsteps of the messenger from who turns upside down on the back of his feet. And it was burdensome except on those that God gifted guidance".

The verse speaks of how this first Qibla change, away from the Kaaba, to Jerusalem was very burdensome to many early followers who started harboring doubts. What history later showed and what the Muslims at the time couldnt have known, was that through this divine command, the Kaaba was being prepared to fulfil its universal role, to be freed from its ancient, immemorial tribal confinement to the Arabs. Islam, and more precisely the ummatan wasatan, the balanced nation as the Quran calls its adherents 2:143, should be above customs, traditions and cultures. The Arabians who became Muslims had to purge their minds of these barriers which the Quran repeatedly brings down. This transfer of the qibla from Mecca to al-Quds was a denationalization test for the Muslims, to show that they could make the transition from culture to covenant, from tradition to taqwa or God-consciousness. They had to shed their “national” pride by abandoning Mecca and embracing al-Quds. All the history and folklore associated with Mecca in the pre-Islamic Arabian mind and conscience had to be left behind.

But the prophet proceeded with that burdensome order while subtly keeping sight of the Kaaba, to the pagans' dislike and to the believers' relief, by facing the southern wall of the Kaaba towards the north, so as to face both the Kaaba and Jerusalem during prayer

"In Makkah, the Messenger of Allah used to pray in the direction of Bayt Al-Maqdis, while the Ka`bah was between him and the Qiblah. When the Messenger migrated to Madinah, he faced Bayt Al-Maqdis for sixteen or seventeen months, and then Allah directed him to face Al-Ka`bah in prayer". 

This situation raised other concerns among the believers regarding their prayers that were performed prior to the change of Qibla, if they were still valid in God's eyes but they were comforted, in terms clearly denoting that the inner condition of the one performing the prayer is superior to the sole ritual

"Allah was not going to make your iman to be fruitless".

Here the Quran subtly answers a question whose subject is about the ritual prayer with an answer whose subject is iman. It goes on allaying their fears concerning the prayers of those that passed away prior to the qibla change

"most surely Allah is Affectionate, Merciful to the people".

After his migration to Medina, the prophet had no choice but to pray exclusively towards Jerusalem as previously ordained in Mecca. The place described as a

17:1"blessed precincts".

The Temple of Solomon once stood there and his people prostrated to God. Very devout Jews even considered the Temple as the only place fit for a complete prostration. The Jews performed rituals and prayers, including prostrations in that area even before the Temple was built 1Sam1. It was a blessed and sacred area, a terminology always associated with the land given to Abraham and those that followed him among the Israelites, including Solomon 5:21,7:137,21:71,81. This is why the Muslims were told to prostrate in that direction when the qibla was first changed. 

CIRA international argue from silence; Mecca was unheard of?

In answer to the video "The Unknown History of Islam 04 - Modern Mecca, Ancient Qibla"

Mecca was, as shown earlier, an isolated, seasonal city, far from any trading route. Advanced archeological research in Mecca and its surroundings has been very limited. In addition the dynasty of the Saud family that now rules over the area that has become known by its proper name; Saudi Arabia, destroyed old constructions, pretexting it might lead to improper veneration. The prophet however is reported as prohibiting the destruction of ancient edifices 

"do not pull them down, as these are the ornaments of AlMadina". 

Both the Quran and ahadith call upon the observation of the archaelogical remains of past nations to whom prophets were sent, so as to learn from their errors. The Thamudic monuments and their idols were present in the prophet's time but were never destroyed. These sites should therefore be preserved. Most reports of artefacts and rock inscriptions therefore come from amateurs in the field, or during the construction projects the city of Mecca and its environs recently underwent. Some of these findings, spanning different periods of human history, include drawings of hunting and of animals, carvings, writings, scattered on rocks, mountains, caves. Tools were recovered dating to prehistoric times. This pattern is found throughout the peninsula, including in the current Meccan province, all testifying to consistent human presence and activity in the whole peninsula and Mecca's surroundings since ancient times. 

Satellite imagery of the Meccan region has revealed an array of human constructions proving continuous habitation in the area. These structures, observable from altitude, represent gates, kites, triangles, keyholes among other things, and are dated beyond to 9000 years old. Some are believed to have been used for hunting purposes, while others are of unknown function. A burial site with hundreds of tombs was discovered east of Jeddah, at a lava field dated between 4000-1000BCE. 

All these data are no evidence of a town thousands of years ago at Mecca's location but neither does Islamic tradition state so. What Islam says is that when Ibrahim settled his wife Hagar and son Ismail at Mecca's location, the place was uninhabited. Ismail and his mother lived at that site and dedicated themselves to the worship of One God. Nomadic tribes would pass by and interact with them, including the Jurhum with whom Ismail married. 

The prophet narrates 

"The House (i.e. Ka`ba) at that time was on a high place resembling a hillock, and when torrents came, they flowed to its right and left. She lived in that way till some people from the tribe of Jurhum or a family from Jurhum passed by her and her child, as they (i.e. the Jurhum people) were coming through the way of Kada'. They landed in the lower part of Mecca where they saw a bird that had the habit of flying around water and not leaving it. They said, 'This bird must be flying around water, though we know that there is no water in this valley.' They sent one or two messengers who discovered the source of water, and returned to inform them of the water. So, they all came (towards the water)." The Prophet (ﷺ) added, "Ishmael's mother was sitting near the water. They asked her, 'Do you allow us to stay with you?" She replied, 'Yes, but you will have no right to possess the water.' They agreed to that." The Prophet (ﷺ) further said, "Ishmael's mother was pleased with the whole situation as she used to love to enjoy the company of the people. So, they settled there, and later on they sent for their families who came and settled with them so that some families became permanent residents there. The child (i.e. Ishmael) grew up and learnt Arabic from them and (his virtues) caused them to love and admire him as he grew up, and when he reached the age of puberty they made him marry a woman from amongst them".

With the passage of time idols were introduced by Ismail's descendants, progressively making the small Ishmaelite settlement known throughout pagan Arabia, leading to its development into a town. 

With the passage of time idols were introduced by Ismail's descendants, progressively making the small Ishmaelite settlement known throughout pagan Arabia, leading to its development into a town.

Judeo-Christian critics often point to absence of evidence to undermine Mecca and the Kaaba's antiquity yet no archaeological evidence for Solomon's first temple's existence, let alone its location, has been discovered despite years of excavations, on a scope far surpassing any exploration activity invloving Mecca.

Neither are there extra-biblical records of it that have survived, despite it being a place where much more people flocked in for pilgrimage than to Mecca, bringing in all kinds of offerings, sacrificing thousands of animals according to the Bible. The stone palace uncovered at the foot of Temple Mount in Jerusalem could attest that King David had been there; or it might belong to another era entirely, depending who you ask.

There is no archeological evidence even for the second temple built on the first one's rubbles after the Babylonians sacked it in 587BCE. It was supposedly rebuilt by the Jewish exiles returning from their Babylonian captivity 40 years later, even though in this case we do have extra-biblical written sources attesting to it. The only conclusive archeological evidence that exists is for Herod's temple (started in 20BCE and ended 80years after his death), supposedly built instead of the second temple which the rabbis thought was too modest in comparison to Solomon's first Temple.

In fact no evidence exists for any of the events described in the Book of Genesis, such as the Jericho wall toppled by Joshua. More damning is that despite active digging like never before, from the Temple Mount to the Kidron Stream, via the neighborhood of Silwan, including the so-called City of David, with the exception of a few controversial sites, the imperial capital of a mighty unified kingdom as described in Scripture, of David and Solomon has not been found. Even the Timna copper mines, dubbed “King Solomon’s Mines” could hardly have been under Solomon's control; in the 10th century BC, no trace of powerful enough kingdom, to manage and require that ammount of copper, stretching as far south as Timna exists.

Islam made Mecca and the Kaaba known to the world, obviously as it spread beyond Arabia. Prior to that, its importance, greatness and historicity was confined to the Arabs and their oral tradition. When it was built by Abraham, who had the habit of building worship sites along his journeys as stated throughout Genesis, it wasnt to be the universal qibla from the start. As stated in 3:96 it was the first house dedicated to the One God, for all mankind. All previous places of worship were meant for a particular community. That universal character however came to fruition with the rise of the last prophet. It was initially a monotheistic settlement, from where God would manifest his promises of blessings to Ismail and his seed, the place where per Abraham's words in the Torah Ishmael "might live before the Lord".

It is interesting pointing at this point to a Rabbinical exegisis, by the famous Saadia Gaon in the 10th century. He identifies the mysterious town of Mesha mentioned in Gen10 where some among the Semitic ancestors of Abraham had lived, as Mecca. This could have been among the factors that led Abraham in returning to that location specifically.  And it is known that historically, people from the Arabian Peninsula migrated towards the fertile lands of Iraq where Abraham lived. It isnt far-fetched to suggest that Abraham himself made such migration.

Again, we have a 1st centuryBC author, Diodorus Siculus, writing about ALL Arabs revering a singular Temple. The only one which ever commanded the universal homage in Arabia, was the one in Mecca. If that is the case then the very idea that there was none until a few years prior to Islam is a statement divorced from reality and not grounded in any historical or traditional evidence. We're not speaking of pyramids or some monuments no longer used, but of a living monument kept in high regard by an entire population past, present and future. We're not talking of a single person making a grandiose claim on the origins of a population and its hometown, but of an entire population's claims based on ancestral knowledge. Diodorus places that 1st century BC temple in an area of simple people who hunt land animals, off a particular coast in the Red Sea.

The accounts of those that live by the coast and eat fish are also mentioned, without mention of the Temple being in their area, which gives further evidence that the Temple was located inland. He doesn't equate it with the northern Nabateans and he doesn't do it with the Southern Arabian kingdoms.

Something very important to note is that Diodorus isn't even an authority on Arabia, he didn't venture into Arabia but was simply relating history according to 2nd-3rd hand records. But assuming Diodorus did not mean the Meccan Kaaba as the singular Temple revered by all the Arabs, how does one explain the error of judgment committed by the likes of Muir and Gibbon, the same error, when neither of them are known to be sympathetic to Muslims, meaning they had every reason not to admit to Diodorus' allusion to the Kaaba? Gibbon was known for his accuracy in quoting primary sources, providing in-depth detail regarding his use of sources for his work, which included documents dating back to ancient Rome.

So, again where is the single temple revered by all of Arabia in the 1st centuryBC, if it wasnt the one in Mecca?  Although William Muir viewed the story of Ishmael's settlement in Mecca as "A travestied plagiarism from Scripture" he still could not deny the antiquity of that belief among the Arabs of Hijaz. He maintained that Abraham’s association with the Kaaba “must be regarded as of ancient date even in Mahomet’s time". Others yet like Nöldeke and Schwally, suggested that the Kaaba's Abrahamic connection may have been created before the Prophet by Arabian Jews or Christians who, despite abandoning paganism, would have wanted to continue participating in the Kaaba’s rites. Muir therefore posits that Muhammad could not have invented it, rather that it was brought by the northern Nabateans after they settled in the area of Mecca.

Then there is another Greek writer, Ptolemy, writing in his 2nd century work on geography that also covers the western region of the Arabian Peninsula, of "Macoraba". He puts it at a Latitude of 22 and another city which he calls "Lathrippa" at 23. Historians reading Ptolemy's work know that a margin of error of around 2 degrees was common to him, as happened with other known cities like Byzantium. If we correct the 2 degree margin, we get extremely close to where both Mecca and Yathrib actually are. There is unanimity that Lathrippa stands for Yathrib, or Medina, but the views vary concerning Macoraba, although more scholars lean in favor of it being a reference for Mecca. Many different etymological suggestions were proposed to explain the connection between Mecca and Macoraba, they are all irrelevant to the fact that nothing historically can account for mentioning a city at that location but Mecca. Also, Mecca and Macoraba arent further from oneanother phonetically than “Lathrippa” is from “Yathrib”. The word mkrb, and which sounds close to Macoraba, is known from late Sabaic texts (Old South Arabian language spoken between c. 1000 BC and the 6th century AD) with the meaning “shrine, temple, synagogue, assembly hall”. Ptolemy wasnt an Arab anyway. He was transliterating his own phonetical perception of a word he heard either from an Arab who might have stated the name with a description, in his own dialect, such as Makka al mukarrama, which is close phonetically to Macoraba, or from a non-Arab who reported to him about the city and who was in turn repeating the name as he understood it. To further corroborate, in ancient 7th-8th century Greek and Syriac texts, Christian writers used Magaritai and Mahgraye as cognates for the Arabic "Muhajirun", in reference to the early Muslim conquerors.

Also and throughout time, the name of one and the same place might vary. The Quran itself attests to this with Mecca, formerly known as Becca. Nothing is certain but the simple fact that Macoraba is placed geographically near modern Mecca and the fact that the name itself sounds plausibly close enough, should in and of itself raise eyebrows. And it is evident that almost every thing – apart from longitude which is a general problem with Ptolemy’s Geography-fits well with Mecca and that is where the consensus came from; Yathrib a little to the north and a river bed a little to the south.

CIRA international seek evidence; no trace of Mecca?

In answer to the video "The Unknown History of Islam 04 - Modern Mecca, Ancient Qibla"

There is evidence much prior to Islam or Christianity's advent, of references to a singular Temple in Arabia by Greek historians, which mentions a single Temple venerated by all of Arabia.

For example Muir and other orientalists, as well as Bible scholars quote Diodorus Siculus speaking in the 1st century BC of a

"temple"

in Arabia which was

"greatly revered by all the Arabs"

and all conclude, like anyone aware of the location's historicity that it cannot be anything else than the Meccan Kaaba. The Encyclopaedia Britannica further adds that the first to wrap the shrine in a veil was a pious King of the Homerites, who reigned 700 years before the advent of Islam. There is a reason why the Quran refers to Mecca as umm al qura/the mother of the towns 6:92,42:7.

Edward Gibbon equally recognizes

"the genuine antiquity of Caaba ascends beyond the Christian era". 

The fact is, no other Temple has ever served as a central point of pilgrimage, despite the fact that Arabia, during these days, had temples all throughout the region that were all established subsequently to and in imitation of the Meccan Kaaba. The Yemeni Kaaba is an example. It is because of such prominence of the Meccan Kaaba that Abraha marched towards it to destroy it. Sura Fil refers to this episode.

But none of those shrines were older than the Kaaba, nor was any one of them regarded by the Arabs as of similar antiquity and commanding comparable veneration. The Arabs identified Mecca originally as Becca as corroborated in the Quran in addition that it is the first monument of worship of the One God and that it will remain so 3:95-99. When asked 

"which mosque was set up first on the earth? He said: Al-Masjid al-Haram".

The name itself "kaaba" is attested in ancient south Arabian epigraphy as a word used to describe a shrine for divinities. 

It is also mentionned several times as the Ancient/Atiq House because it was so old that it came to be known throughout Arabia by that name 22:29,33 and its history went back to the days of Ibrahim and Ismail 2:125. The word Atiq conveys also the meaning of honor and reverance since it had been made sacred by God 27:91. The root word rataqa conveys also the deeper sense of freedom from bondage and the Kaaba effectively has always been free from the bond of ownership of the mortals and in no time it had a possessor, save Allah.

Interestingly, when Moses had fled Egypt where he was wanted for man slaughter, and hid in Midian/Madyan, which is nowhere else than in the Arabian Peninsula, a "foreign land" in Moses' own words, from where he had to "return to Egypt" to free the Israelites Ex2:22,4:18, the Quran mentions his encounter with a righteous man in that land of Arabia, saying to him

28:27"I desire to marry one of these two daughters of mine to you on condition that you should serve me for eight hijaj/pilgrimages; but if you complete ten, it will be of your own free will, and I do not wish to be hard to you; if Allah please, you will find me one of the good".

This righteous Arabian man, whom tradition identifies with Shuayb, is quoted as counting the years in terms of pilgrimage, as it happened every year. Also, the valley where God first spoke to Moses is called Tuwa 20:12. The word tuwa means to fold, from the root ta-waw-ya, it is used as a name of the valley because a valley is by definition folded between higher ground, and in this case, figuratively folded with holiness. Dhi tuwa, which is near Mecca might very well be this same Tuwa of Moses where he had been dwelling with his Madian or Arab family prior to his return to Egypt and confrontation with Pharao.

Another interesting observation, linguistically is that Makka and bakka are used once in the Quran, and not randomly; in the context of hajj which involves the mass ingathering of populations, bakka is used since it stems from a word meaning crowd, while makka is employed outside that context.

The Area around Mecca was a completely unexplored area, appart from Arabia Felix. Historians mainly knew and wrote about cities in and close to trade routes, where there was some significant activity. The internal geographical features of Arabia as a whole and its climate prevented any foreign intrusion into it. Mecca was therefore not a passing point of voyagers nor a trade route, hence the scarcity of non-Arab sources mentionning it, besides the lack of inland explorations of the area by either Greek or Roman writers.

Outside the annual pilgrimmage during which all of Arabia flocked in and generated profit to the city and its inhabitants, Meccan was an isolated village and its people had to journey outside their own region to places like Syria and Palestine (in summer) and Yemen (in winter) to sell and buy goods because no trading route passed by or close to them. These long journeys were dangerous at the time and caravans were frequently raided and looted. The Quraysh however benefited from an immunitiy that was not provided to any other tribe, for they were given a special respect as the custodians of the Temple and caretakers of the pilgrims.

It is with all this background that the Quran admonishes the Quraysh not to become inebriated with these worldly successes and forget the Lord of this House and their ancestral duty towards Him

106:1"For the protection of the Quraysh, Their protection during their trading caravans in the winter and the summer, So let them serve the Lord of this House, Who feeds them against hunger and gives them security against fear".

The Quraysh have specifically been pointed out, for it was their primary obligation to become the torch bearers of the truth. An oath has been sworn in 100:1-11 by the feared raiding horses, that testify to the concrete reality of what was a common feature of the pre-Islamic Arabian society, and the sura further pictures the Quraysh's forgetfulness of the true essence of their privileges in that context. As already stated, they commanded great respect in the whole of Arabia and all their caravans and settlements were protected in every part of the country.

In fact, any tribe who became their ally was also treated with similar regard. The Quraysh instead of being thankful to their Lord for this favour became neglectful and rebellious.

Acts17apologetics get tangled in Greek mythology; can God die?

In answer to the video "How Can God Die? (Answering Islam Part 18)"

Besides failing on a historical level for lack of external evidence, the crucifixion story as depicted in the Greek Christian writings fails on an internal, theological level. According to habakkuk1, the everlasting God "will never die". The Quran equally states 

25:58"And rely upon the Ever-Living who does not die, and exalt [Allah] with His praise".

Humans have a dual nature, the body and the spirit. Lets call that human being John. John has thus a human body and a spiritual essence. John gets nailed on a cross and dies. His body expires while his spirit transitions to the hereafter. To say that John did not die on the cross because his spiritual essence survived would be false. Similarily God, according to the trinity doctrine has both a human body and a spiritual essence. God gets nailed on a cross and dies. His human nature expires while his spiritual essence transitions. To say that God did not die because his spiritual essence survived would then be as false as in John's case. 

Yet even from a materialistic standpoint, death is the end of life. In religion, death ends life in the present world and begins life in the hereafter. How does the ever-living, eternal God cease living in anyway shape or form? Assuming God did not die when he was crucified. This would then undermine the notion of atoning sacrifice. Death and loss is what validates the atonement. If God did not die, losing nothing in the process, then what did He sacrifice on the cross? Habakkuk1 is a general statement. It excludes death in any way. It doesnt say God's spirit cannot die while his body can. This is an example of what an explicit statement, closed to any misinterpretations, is. It is what is referred to in religious terminology, a firm verse, or as the Quran says, muhkam. A religion based on solid explicit tenets, does not seek ambiguous verses and try to derive isolated meanings upon which to build an entire belief system. Whenever confronted to ambiguous verses, that are open to several contradicting interpretations, we consider the context, the words used and cross reference them with other similar verses. More importantly, whatever the conclusion we come up with, the interpretation may never contradict the explicit, firm, decisive verses. But that is not how Pauline christianity works. In order to circumvent the statement that God "will never die" and make it fit the belief of divine sacrifice, it is said that this sacrificing Christian god didnt really die. Assuming God did not die when he was crucified. This would then undermine the notion of atoning sacrifice. Death and loss is what validates the atonement. If God did not die, losing nothing in the process, then what did He sacrifice on the cross? 

Further, why would God go as far as killing his son (or self) to prove his trustworthiness and capacity to truly forgive, and how is it a proof of love? Only an unjust, deluded criminal, unworthy to be the judge of mankind would think that murder is a proof of love. Why would anyone trust an entity, divine or else, willing to commit suicide (or even worse, kill its own progeny) to prove its love? One would instead try helping such entity out of its delusion. One would not want in anyway to be associated with such demonstration of "passionate love".

 

God, since times immemorial has been demonstrating His love through the prophets, sending promises of mercy and forgiveness before that mythological Greek drama was invented. Believers have always known and trusted this fact attested in scriptures over and over again, which God made contingent on repentance and obedience to His commandements. Nobody thought God would fail His promise, or was incapable of forgiving the servants that wholeheartedly turn to Him. The Quran treats such hopelessness in God as a mark of disbelief

39:53-4"Say, "O My servants who have transgressed against themselves [by sinning], do not despair of the mercy of Allah. Indeed, Allah forgives all sins. Indeed, it is He who is the Forgiving, the Merciful. And return [in repentance] to your Lord and submit to Him before the punishment comes upon you; then you will not be helped"
15:56"And who despairs of the mercy of his Lord except for those astray?".

That attribute of mercy is in fact the only one described in the Quran as "written upon" God 6:12,54. Christians on the other hand do not expect God to be merciful, to the point they need him to prove his capacity to forgive by murdering his own self/son. Furthermore, a judge that forgives someone because of the actions of another, Jesus' sacrifice in this case, isnt a merciful judge. Forgiveness wasnt triggered by the mercy of the judge, rather by the price paid by another. So although Christians do believe in their God's absolute mercy, in reality their concept of the divine is far removed from it. The profound difference in relation to that theological aspect between Islam and Christianity goes back to the story of the garden. While in the Quran, the story ends with hope and forgiveness, in Christianity it is misconstrued in a way the Jews who read the same scriptures before them, vehemently dispute.

In the Quran Adam is sent away from the garden with the message that whenever guidance is recognized and acted upon, then mankind "shall not go astray nor be unhappy". There is therefore in the Quranic account of creation no place for unconditional, senseless and indiscriminate condemnation. On the contrary, the incident is concluded with forgiveness and spiritual guidance. The Christian belief on the other hand is that there was no forgiveness, sin became ingrained in human nature and transmitted to Adam's progeny. On top of that, God, instead of sending the solution to that "problem" in the shape of Christ's atoning death, establishes a long line of prophethood and laws to be followed. This divinely decreed deceptive crooked system was bound to fail in the face of human depravity, for several thousands of years, until the issue of salvation was finally resolved with the crucifixion. This theology appeals to people who have despaired of life, themselves and God. It is toxic, as it crushes the person's self esteem, making him yield to dark thoughts of hopelessness in oneself, and it is satanic as it discourages the building of a relationship with a merciless, unloving God. Hope is therefore found elsewhere, neither in God nor man, but in an intercessor that fixes the defects of both so as to reconcile them. He is a sinless man and a merciful, loving God, both in one since the divine cancels sinfulness and the human cancels mercilessness and unlovingness. His divine nature makes this man capable of perfect deeds thus pleasing God and restoring His (God's) hope in man, while his human nature makes this God capable of dying, and through this self-sacrifice, capable of showing love and mercy, thus pleasing man and restoring his hope in God.

That is why the Quran quotes Jesus himself, emphatically denying the man-made, unscriptural notion of sin atonement as understood by those that deified him

5:72"and the messiah said; ...serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Surely whoever associates with Him, then Allah has forbidden to him the garden, and his abode is the Fire; and there shall be no helpers for the unjust".

In this short statement, Jesus nullifies everything Trinitarian Christianity stands for, the idea of a divine entity other than God being the means by which one's eternal felicity and freedom from sins depends. 

In another place, Jesus, instead of taking upon himself the sins of mankind, denies even the sins of his own followers that began deifying him. He washes his hands from their deviations and submits to God's justice, leaving the entire prerogative of salvation in God's hands 

5:116-118"If You should chastise them, then surely they are Your servants; and if You Should forgive them, then surely You are the Mighty, the Wise".

In the monotheistic faith, the prominence of God's attribute of mercy does not mean it comes freely. It is earned, through concrete, repeated, steadfast actions proving one's sincere penitent resolve. This however is only beneficial in relation to God's rights. But if a sin includes infringing on other people's rights then the divine law has declared it an injustice to deprive a victim of its due rights. In that case it is upon the victim to either benevolently forgive and turn away, or demand restitution for the harm done. No human sacrifice was needed before Jesus for people to known and trust in those things which the prophets said. It is ironic that in the book of Isaiah, the one most appealed to and distorted to prove the abhorrent notion of human sacrifice as the only prerequisite for sin atonement, God says

Isa55"my ways are different from yours".

This comes right after the reassuring statement that God is near and hearer of prayers so

"Let the wicked leave their way of life and change their way of thinking. Let them turn to the LORD, our God; He is merciful and quick to forgive".

God's nature is contrary to human's who need and ask their debt to be settled in case of foul play. There are no debts between men and God, He doesnt lose anything from people transgressing His commands neither does He gain from their worship. His glory remains unchanged in both cases. That is why he does not need to be propitiated. 

For His mercy to be released, the sinner does not need to act in relation to God but to his own self, through repentance and mending of ways. This deed is one that has no effect on God but on the sinner, cleansing his own soul. It is as a result of the person taking action to cleanse his self, that God releases His mercy, blotting out the sin completely and forgives Isa43. This is the main, among many other avenues for forgiveness which the HB gives besides blood atonement. 

The concept of atoning sacrifice is nowhere to be found in Jesus' words anyway. He nowhere speaks of his own death as an atonement for sin. He is instead depicted as talking of his life as being a ransom Mk10:45, but in a clear context of dedication and humility. He is dedicating his life for the sake of others, like all selfless people should. It is Paul who connected these words with expiation for sins in 1Tim2. This spin caused intense debates and disagreements throughout the ages among all branches of Christianity; ranging from the notion of Jesus' life being the ransom paid back to Satan who held humanity in hostage, to the idea that God the Father was the one to receive the payment, and many other nuances in between. The inherent problems to every proposition, the contradictions each of them create with various Christian doctrines such as God literally ransoming himself to himself, is what led the Roman Catholic Church to describe the ransom theory as a "mystery of universal redemption".

Apostate prophet delves into the Bible; where is David's Becca?

In answer to the video "The Kaaba in the Bible: Debunked"

In Psalms84, David speaks in his prayers to the Lord of hosts -the Lord of all nations-, of pilgrims frequently going through the valley of Beca to pray at the altar. Some attribute this psalm to David, others to Korah's 3 sons who lived in Moses' time. Jewish oral tradition states that the book is entirely David's who took the earlier works and melded them with his own ideas. In that passage Becca is identified by a definite article meaning a specific place. That place could not be the Jerusalem Temple, which was not even constructed at the time (neither in Moses' time). 

Of course, later in Jewish history Zion became affiliated with Jerusalem, but it couldnt have been during the time of David, or Moses for that matter. Jerusalem in the sense of the Holy City and place of pilgrimage was not built yet in David's days who was in addition referring to a place far away that required strenuous effort. The context of Ps84 is that of difficulty as one engages in a dry and barren valley then gaining spiritual strength upon strength. Clearly the meaning as noted by all commentators cannot be anything than the "valley of lamentation/weeping". The root word, bacca is used for types of trees that grow in arid places, like balsam, mulberry, or aspen that drip resin like tears. The balsam tree itself is found in southern Arabia, as well as on the mountains of Mecca and Medina.

So then which valley in Jerusalem is the ground so hard that the rain collects in pools? The valley of Becca has this particularity and the passage is meant to demonstrate its aridity. A valley of trees and lush vegetation doesnt fit this description. Which valley in or around Jerusalem do people take rest in and make it a well, when they go through to "Zion"? The fact that they make it a well, show that they take their rest there as well, another specificity of the place.

David laments that this place is far from the people and much hardship has to be taken to get there and despite the hardship, as they proceed to it and get closer to the court of the Lord in 'Zion", they move with strength upon strength. So where is that arid valley that pilgrims ever took on their way to Zion?

