Greetings Johnathan,
I was wandering why you were asking this question, then realised that "its [Makkah's] central position in the House of Islam has lead some jaundiced-eye critics of Islam to even doubt its historicity.
If Mecca did not exist before the 4th century AD, then all of the pre-4th century Islamic what-can-only-be-labeled "tradition", goes right out the window. Let alone that the claims about Abraham, Hagar and Ishmael ever having been within 1,000 kilometers of where Mecca was eventually settled, are a demographical and geographical impossibility.
They say that history of Arabia has no evidence for the existence of Makkah before the advent of Christianity." From this link, which also gives historical evidence:
Thank you very much Insaanah. That's exactly what I was asking for in this thread.
Unfortunately the article begins by parroting what I have already proven is the false suggestion: "In fact there are references to the city and sanctuary of Makkah even in the Old Testament".
Otherwise there is only unsound presumption such as:
"Diodorus Siculus, a first century B.C. Greek historian while discussing Arabia writes;
“The people that inhabit these parts are called Bizomenians and live upon wild beasts taken in hunting.
Here is a sacred temple in high veneration among all the Arabians.”
"“
There is no mention of Makkah or Ka’ba in the books of the Greeks of antiquity except what is found in the book of Diodorus Siculus of the first century before Christ in his discussion about the Nabateans. In that he refers to Makkah and he writes, ‘And beyond the land of the Nabateans is the region of Bizomenians. And there is a sacred temple in high veneration among all the Arabs.’”
Your article even condemns itself by pointing out that there is only one historical reference. Additionally the Nabateans inhabited northern Arabia. It is usually 18th century English author Edward Gibbons whom Muslims parrot (that the authors you quote likely parroted), who jumped to the false presumption about Diodorus' writings being about Mecca.
The tribe mentioned lived in an area around the Gulf of Aqaba. Additionally, since there were pagan temples, and Kaabas with their sacred stones all over Arabia, there is no reason to believe this to be a reference to Mecca, as opposed to one of the
actual ancient temples, in
actual ancient towns, like the temple at Al-Ula near Dedan in northern Arabia, where she-camels were sacrificed in pagan ritual.
ancientamerica.org/library/media/HTML/21ctqqx1/Lihyanites The most Firtile Parts.htm?n=0
Another example from Wikipedia:
"Mada'in Saleh was recognized by the UNESCO as a site of patrimony[5], the first world heritage site in Saudi Arabia. The story of these people called the people of Thamud (including petra) is mentioned several times in the Quran along with prophet Saleh."
"A religious area, known as Jabal Ithlib, is located to the north-east of the site.[4] It is believed to have been originally dedicated to the Nabatean deity Dushara."
But could anyone imagine, that a false presumption about a single reference from an early historian,
could stand in the place of 3500 years worth of pre-4th century historical and archaeological record of Mecca?
Let alone that there were sites of pagan worship that were considered more significant than the Kaaba that the Quraish built in Mecca, as evidenced by the Quran's admission, that the Quraish continued to go on pilgrimage to other sites of worship twice a year even after Muhammad founded his religion:
Quran 106:1 For the covenants by the Quraish, 2 Their covenants journeys by winter and summer,- 3 Let them adore the Lord of this House,
You can ask this all you like, but will find many not interested in answering, because it's of no real relevance to us.
Historical and archaeological evidence
cannot be considered of interest or of relevance to Muslims because, as this forum thread aptly demonstrated, there is no such evidence of Mecca before the 4th century AD.
What is important, is the message of Islam. That God is One, with no partner or son, not 3-in-1, no incarnations.
Monotheism is not a religion in and of itself. Jews and Christians were monotheists long before Muhammad's followers. Jews for a couple thousand years before.
There was also a sect of Sabian monotheistic moon god worshipers. Simply because they were monotheists, didn't make their monotheistic worship of their moon god, worship of the one true God of the scriptures.
And we invite you to come to that same message that all the Prophets (including Jesus, peace be upon him) preached.
Peace.
But Muhammad's followers must reject all of the prophets and witnesses as revealed in the 1600 year record of YHWH to mankind, to follow Muhammad alone, through his stand-alone, heavily abrogated, 23-year, 7th century record.
Muslims have been taught to say that they "believe in Jesus", even as they must reject the whole subject of the Gospel, and His whole purpose in being made manifest to mankind, while denying the hundreds of verses that proclaim God the Father and Jesus His Son Jesus Christ, as articles of their faith in Muhammad alone.
This even as Muhammad proclaimed:
Sura 5:47 Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.
eace:
