Mecca And Its Cube

MORE HISTORICAL CONTEXT:

In addition to Patricia Crone’s “Meccan Trade And The Rise Of Islam” and “Hagarism: The Making Of The Islamic World”, Reuven Firestone has also done some interesting work on the subject of Islam’s origins.  Note especially his “Journeys In Holy Lands: The Evolution Of The Abraham-Ishmael Legends In Islamic Exegesis” (1990).  He then penned two follow-up articles: “Abraham’s Association With The Meccan Sanctuary And The Pilgrimage In The Pre-Islamic And Early Islamic Periods” (in Le Muséon; 1991) followed by “Abraham’s Journey To Mecca In Islamic Exegesis: A Form-Critical Study of a Tradition” (in Studia Islamica; 1992).  Also worth noting: Another alternate history of early Islam was provided by Yehuda D. Nevo in his “Crossroads To Islam”.  There is much to explore on this topic, and hopefully further work will be done.

Mohammedan scribes kept meticulous records of their conquests, but–while mentioning the conquest of Damascus and Jerusalem, never mention Petra.  The only logical explanation for this is that they were ALREADY THERE; so it was not a place that needed to be conquered.

Looking to the centers of power in the first centuries of Islam, we find further corroboration of the present thesis.  The notion that Petra was the original center of the Mohammedan Faith comports with the fact that the earliest Muslim leaders chose Damascus (and alternately Kufa, Basra, and Samarra), NOT MECCA, as their capital.  (Basra was originally dubbed “Prat d-Maisan” in Aramaic; “basratha” was the Syriac term for “settlement”.)  The capital was then Baghdad under the Abbasids…then Cairo for the Fatimids and Mamluks…and then Constantinople-cum-Istanbul for the Ottomans.  For Shiites, Qom and Karbala would become the traditional centers of the Faith.  Even the (Wahhabi) House of Saud–who eventually came to control Mecca–opted instead for Riyadh as their capital. {15}

What’s going on here?  There are, of course, many possible explanations.  But the fact remains that, from the 7th century, Muslims opted for virtually ever major urban center BUT Mecca.  This would make perfect sense if Mecca was not established FROM THE GET-GO as an auspicious place.  In other words: It was not consecrated as the “temenos” of Islam until later on in the Faith’s development.

(Abdullah ibn Zubayr’s dissenting caliphate purportedly operated out of Mecca from c. 683 to 692, demonstrating that Mecca was a viable option.  Nevertheless, even after Ibn Zubayr was ousted, the prevailing caliph, Abd al-Malik, opted to remain in Damascus.  The Umayyads, it seems, saw lands to the north as their home-base.)

The “Petra theory” indicates that “Islam”, the identity of post-Hijra Mohammedans as “Muslims”, the place now called “Mecca”, AND the prophet-hood of a “Mohammed” were ALL post-hoc confabulations.  Also note that the Koran is addressed more to the BELIEVERS (“mu’mineen” / “mu-minun”) than to “Muslims” per se.  In fact, the book is addressed almost ENTIRELY and EXCLUSIVELY to men “who believe”, as in 4:136.  That is even the title of Surah 23.

Meanwhile “muslims” is a moniker found mostly in the Medinan (later) surahs–typically in the form: “Bear witness that we are [of the] muslims” (where “mu-S-L-M” is a general descriptor that simply means “one who submits to god’s will”; noting that the appellation comes from the Semitic root, S-L-M).  Nevertheless, it is “believer” [“mu’min”] qua Abrahamic monotheist that is the operative concept throughout the book.  22:78 (a Medinan verse) is the only explicit declaration of the label “Muslim” in the Koran. {16}  Indeed, other “People of the Book” (like cooperative Jews, Samaritans, Mandaeans, and non-Trinitarian Christians) qualified as “believers” in the salient sense, as indicated in 2:62.  Even Abraham himself is described as a “mu-S-L-M” (one who submitted to god), as in 3:67.

Only once does the Koran seem to intimate “Islam” as a unique religion (3:19).  The eight other places the lexeme is used, it simply means “submission” (2:208, 3:85, 5:3, 6:125, 9:74, 39:22, 49:17, and 61:7).  This is a rather peculiar oversight for a tract the (purported) sine qua non of which was the formal inauguration of a refurbished–and distinct–Abrahamic Faith.  Yet it is in keeping with the archeological records.  The earliest (Kufic) inscriptions refer not to a leader of the MUSLIMS, but simply to a leader of the believers: “amr” of the “mu-mineen”.  Their dominion was the dominion not of anyone called the “Muslims”, but of the “mu-mineen”.