None of this was applicable to Jerusalem, nor is any valley affiliated with the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, besides the fact that the Temple didnt even exist then.

David speaks of Becca as a frequently journeyed site by pilgrims and there was no place in his days nor before, to the point that certain commentators argue that what David is referring to is a place in heaven. This is ruled out by the fact it is refered to as a geographical location which Bible scholars have not been able to identify until now. Since pre-islamic times, Arabs identified Mecca originally as Becca as corroborated in the Quran.

One of the Becca's defining characteristics, per the Psalms is that rain collects in pools when it rains because of the hardness of the grounds, which isnt Jerusalem's case, besides the fact that people journey to it through valleys

"Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools".

Mecca is enclosed between valleys and Jerusalem, which is on a small range of mountain tops in no way can be said to fulfill these qualities. The Zamzam well is what made the location hospitable to the pilgrims. This is where the HB states that God openned Hagar's eyes to a well, in answer to her supplications

Gen21:18-9"Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation. Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water. So she went and filled the skin with water and gave the boy a drink".

This was God's gift to her, a means of sustenance for her settlement there in accordance with His plan and promise to make a great nation out of Ismail. As a side note, none of the wells of Beerseba or anywhere near it are mentionned as God-given. They are very distinctly described as the work of human hand. Nor is there any local tradition pointing to the existence there, now or in the past, of any divinely caused well. The only well made to gush miraculously in connection to Hagar and Ismail is in Mecca.

It is interesting to note also that by the time of the great rabbinic scholar and Torah commentator ibn Ezra, when every historian and religious scholarly authority agreed that the inhabitants of hijaz are descendants of Ishmael, he comments that the well which Hagar was miraculously pointed to prior to Ishmael's birth in Gen16:14 was originally called Beer Lahai, meaning 

"the well of him who will be alive next year..The well was so called because the Ishmaelites held annual festivities at this well. It is still in existence and is called the well of zamum". 

This well, present in his time and known accross cultures, is mispronounced as Zamum. Obviously no other well than that of Zamzam exists, where Ishmaelites ever held festivities prior to Islam. 

Some Bible versions say "Valley of Tears/ Weeping", and Beca means "crying" in Arabic as a reference to Hagar crying for Allah's help in the wilderness fearing for her son Ismail's life, as related in both the Torah and Islamic tradition.

Apostate prophet relives an epic era; Muhammad revives the lost monotheism?

In answer to the video "The Kaaba in the Bible: Debunked"

By the time of the prophet Muhammad, the assimilation of the Abrahamic legacy into the regional polytheistic systems was such that only a distant echo had remained in their minds from their spiritual connection to Abraham. Just as happenned to the Temple of Jerusalem that slowly became transformed into a pagan shrine and idols were introduced in it 2kings21 the prime symbol of monotheism in Mecca became thus radically transformed through pagan influence.

As the Ishmaelites, like the Israelites throughout their history, drifted from the original path of monotheism, the Hajj pilgrimage became a celebratory occasion, and the Kaaba was stocked with idols and false deities supposed to bring the worshipers closer to the One God, Allah, whom they believed in. Men and women would run naked throughout the holy precinct. Merchants from all over would travel to the Kaaba and set up shop during the pilgrimage. People and tribes from all over Arabia would make the journey to Mecca to take part in the festivities. But this annual pilgrimage was in greater parts disconnected from the Abrahamic practice 22:26-7. It was simply a time to make money instead of being charitable, drink alcohol, and commit immoral acts. The importance of the annual event perdured despite the corruption. It was maintained by those that settled in Mecca, and the Arabs of the entire peninsula that got attracted to it with time. These are the points brought to attention in 2:196-7. And then until v203 great stress is laid on the spiritual dimension, forgotten and neglected, of that occasion.

No other nation can be compared to the Ishmaelites' handling of their spiritual legacy and sacred shrine, than their own Israelite brothers. They could not maintain the way of their forefathers despite the constant sending of prophets to them to bring them back to the right path. When the Arabs were admonished and urged to reform, they qualified the warnings as

16:24,27:68"stories of the ancients".

These Ishmaelites vaguely recalled the Abrahamic ways, but found no other constructive argument in their opposition but by denigrating it as old and useless stories, based on its ancienty and supposed obsolescence, inaplicability to the current circumstances.

They never qualify these stories as "false".

It was in fact one of the Quran's oft repeated functions, to "remind" the people of the truth they were still somewhat aware of but that had been supressed by falsehood. The Quran openly states that

26:196"most surely the same is in the scriptures of the ancients".

It repeats, time and again, its role as the guardian and preserver of the truth present in the past scriptures. Along with Abrahamic and monotheistic practices known in pre-islamic days, going back to previous prophets, was the Zakat which the people knew they had to give away to the poor but rarely practiced or misused 19:30-31,54-55,70:24,Deut14:28-29,26:12-14, fasting 2:51,183-187,7:142,Deut9:9,Ex24:18,34:28,Matt4:2,Lk5:33-6 prayer that continued after Ibrahim established it in the settlement of the Kaaba 14:37,19:55,Dan6:10,Ps55:18,1Chr23:30 until it was disfigured 8:35, animal sacrifice, circumcision.

Other concepts propounded by previous prophets and which the Quran was reminding its addressees of, include the Resurrection, day of Judgement and accountability Matt13:24-43,1Kings17:17-24,2Kings4:17-37,13:20-1,1Sam2:6,Isa2:17,26:19,66:14,Ezek37:1-28,Ps71:20,Prov6:22,Prov31(see Rashi),Dan12:1-2,Quran29:36,54:36-9.

