Islam Critiqued trusts his Bible; True location of Paran?

In answer to the video "Abraham and the Kaaba: From Borrowed Stories to Sacred Scripture"

Lets start with the mountain where the Torah was revealed. It is often placed in the Sinai peninsula, yet we read in Gal4:25 that Mt Sinai is in Arabia. By his time, Hellenistic geography applied the term Arabia to the Peninsula as a whole. It was therefore easy to imagine the inhabitants of the inner Arabian desert also as Ishmaelites. The location of Horeb and Mt Sinai in the Sinai peninsula instead of the Arabian peninsula originated in the 4th century. Christian authorities of the time created several such fictious holy sites for pilgrims throughout the empire because of the massive revenue it generated for the Church and local areas. 

There are no maps from the 1st century that delineate Arabia, all that is available are accounts of geographers, historians, and contemporary travellers. Until Hellenistic times, only the northern part of the Arabian Peninsula was referred to as "Arabia". But as the Greek explorers began mapping the shores of the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden, the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf, they extended the name to the entire Peninsula. What is of interest here is the area around central Saudi Arabia, more particularily the Hijaz which borders to the north the ancient land of Canaan, Moses and the Israelites' final destination following their desert wandering. There is a reason why the location of "Sinai", the place associated with the most momentous miracles witnessed by an entire nation has never been located yet. People have simply been looking in the wrong place. 

"Sinai" is an Arab location and an Arabic word known to the descendants of Ishmael under 2 variations saynaa' 23:20 and sineen 95:2. It further is interesting to note, the verse 23:20 speaks of a tree yielding oil pleasant to eat, in reference to olive oil. In Saudi Arabia, even today, wild olives grow high in the Hijaz mountains, stretching from Jabal Radhwa (West of Medina) to Jabal Fayfa near the Yemen border. The largest population is concentrated between Baljurshi, 300km south of Mecca, to Al Namas further south. Many trees can be seen there even today having large trunks and are probably over a 1000 years old.

The desert of Paran where Ishmael was settled Gen21 is equally associated with Mt Sinai (Numbers10), again reinforcing the fact that the correct location is Arabia.

Ex3:1 plainly identifies Mt Sinai/Horeb as being in Midian. That is where Moses at the beginning of his herding job was tending to Jethro's flock. This place could not have been in the modern Sinai peninsula since Moses' refuge in Midian is qualified as being outside of Egypt Ex2:15,4:19. The name of his Midianite son reflects this fact

Ex18:3"named Gershom, because he [Moses] said, "I was a stranger in a foreign land".

He would have never returned to Egypt, much less with a whole flock of sheep at that point. His return would only occur later on when God told him to do so. Later as he led his people out of Egypt and was encamping at the mount of God/Sinai in the desert, Jethro came to visit the community and hear first hand the miraculous account from Moses, his son in law. He is reported to have converted and returned to his land to preach to his people Ex18. The implicit meaning as per the rabbinic commentaries is that he went to "convert the members of his family".

Obviously, Jethro wasn't the ruler of the whole land of Midian and further it is appropriate to refer to the wilderness as a foreign land within one's own geographical borders. In another instance in Numb10:31, Moses pleads with Hobab the Midianite (Jewish tradition says this is none other than Jethro) to be his and the Israelites' guide in the wilderness, prior to his return to his land and kinsmen. Again, there is a reason why he was very familiar with this wilderness, as a Midianite who would have no reason to wander around the Sinai Peninsula instead. As a side note his return to his land and kinsmen corroborates the Jewish commentary on Ex18:27 mentionned above.

IT would have been completely insane for Moses, accused of murder, to "hide" in Sinai, ie Egyptian territory with state mining activity throughout the region, meaning presence and movement of government officials and manpower. It would have been even more improbable for the whole Israelite comunity to "hide" in the same area, let alone wander in it for 40 years after having escaped their masters, along with their masters' precious belongings Ex3:21-22,11:2,12:35-36.

There is a reason why not a shred of evidence has been found for the massive wandering of Israelites in the Sinai peninsula. The Jews witnessed impressive, collective revelation and miracles at that location. So extraordinary and terifying their experience was that they never forgot it, actually even used and still use it to claim superiority over gentile religions. Yet even they have no idea where that location is, further showing how "truthful" and "preserving" they were of their religion and covenant they were entrusted with.

It is interesting to note here that the Quran states that following their ungrateful request for "better" foods during their desert march, Moses scolds them and tells them to 2:61"descend to Egypt, and you will find what you asked for". They were therefore wandering outside Egyptian territory (if one considers that the Pharao of the exodus was RamessesII as is most certainly the case), and the only vast desertic region that fits is the one in the Arabian peninsula.

The Quran in addition, in its usual pattern of narrating ancient stories and at the same time restoring the truth, states that the enslaved Israelite population was few in numbers compared to the Egyptians 26:52-6. The HB on the other hand Ex12, as well as Jewish tradition place their number in the millions, almost equalling the known number of Egyptians at the time. Besides the absurdity of captors being able to control and enslave, torture and humiliate with such a compelling manner this relatively vast population, no evidence has been found that Egypt, whose population was estimated at between 3 and 5million, ever suffered the demographic and economic catastrophe such a loss of population would represent. Nor is there the slightest spark of evidence suggesting that the Sinai desert ever hosted (or could have hosted) these millions of people and their herds. Marching ten abreast, and without accounting for livestock, they would have formed a line 150 miles long. Also, no evidence has been found that a large new group of people entered into Canaan during the post-Exodus settlement period, further dividing the land among 12 tribes.

In fact archaeological finds from the area of the Israelite settlement in Canaan display no connection between the area’s inhabitants and Egypt, which certainly wouldnt have been the case had the group been as numerous and overwhelmingly invasive as Biblically depicted. No archaeological evidence has ever been found of the migration of the Israelites from the wilderness of Sinai via the Jordan Valley to the fertile land of Canaan, as described in the Bible. The Abrahamic relatives of the Israelites, among the Edomites and Moabites inhabitants of Canaan, were natives to the land and no evidence suggests that the Israelites came from outside, as stated earlier. Although a limited number may have been taken captives by the Egyptians, most archaeologists now agree that the Israelite-Jewish identity arose from traditions that developed among the inhabitants of Canaan. It was not brought from outside by invaders. This doesnt mean the event didnt occur, just that it happenned differently. Ancient records are known to have sometimes been exagerated for story telling purposes. Besides other instances of blatant exagerration with the HB, as in 2Sam24:9 where the Israelite army numbers above a million soldiers, something unheard of in ancient times and very difficult to achieve even in the modern era, Herodotus for instance claims that a million Persians invaded Greece in 480 BCE. The numbers were undoubtedly exaggerated, as in most ancient records. But nobody claims the invasion of Greece never happened. It has been argued that the Hebrew word for thousand, eleph, can mean different things depending upon context. It can even denote a group/clan or a leader/chief. Elsewhere in the bible, "eleph" could not possibly mean "a thousand”. For example 1Kings20:30 mentions a wall falling in Aphek that killed 27000 men. If we translate eleph as leader, the text more sensibly says that 27 officers were killed by the falling wall. By that logic, some scholars propose that the Exodus actually consisted of about 20000 people.

Islam Critiqued flies over a complex issue; Abraham binds his only son in Jerusalem?

In answer to the video "Abraham and the Kaaba: From Borrowed Stories to Sacred Scripture"

Putting aside the fact that, in the presence of his older brother Ishmael, the literal, firstborn and legitimate "only son" could never, at any point, have been Isaac, another inconsistency resulting from the identification of Isaac with the son of the sacrifice is that the HB states Abraham had to journey from Beerseba where he dwelt with Isaac before and after the event of the sacrifice Gen21:31-34,22:19 to mourn Sarah's death in Canaan Gen23:2.