Also note that “mu-H-M-D” does not appear as a proper noun in the Koran.  The lexeme is used only four times (3:144, 33:40, 47:2, and 48:29) as a general descriptor (meaning “one who is praised”). {17}  The term was based on the antecedent Semitic tri-root “H-M-D”, which was likely used in Syriac to indicate a revered figure of some sort.

The two centuries it took for the now-familiar Mohammedan narrative to emerge in the archeological record (from the time of the eponymous prophet’s death) afforded ample time for virtually ANY apocrypha to gestate…including a revamped account that transplanted its hero from southern Canaan to the Hijaz.  The idea would have been to retroactively render him–whoever he was–a Qurayshi (rather than a Levantine) so as to depict him as the progenitor of the ensuing Arab (i.e. Umayyad) empire.  The point of this adjustment would have been to establish, for the first time, an Abrahamic prophet with a distinctly Arab (read: Ishmaelite) pedigree; using the banished son, Ishmael as a genealogical touchstone.  Such a post-hoc adjustment would have made perfect sense if the Arabians (and, even more, subsequent Arab leaders; i.e. the Umayyads) were seeking to posit an explicitly ARAB prophet in the Abrahamic tradition…thereby ameliorating any pending grievances about their (heretofore diminished) Ishmaelite lineage. 

To reiterate: This would have also involved retroactively rendering the cubic shringe to the moon-god, Hubal (originally established by the Banu Khuza’a tribe; progenitors to the Qurayshi Meccans) as the shrine to Yahweh that had been erected by Abraham two millennia earlier.

Such a narrative leap seems spurious to us now; but it may have seemed eminently plausible to the original target audience: highly-superstitious, largely illiterate Bedouins in the Dark Ages (i.e. those who wouldn’t have known any better).  “You know all those Abrahamic stories you’ve heard about?  Well, THIS is where it all happened.  Right here, in our own back-yard, the Hijaz. (!)  So, at it turns out, WE are the REAL chosen people.”  Thus the Ishmaelite lineage, not the one through Isaac, was the FAVORED Abrahamic lineage.

Presto!  The perfect recipe for a sumptuous Arabian etiological myth.  And the once-disgraced Ishmael is redeemed at long last.  Consider ayah 110 of Surah 3, in which the Koran’s protagonist proclaims that “You [believers] are the best of all peoples ever raised up for mankind…” and then ask: What sort of super-being–who purportedly created ALL mankind–is moved to say such a thing to one particular group?  (Of course, this verse was composed so as to furnish followers with the handy rationalization: “God chose US; for WE are his favorite!”)

So what of the emergence of a distinct Mohammedan creed?  Let’s answer this by looking at the sequence of caliphates.

The Mohammedan capital during the first three caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman) is, of course, the matter in question.  Legend has it that these caliphs operated out of Yathrib, which had been re-christened “Madinah an-Nabi” [City of the Prophet].  This is unlikely, as—contrary to Mohammedan lore—there were no major structures built at that location until the early 8th century.  Umayyad caliph, Al-Walid (r. 705–715) seems to have been the first to erect a mosque there (the Masjid an-Nabawi); which Abbasid caliph, Al-Mahdi expanded during his reign (r. 775–785).  The problem, of course, is that Saudi archeologists are about as common as Paraguayan submarine captains; so archeological evidence for anything on the Arabian peninsula is very hard to come by.

The veracity of the standard Islamic narrative regarding the Rashidun caliphs is up for debate.  The primary sources for these folkloric figures is Islamic material composed long after the fact by those who would have had a vested interest in the promulgation of said folklore.  Such accounts are therefore question-begging.  So who were the first four caliphs, if they existed at all?  Contemporaneous sources are very sparse.

Let’s start with Abu Bakr.  At the time, there was an Arab tribe in the vicinity of the Lakhmids (Arab vassals of the Persians) that was known by the name “Bakr” [ibn Wa’il ibn Qasit ibn Hinb ibn Afsa]; who were adversaries of the Banu Taghlib.  They seem to have lived as far north as what came to be dubbed “Diyar Bakr” at the northeastern perimeter of Syria.  That indicates from whence the legend of that figure may have come. {23}

And who were Umar, Uthman, and Ali?  Again, nobody can be quite sure.  Umar likely hailed from the Syriac city of Hir[t]a (not from Mecca, as Islamic hagiographies assert).  In the 720’s, Leo the Isaurian mentions an “Umar” (a variation on the Semitic term for leader: “A-M-R”) as the putative author of the Koran.  That was the moniker used for the name of the second caliph.