There are pre-islamic poems with clear eschatological connotation, some of them speaking of the resurrection of the soul, and Allah being the judge of mankind. One such poems is that of Zuhayr who wrote in his muallaqat

"Do not conceal from Allah what is in your souls, trying to hide it. Whatever is concealed from Allah, He knows. It is delayed and entered in a register and stored up for the day of reckoning, or it is brought forward and avenged".

Labid wrote

"every human will one day come to know his striving when it will be disclosed before the God what has been extracted".

See also the lines of al-A'sha evoking fear of the final accounting

"when the resurrected souls will shake of the dust".

The Quran and the traditions speak of the hanif remnants that tried preserving the monotheism of Ibrahim, and these lines of poetry might echo these marginal beliefs. The majority of the pre-islamic Arabs however rejected bodily resurrection and otherworldy accountability, the Quran repeatedly condemns this attitude.

This phenomenon is clearly seen with the "talbiya", the invocations the pilgrims coming from all over Arabia made during their rituals. Some of these have come down to us, referring to Allah as

"al wahid al qahhar rabb assamad",

while others clearly referred to the idols as subservient to him

"laa nabudul asnama hatta tajtahida li rabbiha wa tutabad"

or

"rabb al thalitha ukhra/Lord of the third goddess",

and others spoke of the One Lord of the last hour

"rabba assa'a".

All of this shows the multifaceted shades of idolatry among the pilgrims, some of them praising Allah alone, others associating with Him while maintaining Him above the intercessors, and others still referring to the day of judgement.

This confirms the Quranic statement that the original religion established at the sanctuary was Abrahamic monotheism. It got disfigured with time, polluted with foreign concepts, although it maintained a recognizable foundation of truth, which the last prophet came to revive. Sura 87, after summing up the pillars of divine truth, such as monotheism, intelligent design, resurrection, God's all-encompassing, intricate knowledge and sway over His creatures' affairs, spiritual purification through prayer and constant remembrence of God as being the ways to success in the Hereafter, it says that these are all concepts known, written and transmitted by the prophets, from Ibrahim to Moses.

All of these things were known to the people whom Muhammad was addressing over 4000 years later but have been neglected for so long that only a dim remembrance of them remained

23:83"Certainly we are promised this, and (so were) our fathers aforetime; this is naught but stories of those of old".

Muhammad revived the corrupted, obscured and forgotten way of Ibrahim

6:161"Say: Surely, (as for) me, my Lord has guided me to the right path; (to) a most right religion, the faith of Ibrahim the upright one, and he was not of the polytheists".

The climax of that revival occured when he entered Mecca triumphantly, cleansed the Kaaba of its idols and rededicated it to its monotheistic purpose. Prior to that physical uprooting, the Quran would remind the Meccans of their legacy and duty towards the Kaaba, in many verses beyond the scope of that discussion.

Prior to the rise of the prophet Muhammad and the retribution befalling the heedless Ishmaelites, idol worship continued to flourish and even spread to the centers inhabited by their Christian and Jewish neighbors, namely Najran and Yathrib. The Jews of Yathrib tolerated idol worship, coexisted with it, and finally befriended it so as to develop their trade with the pagan Arabs.

Although idolatry was important to the pre-Islamic Arabs, yet they did not develop any elaborate mythology around their gods and goddesses as did ancient people around the world such as the Greeks, Romans or Hindus. No trace of such things can be found in the pre-Islamic poetry and traditions. This fact further indicates that polytheism and idol worship were not indigenous to the Ismailite Arabs but were grafted on to the Abrahamic tradition. One of such polytheistic influences came from Noah's descendants.

For instance it is documented in Arab history as well as the Torah that some of them -such as the branch descending from Ham- inhabited the region of Canaan. This Noahide branch reverted to idol worship. This is why in the HB these Noachide descendants of Ham, along with all pagan tribes including the Philistines who apprently knew God despite their perverted spirituality 1Sam4:7, were systematically slaughtered by the Israelites.

The Canaanites and Noahide descendants had reached the utmost of their spiritual depravation Gen15:16,Deut9 and had to be uprooted in order to make way for a new nation to be tested in turn. Archaeological evidence suggests that Canaanite pagan worship was ongoing on the location of what would later become Temple mount.

The Canaanite relatives of the Israelites, who are actually Abrahamic descendants, such as the Moabites descendants of Lot and Edomites whose father is Esau may very well have emulated their ancestors by worshiping YHWH.

Jethro Similarily proclaims to Moses that YHWH is greater than all gods Ex18:7-12. Jethro was a Midianite-Kenite (from Midian the son of Abraham and Kenite from Cain whose descendants lived among all the people of the Levant).

That monotheism preceding the arrival of the Israelites in Canaan was corrupted with time, as happened to the Israelites themselves. These non-Israelite Abrahamic descendants grafted their own evil inclinations and foreign religions to their original monotheism. These crimes made them unworthy of remaining in a land declared sacred by God and dedicated to monotheistic worship. The same would be done through the Ishmaelite prophet Muhammad, commanded to uproot, willingly or forcefully, those who had disfigured the religion of their forefather Abraham, who had perverted the purpose for which a settlement was established on that land of Mecca 8:34-35,53.

The Quran names the idols brought by these Noachide descendants, and the Arabs of the peninsula adopted them 71:21 among other gods mostly because of the Nomadic migrations throughout the peninsula. It is well documented archaeologically that most gods of the Arabian peninsula were introduced into the Southern kingdoms of Saba and Himyar in the 2nd century BC, through these nomadic routes. This also led to the Arabization of these idols' names. Some of these idols of Noah's times who were associated with the One God 23:24 include the Nisr, which is the "vulture-god". It was worshipped all throughout the Middle East, whether it went by this name or another. After Noah, generations after generations kept returning to polytheism all the while they worshipped the One supreme God 23:31-44,11:53-4,46:21-2.