Was Sarah living away from both husband and son all this time or just after the sacrifice and why? Jewish tradition suggests she dwelt in Canaan before Isaac's near sacrifice since it is this news that sadenned her to the point it caused her demise Gen.Rabbah58:5. The only way she could have known of the incident while in Canaan was if Abraham and Isaac had left for the location of sacrifice (ie Moriah) from Canaan itself. However we are told Abraham and his "only son" left for the sacrifice from Beerseba, not from Canaan. And by the way, it would have never taken Abraham 3 days to reach Moriah in Jerusalem, from his location near Hebron, which is less than a day's walk.

The only way for all these conflicting elements to come together is to say that Abraham had left alone from Beerseba to the location where he had settled his "only son", and from there to the location of the sacrifice. The Quran and the traditions say he left to Mecca where he had settled his firstborn Ismail, and from there to Marwah nearby, for the sacrifice. Interestingly, this Marwah which the the HB calls "Moriah" is located in 2Chron3 in Jerusalem and yet when David purchases the site later on from a Jebusite, neither the writer, David, the owner, the angels, nor God or any prophet make a connection between that site, and one of the most significant locations to Judaism, the place where the event of the near sacrifice occured. Instead it is simply labelled the "threshing floor" of the future Temple.

Islam Critiqued needs Mecca for himself; Muslims doing hajj in Petra?

In answer to the video "Abraham and the Kaaba: From Borrowed Stories to Sacred Scripture"

The Quran speaks of specific communities and incidents in relation to Mecca and the Kaaba with no evidence as happening anywhere but in Mecca at the time of revelation.

It in addition names places surrounding Mecca and the Kaaba, well known then and still identified today, like Arafat, Mash'ari haram, Juranah about 6hours walk from Mecca, where was located the farthest mosque in relation to the Kaaba, where the prophet used to stop and pray in the mosque that was by the spring and encouraged the Muslims to begin their minor pilgrimage (umrah) from that place until they reached Mecca. There were of course wells and springs where the Meccans went for their water supply. Some of these wells were in the city, dug long into the pre-islamic times, others on the city's outskirts, and others further still. One of these relatively distant water sources for instance is the one in the valley of Khumm, between Mecca and Medina, given the same name by Kilab ibn Murrah who dug it long before the prophet according to the Islamic tradition. Water is still available at the place and is called Ghadir Khumm. It was a frequent passing point for the Muslims and the prophet, who according to the Shia tradition, named Ali as his successor at the spot. Water supply was certainly not plentiful and easily available, so much so that those in charge of the siqaya/providing water to pilgrims were highly regarded. Although scarce, rain fell nevertheless on Mecca, even sometimes to the point that the precincts of the Kaaba would be flooded, it happens still nowadays. This in fact is a known factor to have caused degradation to the edifice of the Kaaba throughout time. The Quraysh would gather this water in reservoirs to make sure their water supply wouldnt run dry for themselves and the yearly pilgrims.
The cave of Hira is another of those places found in the early historical records, described in a manner corresponding to a specific location in Mecca. It is about a 2hours walk on the nour mountain, outside of which one can oversee Mecca, as well as Safa and Marwa.

The word "jabal" describing Safa and Marwa in Arabic applies to any rocky elevation, small or big. The Quran for instance speaks of Ibrahim scattering chopped off pieces of a bird on surrounding jabal 2:260. Abraham wasnt going around climbing up mountains and leaving a piece of bird on each. It is also clear from the description of Hagar's ordeal, running between safa and marwa then standing successively on top of one jabal, then the other. She obviously wasnt going along climbing mountains in the desert heat.
No place in the world was refered to as Mecca, other than present day Mecca. That is not to mention the battles of Badr and Uhud, among many other specific locations where battles occured, where native tribes were met, their names and dialogues recorded, as well as the plethora of traditional records, authentic or else, isolated or known, all speaking of places and people that cannot by the furthest strech of the imagination be placed anywhere else than where they are currently located.