Uthman seems to have hailed from Ta’if, born to a wealthy merchant family.  (I discuss him more at length in my essay, “Genesis Of A Holy Book”.)

An extra-Islamic source from the late 7th century mentions an “Amir of Hir[t]a” named “Ali” who lived a couple years past when the Islamic patriarch is said to have died at Kufa.  (It was in Kufa that the Ali’d movement emerged.)  Accounts of Ali are especially muddled due to the highly partisan accounts of Sunni and Shia.

Of the four figures on which the (fabled) Rashidun caliphs were based, at least three seem to have hailed from Mesopotamia, not from Arabia.  (Ta’if was in the Hijaz.)  There is almost no record of their existence until the late 8th century, and only then from Islamic sources.  Most of the earliest information comes from the accounts of the Ibn Ishaq…material that was redacted by the Abbasid historiographer, Ibn Hisham of Basra in the early 9th century…which was ITSELF redacted by the Persian historiographer, Muhammad ibn Jarir of Tabaristan (a.k.a. “Al-Tabari”) c. 900.  The rest comes from the (dubious) Hadith of Shuab al-Iman, which was compiled by Al-Bayhaqi in the 11th century; and the (even more dubious) accounts of the Mamluk historiographer, Ibn Kathir in the 14th century.  We should keep this in mind whenever a “rashid” caliph (or ANYTHING in the standard Islamic narrative pertaining to the 7th century) is discussed.

It is worth noting that when the Umayyad caliph, Mu’awiyya ibn Abi Sufyan of Damascus came to power in 661, he minted coins that included both Christian iconography (crosses) and Zoroastrian iconography (a crescent moon and a star), something that would have made no sense in an Islamic context.  The former coins used Syriac script; the latter used Pahlavi (Middle Persian) script; as Classical Arabic did not yet exist.  Tellingly, Mu’awiyya adopted the moniker “khalifat Allah” [“deputy of god”], not “khalifat rasul Allah” [“deputy of the messenger of god”]; as the latter did not have any semiotic purchase at that time.  He was alternately referred to as “amir al-muminin” (leader of the faithful”) and “M-L-K” (the Semitic term for “king”).  The Byzantines referred to him as the “proto-symboulos” of the Arabs.  And when he wrote about the Umayyads in the 9th century, the Abbasid chronicler, Ahmad ibn Yahya ibn Jabir of Baghdad (a.k.a. “Al-Baladhuri”) referred to Mu’awiyya as “Khosrow of the Arabs”.  There was no mention of a novel Mohammedan religion.  {24}

During a visit c. 670, a Frankish pilgrim named Arculf wrote that the Saracen leader (Mu’awiyya) had erected a RECTANGULAR prayer structure on the Sakhra atop Mount Moriah (a.k.a. the Temple Mount) in the 660’s (per a Gaelic amanuensis, Adomnan of Iona c. 700).  Mu’awiyya ruled until 680.  The Dome of the Rock, an octagonal structure, was not erected until the early 690’s (by the Umayyad caliph, Abd Al-Malik ibn Marwan).  It is this latter structure that included an inscription that represented the inauguration of Classical Arabic as a distinct liturgical language. {25}

So going back to the 7th century, there is no evidence that things originated in the Hijaz.  We know that when Ali took over in 656, the Mohammedan movement’s home-base was Kufa.  (Did the caliphate LEAVE Medina to go FARTHER AWAY from Mecca?  This is implausible.)  In 661, the Umayyads took over, establishing their capital in Damascus.  In 744, amidst some strife, they relocated their home-base to Harran (in Niniveh), where it remained for their last six years in power.  Shortly after the Abbasids took over c. 750, official Mohammedan historiography began to be composed in the new liturgical language, CA (see my essay, “The Syriac Origins Koranic Text”).

Umayyad caliph Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan didn’t have sovereignty over Mecca for the first eight years he was in power.  At the time, the location was under the control of an amir named Abd-ullah ibn Zubayr of the Banu Asad ibn Khuzaymah (a clan of the Quraysh).  The Banu Asad spoke Nabatean Syriac (probably of the sort found on the Namara inscription).  It is THEY who likely invented the pilgrimage tradition to Mecca.

