Mecca And Its Cube

ASSAYING GEOGRAPHY:

The “Petra theory” of Mohammedan origins has broad–though not conclusive–scriptural evidence.  Notable are passages in Islam’s sacred texts (regarding the landscape around the location-in-question) that describe a place very much like Petra…rather than anything that resembled the place in Arabia now called “Mecca”.  Bear in mind, the latter is located on the Tihamah: the barren coastal plain of the Hijaz.  In other words, it is a place that exhibits none of the landscape features found in Islamic scripture’s descriptions of the settlement’s environs.  80:24-32 in the Koran refers to cultivatable land–replete with flora and fauna (grass with grazing “an’am”; and even trees bearing fruit like figs, dates, and pomegranates).  This bears no resemblance to the barren, arid landscape of “Mecca”–which is primarily rocks and sand.

Petra, on the other hand, IS in a valley, by a river, amongst olive trees…AND would have been not too far from Sodom (and thus from the pillar of salt MoM passed on his daily strolls).  As mentioned earlier, per the Torah, Sodom was NOT in Arabia; it was near the banks of the Jordan River.

In the writings of John of Damascus during the last two decades of the Umayyad era (the 730’s and 740’s), he comments—with palpable incredulity—that the Ishmaelites were starting to suggest a novel place for the “aqedah” (Abraham’s binding of his son) in a desolate place deep within the deserts of the Hijaz.  He notes that this makes no sense, as there are no trees in the location that came to be “Mecca”, meaning that there would have been no wood with which to build the pyre.

In other words: The “Seal of the Prophets” in Mohammedan lore actually dwelled in a place that was clearly NOT the location in the Hijaz now known as “Mecca”–which, to be clear, is not in a valley, is not by a river, and for which the nearest olive tree is well over a thousand kilometers away.  (Interesting fact: There are actually no rivers in Arabia.) {13}

Abrahamic scripture offers more clues.  During his days in his hometown (retroactively designated “Mecca”), MoM–and the “mushrikun” with whom he was contending–were said to have regularly passed by the mound of salt that used to be Lot’s wife (near the site of the city of Sodom; per the Torah).  As the story goes, Lot’s wife was turned into a “pillar of salt” by the Abrahamic deity as she fled the doomed city–which would have been located somewhere in the Jordan River Valley near the Dead Sea; NOT in the deserts of the Hijaz. {9}  (She was turned to salt for the crime of turning her head to look back at the city as it was being razed.)

It seems, then, that MoM hailed from a place in the vicinity of the Levant.  Per the descriptions, “Arabia Petrea” would be the furthest south that would still make any sense for this storied event (though most people place the location of Sodom somewhere in Moab, further to the north in present-day Jordan).

As I discuss in my essay on the Syriac source-material for Islamic lore, while growing up, MoM sometimes accompanied his uncle on sojourns to places in Syria.  From Mecca, this would have been a 2-month camel-ride through the desert EACH WAY; and it would have likely gone through Petra.  This beggars the imagination.  From Petra, such destinations would have been only a fortnight away.  It is far more plausible, then, that the origin for such trips was somewhere from within the (Syriac-speaking, Arab) Nabataean / Tanukhid / Ghassanid domain than from deep within the barren sands of the Hijaz.  Another point worth considering: In the tales of MoM’s sojourns to Syria, we would have heard of the Syriac-speaking Arabs (i.e. the Nabataeans, Tanukhids, and/or Ghassanids) as well as at least passing mention of Petra (which would surely have been a major stop along the route).  We hear no mention of either.  This omission only makes sense if MoM was HIMSELF a Syriac Arab; and Petra was the origin of such sojourns.

Other Biblical passages indicate that this may have all occurred in the Jezreel Valley.  For instance, we are told in Genesis that Abraham erected his first altar “beside the oaks of Moreh.”  As the story goes, Abraham dwelled in Canaan (likely near Hebron): 1,220 kilometers away–as the crow flies–from the location that later came to be named “Mecca”.  If we are to take the traditional accounts seriously, “Abram” would have been an AMORITE.  Indeed, “Abram” was an Amorite name–as recorded in cuneiform by the Hyksos in Sinai.  At no point in his life would this fabled patriarch have been anywhere near where the Meccan cube now exists.