There isnt the slightest hint at a conspiracy the scale of which would have been required to put into place such a massive rewrite of history. Neither is there evidence for a large conspiracy to rename Mecca and all these places, nor is there archaeological support for these places being anywhere but in Mecca.

The Quran for example denounces the Arabs' idol worship and practices like animal sacrifice repeatedly, occuring in places it names in and around Mecca 2:256-7,5:3,90,16:36,22:30. All these practices were banned long before Islam by the Byzantines in the northern area of Arabia Petrae, meaning they couldnt have occured there at the time of the revelation of these condemning verses.

This type of claim runs along the same lines as others who argue that the original qibla faced Petra to the north of Arabia, instead of the Kaaba in Mecca. Early Muslims, and those of Mecca in particular had a fair idea about the orientation of several astronomical phenomenon (sunrise or sunset during equinoxes, solstices, Pole star, Canopus etc) in relation to the Kaaba and used them to orient their mosques towards their respective qibla. They knew that when they stood in front of the edifice, they were facing a particular astronomical direction and reproduced the same alignments in their new location as if they stood directly in front of a particular Kaaba segment. Iraqi mosques aligned towards the winter sunset, ie facing the northeast wall of Kaaba. In Fustat, Egypt it faced the winter sunrise, ie facing the northwest wall of Kaaba. None of those mosques faced Jerusalem or northern Arabia.
 

Why would the entire Muslims community, a cluster of highly unruly and disunited tribes and clans, linked together only by their religion, living since times immemorial in this unnamed mysterious northern place, suddenly accept to be uprooted from its sacred location, where its prided history, cultural, economic attachments are all found, and accept relocating in a barren and isolated area. How could such a move pass unnoticed in the oral tradition. Even if every Muslim alive at the time of the alleged move vowed to keep it secret, how likely is it that the next generation of Muslims would not have leaked multiple versions of the story into the hadith? 

The years following the prophet's death were times of great political and sectarian turmoil. Each group, spread geographically gave religious and legal authority to their figures, rejecting the legitimacy, beliefs, and practices of others. From the partisans of Ali in Kufa, to the Umayyads in Damascus, to the proto-sunnis that claimed to follow the schools of Mecca, Medina and Iraq or the Omani Kharijites. This led to the development of independent and various traditions. And yet the single thing they all agreed upon was the Quran and the Meccan qibla, the prophet's birth in Mecca, his death in Medina and the vast majority of the essentials of the religion. This unified tradition can only be rooted at a time where the community was united under their prophet and uncontested leader. Recent archaeology has revealed inscriptions dated to the first and 2nd centuries after hijra around Medina speaking of a Kaaba and masjid-al haram (al maghtawi). 

There are even earlier open mosques in the Negev area, none of them are oriented towards northern Arabia or Jerusalem and all of them are aligned to Canopus thus facing the northwest wall. Some more recent polemicists, the likes of Gibson, stubbornly insisting on such flimsy claims have deceptively tried using satellite images of mosques to make them appear as if they face the Petra region. The flaw in that method is that, as anyone familiar with mosques knows, it is impossible to ascertain eachone's mihrab (a niche in the interior of the wall of a mosque denoting the direction of prayer for worshippers in the mosque) except if one sees it from inside the building. One could just as easily align them with Hawaii rather than Petra. Even today, and within one and the same country, certain mosques face different cardinal points depending on whether they base their direction to Mecca on a flat map, or on the shortest distance around the globe. Among other flimsier claims are those of Crone and Cook, misquoting Jacob of Edessa so as to make it appear as if the Muslims prayed towards Jerusalem in the early 8th century. The actual quote refutes their distortions and confirms Muslim historical accounts;

"The Jews who live in Egypt, as likewise Mahgraye (the Syriacized form of muhajirun, in reference to the invading Muslim Arab immigrants) 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 Kʿabah (K‘bt'). And those Jews who are in the south of Jerusalem pray to the north; and those in Babylonia and nhrt' and bwst' 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 the south that the Jews and Mahgraye here in the regions of Syria pray, but towards Jerusalem or Kʿabah, the patriarchial places of their races".