The names of these idols were thus preserved, just as the Israelites in their books carried on the name of Baal and other regional gods whom they started worshipping again at different portions of their history. The Meccans were thus originally monotheists, who lapsed into idolatry. Just as the Israelites lapsed into idolatry as recounted in the Hebrew Bible even intermarrying with polytheist Canaanites.

Apostate prophet unveils early Arab gullibility; monotheistic conspiracy in Hijaz?

In answer to the video "The Kaaba in the Bible: Debunked"

In the pre-Islamic poems of the likes of Jiran al-'Awd or Umayyah ibn Abi as-Salt, the hanifiya, "the way of Ibrahim" as he said, is mentioned by name and Ibn Ishaq quotes it in connection with the Yemenite ruler Abraha's attack on the Kaaba. Sirmah ibn Anas of the Banu Adyy ibn Al Najjar was another hanif, per the work of Isabah, that renounced idolatry and became a hanif and that he worshipped only the God of Abraham.

There are countless sources that connect Abraham with the Arabs and those that desired to return to his ways, without any connection to Jewish and Christians ways, were considered hanifs. None among the Arabs ever contended with such facts. This whole tradition revolved especially around the legacy of the Kaaba.

The ARAB (although later transmitted by Muslims) tradition on this point is so strong and of such old standing that the Quran every now and then refers to it as a matter of undoubted history, and the Arabs never contended with it. There isnt any trace of the Arabs tracing their genealogy to anyone else than Ismail. Islam didn't show up and made them believe this massive conspiracy by first causing a general blackout.

The onus is on the revisionists and critics of Islam to establish that what the Arabs believe is their identity is not true or that they identified themselves as anything else than Ishmaelites prior to Islam. There is a peculiar feature of those Ishmaelites of the Hijaz in that one finds rare occasions of them testifying to their ancestry. Instead it is the non-Muslim writers of the early days of Islam that emphatically do so. This is because these Ishmaelites, contrary to most people of the region and beyond, lived in insularity, rarely in conflict with their neighbors. They did not need to affirm their identity and territorial borders, nor boast of the greatness of their armies and battles they would have fought against invaders. The objections and calumnies of Islam's enemies among the Arabs -whether aimed at the the prophet's personality or his message- are reported and can be seen by anyone today, both in and out of the Quran. No eyebrow was raised as regards the Abrahmic connection to the Kaaba, yet it was the focal point and core of Muhammad's prophetic message.

The same is the case concerning the monotheistic origin of some of their most highly revered rituals, although at the time stained with idolatrous practices. It is also interesting noting that although Abraham is clearly pictured as having been to and prayed at the Kaaba where he had settled a place of monotheistic worship together with his son, yet this is never done in a polemical tone against the b‪elievers of the Judeo-Christian tradition. It is thus inevitable that traditions about Abraham relating him to Mecca and its sanctuary were current in the peninsula well before the rise of Islam. 

As appropriately noted by Goudarzi 

"It is well known that Ishmael did not occupy a prized position in late-antique Jewish or Christian thought. For Jews, he was an outcast, excluded from Abraham’s household and inheritance, a man of the desert who was worthy neither of the land nor of the law that was given to Isaac’s descendants. For Christians, Ishmael was above all the son of Abraham “according to the flesh” but not the spirit, the son of the slave woman who inherited the servile state of his mother, and therefore a type for the spiritually incapacitated Jews toiling under the burden of the law. Jewish and Christian writers depicted Ishmael as a foil for their beloved Isaac, a potential rival who resorted to violence and persecution, a man guilty of idolatry and sexual misconduct— whose menacing ambitions were nipped in the bud thanks to Sarah’s timely intervention". 

All these perverted and corrupt ideas were well established in the historical background of pre-islamic Arabia. The prophet Muhammad, or any Arab prior to Islam, had nothing to win in terms of credibility or eminence in the eyes of Jews and Christians by supposedly inventing family ties to Ishmael. Even the covenant of the land, as stated in the Torah, is open to any non-Israelite convert. Also, nowhere does the HB restrict the covenant of prophethood to the descendants of Abraham, be it Israelites or Ishmaelites. The notion of the Arabs or the prophet resorting to a radical re-shaping of their ancestry to gain any kind of legitimacy in relation to the people of previous scriptures is therefore not only improbable given the scale of the conspiracy but mainly useless and even counter-productive.

The question one should be asking one's self is how could Muhammad actually pass off the Kaaba as being built by Ibrahim, if the Arabs did not already believe it considering that Arab tribes had since antiquity been paying extensive homage to the Kaaba and its rites? It is the height of absurdity to say that in any culture, one would manage to fake not only his own identity but also that of an entire nation without anyone raising an eyebrow. This is worth emphasizing; for nothing was more obnoxious to an Arab than to ascribe a false or imaginary ancestry to him. Arab culture had such pride in its ancestral origins that when the Quran wanted to give a point of reference to how intensely Allah should be praised, it evoked the remembrance of their forefathers which Allah's remembrance must surpass 2:200. Despite the effects of modernism and the loss of oral culture, some Arabs even today still keep their ancient family trees that date to the time of Prophet. The Quraysh, the prophet's own tribe, was respected among the Arabs not only because it ruled over Mecca but also because of the nobility of its lineage. To come and argue that the prophet fabricated it is very unrealistic.

Even if we disregard these facts and suggest that the Arabs had a memory lapse, why would a people who had forgotten their common ancestor, accept the ancestor of another people as their ancestor too because the latter stated so, thus not only puting in question their identity but also compromising their claim on their prime religious site and by extension the economical benefits of being its custodians? Such an illegitimate attack on a people's known identity and its ancestral worship sites would have met with universal resistance, both from the preexisting idolatrous population of Mecca as well as from the Arab tribes.

Critics of Islam ignore these simple observations, forget that the starting point of studies on the Arabs concerning their origin, culture and religious identity should start from their own sources. This is a well-recognized modus operandi in ethno-historical studies of a group of people.