So if MoM was passing by the old salt-mound of Torah-fame on the daily basis, it means that he was residing in either the Jordan or Jezreel Valley.  The upshot of this is that, in the conventional Mohammedan narrative, the antecedent Hubal [Hu-Baal] shrine in Mecca is simply conflated with Abraham’s fabled shrine to Yahweh in Canaan, near the Jordan River…as if the former had originally been the latter…and as if the latter had been in the southern Hijaz all along.

Recall that the precursor to Classical Arabic script, Kufic, derived from the Nabataean version of Syriac.  This makes perfect sense if the initial center of Mohammedan activity were in the region that corresponded with Nabataea.

All this explains why no record for the fabled Medinan Constitution exists.  Considering that it would have been drafted in the 620’s, it would have been composed in Syriac…using the Nabataean alphabet…and probably NOT in Yathrib-cum-Medina.

It is interesting to note that the most frequently named places in the Koran are “A[a]d” (23 times) and “Thamud” (24 times).  The former is an un-specified place that was punished by the Abrahamic deity; the latter referred to the northern Hijaz.  It is safe to surmise that the Koran focuses primarily on an area that was not very close to the place that came to be called “Mecca”.  This indicates that those who first propounded the “Recitations” were most concerned with locations that either (A) only became relevant after the Islamic empire had spread or (B) were proximal to the original center of the Faith (what is likely to have been somewhere other than present-day Mecca).  Either explanation undermines the standard Mohammedan narrative. {10}

It might also be noted that Damascus, Tadmor (dubbed “Palmyra” in Greco-Roman), and Petra were the primary inland trading hubs in the Levant at the time.  Meanwhile, there were several ports along the Mediterranean–notably the Philistine port-cities of Ashdod and Gaza.  The Phoenician port-cities of Ashkelon, Siduna (now “Sidon”), Tyre, Sycaminon (now “[k]Haifa”), and Byblos had been trading hubs on the Mediterranean for thousands of years.  And the port-city of Caesaria Palaestina [Maritima] had been a trading hub since it was founded by the Romans in the 1st century B.C.

Farthest to the south (in what is now Yemen), the major mercantile hubs would have been the Judeo-Christian communities of Najran, Thoma, Ma’rib, and Azal (present-day Sana’a).  Zafar was the old Himyarite capital.  Eudaemon (present-day Aden) was a major port city.

When it comes to the Hijaz, the record is telling.  North of the aforementioned Yemeni hubs, only Ta’if, Yathrib, and the port-town of Jeddah (and sometimes the Jewish oasis settlements of Tayma and Khaybar) are referenced in mercantile documents up to the mid-8th century.  Khaybar would have been important, as it was on the route between Yathrib and Petra.  (The Tayma oasis was much farther inland.)  Other places were simply known for their wells (i.e. resting places for caravans)–as with Thanyat al-Murra (in the Rabigh valley, on the coast) and Badr (halfway between Thanyat al-Murra and Yathrib). {11}

But here’s the thing about Hijazi routes: It is a relatively straight shot from Tai’f to Yathrib; with no reason whatsoever to veer off to the location (over 80 kilometers inland from the Red Sea; i.e. from Jiddah) that is now called “Mecca”.  Such a bizarre route would have entailed an utterly pointless detour into the sweltering, barren Arabian deserts from the “Tihamah” (that is: from the far-more-hospitable Hijazi coastal plain along the Red Sea).  That’s why no such place (i.e. “Bakkah” / “Makkah”) is mentioned in the trading documents of the time.

Considering the location of these hubs, we find that the existence of Mecca makes very little sense.  It should come as no surprise, then, that the earliest map to show a trading hub called “Makkah” does not appear until c. 900. (!)  This is strange…if, that is, we assume the city was as significant in the 7th century as Islamic historiography claims that it was.

To get a complete picture of the region, other ancient hubs are worth noting.  I mention SIXTY of them in part 2 of this essay.  The list gives us a good idea of how extensive the Nabataean trade network really was around the time the Mohammedan movement would have begun; and shows how much has been elided ever since.