Robert Hoyland further observes that

"Jacob had studied in Alexandria as a youth and so would have been in a position to observe the Muslims there at first hand, which makes his testimony particularly valuable. His information about Syria is also likely to be accurate, for there were Muslims resident in Edessa while he was bishop of that town. What he makes abundantly clear is that the intention of the Muslims was to direct themselves towards a specific site, which they called the Ka'ba. This is presumably to be identified with the "House of God," "the locality in the south where their sanctuary was," which is mentioned by Jacob's contemporary, John bar Penkaye, a resident of north Mesopotamia".

The list of empty claims, sensational conspiracies and revisionism of established history goes on and on. And yet, the language of the Quran itself, its consonantal text is in the old Hijazi. That Arabic dialect is attested in the Hijaz region from about the 1st to the 7th centuryCE. 

Other humorists, have proposed similar massive conspiracies, citing Quran verses describing locations and landscapes apparently nowhere near Mecca's surroundings. It is well known and established that Mecca was a seasonal city where people flocked in during the pilgrimage period only. 28:57 refers to this fact, that it is a safe sanctuary by God's grace, where people flock in and bring in it thamaraat/produce of all kinds. All year long outside this pilgrimage season where people brought in their goods, the caravans of the Arabs and the Quraysh had to travel outside the Peninsula to the north, to Syria and Jordan to do their trade. They passed through all types of landscapes along the way especially in the more lush areas of the north

23:17-20"..then with that rain We caused vineyards and palmgroves to spring up in which you have plentiful of fruit that you eat. As well as the tree that springs from mt Sinai producing oil and relish for the eaters".

They were also familiar with agriculture and rich farming lands, such as those of Ta'if, famous for its grapes, pomegranates, figs etc, and located less than a 100km from them. It is to be noted that since the earliest revelations, the Quran was a message, not only addressed to the Meccans but to

42:7"the mother city and those around it".

Umm al qura/mother city refers to Mecca being a center point of pilgrimage for the cities around it. There was no mother city in anyway shape or form in northern Arabia at the time, and Petra had gone into decline for long before Islam. These Meccan voyagers also passed through several locations where nations were known, prior to Islam, for having been destroyed. One of those locations was that of the people of Lut. The city of Lut is traditionally believed to be located somewhere along the Dead Sea, between Israel and Jordan, is said to be a frequent passing point of those people addressed by the Quran

37:133-8"And Lut was also of the messengers...you pass by their ruins by day and by night".

On their northern trips, the Meccans passed this location "by night and by day". Notice the clear Quranic words, not "daily and nightly". The verse 11:89 as a side note is quoting the prophet Shuayb, the Midianite 11:94,29:36-7 telling his people about the land of Lut not being far away. Midian is to the north of the Hijaz.

Islam Critiqued finds comfort in discredited scholarship; Yehuda Nevo?

In answer to the video "Abraham and the Kaaba: From Borrowed Stories to Sacred Scripture"

In the mid-seventies, Crone and Cook, 2 orientalists, stated

“There is no hard evidence for the existence of the Koran in any form before the last decade of the seventh century, ...”

adding that in the 2nd century of hijra the textual state of the Quran

“... may have differed considerably in content from the Koran we now know”.

Both were echoing the views of Wansbrough who believed the Quran was not completed until the 3rd century of hijra at the earliest. It is worthwhile noting John Wansbrough himself stated that

"of genuinely textual variants exhibiting material deviation from the canonical text of revelation, such as are available for Hebrew and Christian scripture, there are none".

His contemporary, John Burton (1977) contended that Muhammad himself had already established the final edition of the consonantal text of the Quran. Nöldeke himself once commented that the Quran

“is the work of Muhammad, and as such is fitted to afford a clue to the spiritual development of that most successful of all prophets and religious personalities".

Wansbrough also espoused a massive conspiracy about Islam being the product of the Mesopotamian clerical elite that wrote Muslim history as they adopted Judeo-Christian beliefs. Such fantasies, purely conjectural by Wansbrough's own admission were nevertheless parrotted by polemicists with even weaker theories.

One such candidate was Yehuda Nevo who could not grasp why Muhammad's name was absent from a monotheistic rock inscriptions in the Negev desert (600km away from where Islam originated!). He did not even conduct research closer to Islam's origins, like Mecca or Medina. Also, the early Muslim generations lacked any interest in architectural works, especially when it came to mosques, making the lack of early Islamic inscriptions that mention Muhammad a red herring. Nevo, and the editor who compiled the work of this amateur archaeologist posthumously, Koren, argue that Muhammad, the early caliphs and the entire list of Muslim conquests were invented myths. Muhammad isnt the name of a specific prophet but of "a praised one", in reference to prophets in general. It was an anti-Christian propaganda that originated in Abd-al malik's era, to counter the notion of God having a son.

 No reasonable explanation is given for the reference of a Saracen prophet in the Doctrina Jacobi dated to the 630s. Most scholars continue to regard the Doctrina Iacobi as the earliest known non Muslim piece of writing to claim that the teachings of an Arabian prophet provided the impetus for the conquests. Near contemporary surviving Syriac manuscripts makes reference to series of incursions by “the Arabs of Muḥammad”  into Palestine and Syria as well as their clashes with Roman forces. These two texts however, one named BL Add. 14461, and a brief historical notice penned by Thomas the Presbyter do not come as close to the description made in the Doctrina Jacobi of conquests inspired by a religious leader.

Robert Hoyland sums up how Non-Muslim writers of the first century AH (622-719CE) saw Islam. They

"attest that it was strictly monotheistic (Sebeos, John bar Penkaye, Anastasius of Sinai) and iconoclastic (anti-Jewish polemicists, Germanus); that its adherents had a sanctuary, their "House of God" (Bar Penkaye), of Abrahamic association (Chronicler of Khuzistan, Jacob of Edessa), called the Ka'ba (Jacob of Edessa), towards which they prayed (Jacob of Edessa) and at which they sacrificed (Anastasius of Sinai) and reverenced a stone (Anastasius of Sinai, Germanus); and also that they followed Muhammad (Thomas the Presbyter, Sebeos, Chronicler of Khuzistan), who was their "guide" and "instructor" (Bar Penkaye), whose "tradition" and "laws" they fiercely upheld (Bar Penkaye) and who prescribed for them abstinence from carrion, wine, falsehood and fornication (Sebeos). It is also noted that the Muslims held Jerusalem in honour (John Moschus, Arculf, Maronite chronicler, Anastasius of Sinai), were hostile to the cross (Sophronius, Isaac of Rakoti, Anastasius of Sinai), denied that Christ was the son of God (Isaac of Rakoti, Hnanisho, Anastasius of Sinai, Jacob of Edessa) and conducted their worship in specific places bearing the name masjid (John Moschus, Anastasius of Sinai). It is thus evident that the early Muslims did adhere to a cult that had definite practices and beliefs and was clearly distinct from other currrently existing faiths.
This is also confirmed by archaeology for the period beginning AH 72/691, when inscriptions proclaiming allegiance to Muhammad and his religion are found in abundance on buildings, milestones, rocks, coins, papyri, textiles and so on".

Continuing with Nevo's conclusions, Muslim lands on the other hand, were supposedly ceded peacefully and without any valid reason to their Arab vassals who werent even Muslim but pagans at the time. Arabian paganism to him by the way, was inexistant in the Hijaz and instead was extent in the Negev region. Of course, this is the only area in which he carried his archaelogoical flimsy research. The site in question, Sede Boqer, is instead seen by other scholars as nothing more than an agricultural settlement.

And then, as is expected, Nevo offers no explanation as to why would the Byzantines even want to happily rid themselves of vast slices of territories to those Hijazi pagans who adopted the paganism of another region. According to this massive conspiracy that went on completely undetected, the Byzantines themselves encouraged the rise of local heresies, like the Monophisytes, to sow hatred of the emperor among the population.

This policy was supposedly carried on for centuries under a complete governement cover up. in Gabriel S Reynolds's words

"Certainly many scholars will see Crossroads to Islam as a work of arrogance and folly".

Islamicists have considered the reality of the conquests based not on whether or not contemporenous proofs exist. Evidence rather lies in their aftermath, and meaning, which both Nevo and Koren deliberatly brush aside or werent aware of. Nothing other than Islam can explain the zeal and energy by which previously scattered and disunited Arab tribes have gathered together and occupied a vast chunk of the Byzantine Empire.

Along those lines of examples there is a mid 7th century apocalyptic history in Iraq speaks of the conquests of Egypt and southern Iraq. Even seen through the lens of the critical and skeptical school of Islamicists, Nevo's amateurish work betrays a political agenda.

Chase Robinson; "The problem of how Palestine became Muslim, if the conquest did not take place, is neatly solved by the claim that the Byzantines willingly withdrew, handling it to the not yet Muslim Arabs (The claim is preposterous, and no positive adduced)".

Due to his extreme and complete rejection of anything Muslim sources have preserved and reconstructed of Islam's origins, his work has been labelled by some who have taken the time to read it, as one of the most iconoclastic study of Islam. For example one of the major flaw in his methodology lies in that this leads him to exclude

"any later accounts that might be based on valuable but lost contemporary or near contemporary sources. Yet the bulk of Byzantine and Arabic historical writing on the conquests is made up of precisely such accounts, dating mostly from the ninth century and (scholars believe) based partly on lost Syriac and Greek Christian sources, some perhaps ultimately oral. The later writers include Nicephorus (eighth century) and Theophanes on the Byzantine side, and al-Baladhuri, al-Tabari, al-Yaqubi, and al-Kafi among others on the Arabic side".

When a non-Muslim source very close to the events, such as Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem speaks of the conquest, it is dismissed based on the circular argument that anything agreeing with the traditional account is unreliable. Nevo and Koren reject, repeatedly, all such sources. Deliberatly and without evidence. They do not interrogate their sources. Others from the skeptical school have equally stated, that even though radical revisionism might sometimes have benefits in that it allows one to sharpen the evidence in favor of a theory, such as with Holocaust denial, in this case with Nevo's work

"surely this book fails to cross it. Crossroads to Islam is so unsound — so uninformed in its welter of detail, so specious in the contrivance of its arguments, and so tendentious in its barely hidden agenda — that it’s hard to imagine anyone taking it seriously enough to reassess anything, except possibly his or her decision to pick it up in the first place" (Colin Wells).

This and other similar theories developped in complete isolation from the abunding early manuscript evidence (and much more awaiting publication), inscriptions on buildings, coins (Some early Islamic coins have been dated to 35AH/655CE), rocks, such as the recently discovered inscriptions dated to 78AH and containing the full shahada with Muhammad's name, papyri etc. all distibuted geographically from Cyprus down to Sanaa.

The sum of these scattered Quranic texts, along with the damaged and partially preserved manuscripts dating back to the 1st century hijri surpasses 90% of the current Quranic text. This wide geographical distribution of the Quranic text shows that the Quran was already codified and became a public property even a little before Uthman's standardization.

The Paris manuscript is dated from between 30-50 years after the prophet's death, meaning by people who lived with and knew him. In addition, according to Francois Deroche the manuscript seems to be based on another copy. We see again, the same pattern of empirical evidence confirming the traditional Muslim account on the compilation of the Quran. We see again, the same pattern of empirical evidence confirming the traditional Muslim account on the compilation of the Quran. Whichever way one looks at it, there is no reason to assume the Quranic text is any different of what Muhammad himself uttered. That is why, as a side note, one sees more and more the Judeo-Christian critics abandoning the idea of late compilation by unknown authors, admitting to the authenticity of the text, while maintaining that authenticity does not equal to what they deem as "truth".