Archeology has discovered numerous maps of trade-routes in Arabia from the 6th and 7th century, NONE of which show a “Makkah”…or ANYTHING in that location.  The first passing reference to a “Makkah” in a document did not occur until c. 741: over a century after MoM’s death.  (See Patricia Crone’s “Meccan Trade And The Rise Of Islam” and Robert Hoyland’s  “Seeing Islam as Others Saw it”.)  Moreover, as we’ve seen, the quiblas did not start facing Mecca until after the Abbasids took power c. 750.

This is odd if we are to suppose that Mecca was what Mohammedan lore purports it to have been; especially considering the fact that the frankincense and myrrh trade from Yemen (up through Petra, to the port-city of Gaza) had been thriving since Classical Antiquity.

That a settlement in the location of present-day “Mecca” does not exist on ANY trade-route maps–EVEN ARABIAN MAPS–until c. 900 is actually unsurprising considering the logistics of geography.  If boats were docking at Eudaemon (that is: Aden; which was known for its frankincense and myrrh) at the southern end of Arabia, and then transporting goods up to Nabataea and Palestine (esp. the port-cities of Aela and Gaza), they would have simply sailed up the “Bahr al-Ahmar” (a.k.a. the Red Sea) to the gulf of Aqaba (rather than–pointlessly–engage in an arduous journey across barren desert for over 1,200 kilometers).

As mentioned, barring the oasis locals at Tayma and Khaybar, the only major settlements in the Hijaz that seems to have existed at the time were Yathrib (primarily Jewish; known for its silver) and Ta’if (which had its own cubic shrine, to Al-Lat), both of which were slightly farther inland (on the western Arabian plateau).  It would have made no sense for a place located where “Mecca” NOW IS to exist along any medieval trade route.

Note that there were three Jewish tribes residing in Yathrib during the 6th and early 7th century: the Banu Qaynuqa (who were known to be allied with the pagan Banu Khazraj) as well as the Banu Nadir and Banu Qurayza (who were known to be allied with the pagan Banu Aws).  (For more on this point, see Patricia Crone’s “Meccan Trade And The Rise Of Islam”.)

Being a nomadic Bedouin region, one would be hard-pressed to find anything in the Hijaz that would resemble what we’d now think of as a bustling urban center.  During Late Antiquity, the most that one might have encountered were mercantile hubs in the desert, which were agglomerations of long-term, make-shift settlements (tents and clay huts) along known caravan routes.

For further corroboration of the present thesis, we might even look to Islamic scripture.  In studying the earliest references to the fabled “Hijra” (the migration of MoM from his hometown to Yathrib-cum-Medina), Patricia Crone found that NONE of them used “Makkah” as the name for the point of origin; they simply refer to the Hijaz.  Such sources often mention several instances of “hijra”; and designate a place in the Levant as the destination. (!)  Moreover, the Islamic dating of years beginning with the year of THE “hijra” (as a unique event c. 622) does not begin until the 9th century.

Hence MoM may actually have been a “Mohammed of Petra”…which would mean that the actual man on whom the legend is based was not a Qurayshi Arab; he was a Nabataean Arab hailing from a place in a valley, by a river, amongst olive trees–as salient passages in scripture stipulate. {12}

It may well be that Petra was referred to as the place of weeping [Syriac: “Bakkah”] by the time MoM was born.  This would make sense.  For Petra had, indeed, incurred many tribulations during the 6th century–including a devastating earthquake that virtually razed the city.

There are other topographical clues.  In his Hadith, Bukhari mentions that MoM used to enter the city-in-question from the “high thaniya” and leave from the “low thaniya”.  Such routes of ingress and egress refer to cracks in the rock wall–something that makes no sense with respect to (what is now called) Mecca; but makes perfect sense if referring to Petra.  We might also note that the town of Humeima, which is referenced throughout Mohammedan lore, was only about 44 kilometers from Petra. {14}

Another point worth noting: Three Koranic passages (32:3, 34:43-44, and 36:2-6) contradict the notion that Abraham dwelled in Arabia. Each states that the denizens of the Hijaz had not yet received a prophet by the time MoM arrived on the scene.  (A bromide in Islamic polemic is that god had sent Abrahamic prophets to ALL NATIONS…except, that is, to Arabia…and, well, to every other region of the planet that wasn’t the Middle East.)  It would seem that even god himself (read: the authors of the Koran) were not aware that Abraham was supposed to have constructed the Meccan cube.