Dismissing Wansbrough's theory for a late compilation of the Quran, as others did, Noseda in his research reached the figure of 80% by using 1st century manuscripts known to him.

The fact is that None of the revisionist theories are actually based on studies of the available manuscripts. As more and more manuscripts are coming out and being analyzed, the best explanation for their existence is none other than the Muslim traditional narrative. This is an accepted reality among the actual Islamicists who have analyzed the available, physical data. Nobody would make up a story the way Muslims did. Who would invent the story that their most venerated book, the pillar of their belief was not even written down and compiled by the hand of their prophet?

Instead we have the faithfully transmitted reports showing how the process was gradual and put into place by others than the prophet. Another thing to keep in mind is that western scholars, particularily the Christian critics approaching Islamic history, do so with a flawed methodology. Islamc did not rise in a lettered environement.

Whereas one must expect finding an abundance of Greco-Roman historical records attesting to the minutest details, let alone the spectacular events described in the NT, and yet we find none, not even of Jesus himself, one can certainly not apply the same standards to Islam. That is why most early physical references to Islam are not from Muslims but by the established lettered societies of the Christian empire, as Islam entered their lands with the first conquests. The more the Muslim society transitionned from an oral to written tradition, the more its history was put to writing. 

Further, as any historian knows, ancient physical sources deteriorated quickly. Subsequent scholars and historians had to constantly rewrite the material either based on actual sources or hearsay. Sources about Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great, seen as undisputable historical characters come centuries later. Diodorus Siculus wrote first about Alexander 265 years after the events, but we dont have the original. We have a rewritten copy from 1500 years later yet all historians accept it as a source for Alexander. What we have from Plato comes 1300 years after his death, for Caesar it is 900 years. Muhammad's earliest sira comes 200 years later by ibn Hisham who copied from ibn Ishaq. This genre is very specific about locations and events which can be corroborated archeologicaly today. Nothing can account for the available evidences other than the events described in the sira.

Islam Critiqued digs up Greek sources; the ancient Meccan town is found?

In answer to the video "Abraham and the Kaaba: From Borrowed Stories to Sacred Scripture"

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.

Islam Critiqued looks for the illusive shrine; the universal Kaaba?

In answer to the video "Abraham and the Kaaba: From Borrowed Stories to Sacred Scripture"

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. Much more could be said on that topic, specifically the true location of Mt Sinai but that is besides the subject of this video.

Islam Critiqued asks non-Muslims; no trace of Mecca?

In answer to the video "Abraham and the Kaaba: From Borrowed Stories to Sacred Scripture"

The Adnanites of whom the prophet Muhammad was a descendant, were conscious of Ibrahim having constructed the Kaaba. Hadith books, which are based upon oral tradition and oral tradition in any culture, precedes the writing of that tradition, abounds with evidence.

The pre-Islamic poems of Umayyah ibn Abi as-Salt speak of the trial of the sacrifice which Ibrahim and Ismail went through. All history is a 'written' attestation to an ORAL tradition, meaning written word comes AFTER THE FACT. Just because pre-Islamic history became written down after a certain time period does not predicate it never existed. History did not fail to exist, because it was not written down.

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".

Islam Critiqued needs secular views; any sign of Mecca?

In answer to the video "Abraham and the Kaaba: From Borrowed Stories to Sacred Scripture"

The Area around Mecca was a completely unexplored area, apart 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 mentioning it, besides the lack of inland explorations of the area by either Greek or Roman writers.

Outside the annual pilgrimage 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 immunity 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.

Mecca was therefore 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 artifacts 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. 

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 involving 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 amount 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".  

In an interesting Rabbinical exegisis, by the famous Saadia Gaon in the 10th century, the mysterious town of Mesha mentioned in Gen10 where some among the Semitic ancestors of Abraham had lived, is identified as Mecca. This could have been among the factors that led Abraham in returning to that location specifically to establish the Ishmaelite settlement. 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.