What was Abd-ullah ibn Zubayr doing prior to his decision to go to the Hijaz and assert sovereignty?  By some accounts, he’d held a post at either Basra or Petra.  After defecting from the Umayyads, he decided to set up shop in the location in the Hijaz now known as Mecca.  (Why there?  Possibly because it was near Ta’if, which may have been his hometown.)  It is possible that it was he who took the sacred black stone with him; and established the Hijazi site as the new temenos…replete with its own cubic shrine.

Meanwhile, the caliph (Al-Malik) designated Jerusalem as the temenos, and thus the qibla. (!)  That qibla held until 750, when the Abbasids came to power (and set up shot in Kufa).

It is telling that Al-Malik’s heir, Walid built his great mosque in Damascus, leaving Mecca (still) without a major structure.  And when Umayyad caliph, Hisham opted to build the kingdom’s greatest mosque, he did so in the newly established Palestinian capital: Ramla.  These would have all been odd choices had Mecca been considered the temenos.

The Abbasids promptly moved the capital back to Kufa…and shortly thereafter to Peroz-Shapur [re-christened in Syriac: “Anbar”] in 752…and then to a novel location: Madinat al-Salam [“City of Peace”; later named “Bagh-dad”, meaning “god-given” in Aramaic and/or Pahlavi] by the caliph, Al-Mansur c. 762.  That grand city was founded on a site that had been inhabited by Syriac-speaking Nabataeans (in the vicinity of the former Persian city, Ctesiphon).  This new capital was designed by two Persians (one Zoroastrian, one Jewish); and—intriguingly—was inspired by the “Apadana” of Persepolis.

It was probably around this time (the mid 8th century) that another new city was founded in the Hijaz: Mecca.  Meanwhile, the ancient city of Hegra was re-christened “Mada’in Salih” [“Cities of Salih”], based on Mohammedan legends of a prophet known as Salih (purported grandfather of Hagar).

It seems that it was the Abbasids who finally designated Mecca as the official Mohammedan temenos.  The decision may have been inspired by the deeds of (the aforementioned) Abd-ullah ibn Zubayr.  Ibn Zubayr had a history with Rashidun caliph Uthman, and—as legend has it—was appointed by Uthman to compile the “Recitations” (a matter I explore in my essay, “Genesis Of A Holy Book”).  Again, Ibn Zubayr was from the Banu Asad, who’s tongue was SYRIAC.  (For more on how the “Recitations” were originally in Syriac, see my essays on the Syriac Origins Of The Koran.)

So if Mohammed of Mecca (MoM) was a man who neither was named “Mu-H-M-D” nor was from Mecca, then who might he have been, and were might he have been from?  As I discuss in Appendix 3 of my essay, “Genesis Of A Holy Book”, at the time, this sobriquet (meaning “one who is praised”) was an honorific, not a given name.  So the question arises: Is there any record of an Arab cynosure in the region at that time who was referred to in this way?  As it turns out: Yes.

Lo and behold: The Lakhmid rebel leader in Hir[t]a (a.k.a. “Al-Hirah”), Iyas Kab-shah of the Banu Tayy [Kab-shah was Persian for “famed / honored king”] (rendered in Arabic “Ilyas ibn Qabisah al-Ta’i”) was a Syriac-speaking, Arab vassal of the Sassanians…that is, before revolting against his Persian overlords.  A contemporary of the Syriac patriarch, Babai The Great, he came to power in his own right c. 622…at which time he set up shop in…you guessed it…Petra.  He was known by the nom de guerre, “Mu-H-M-D”.  According to Thomas the Presbyter, a Syriac-speaking Saracen leader conquered Palestine c. 634.  He identified that leader as “Tayyaye of Mahmet”.  The Armenian historian, Sebeos alternately identified the figure as “Am[i]r” (leader of the Ishmaelites) and “Mahmet”.

Other documentation is worth considering.  For example, in the mid-9th century, the (Nestorian) historian, Ishodnah of Basra wrote about the events of the 7th and 8th centuries (where, interestingly, he referred to caliph Abu al-Fadl Ja’far ibn Al-Mutasim as king of the Tayyaye; not as the “khalifa”).

In Mohammedan lore, a post-hoc adjustment was made to change that migration (from Hir[t]a to Petra) to the fabled “hijra” (from Mecca to Medina).  According to Abbasid hagiographer, Ibn Hisham, it was Ibn Ishaq (c. 765) who first mentioned the “hijra” from Mecca to Medina.  That account was not written until c. 833.

There are other clues that folkloric emendations occurred.  The opening of Surah 17 states that god carried MoM from the holy shrine to the distant shrine (that is: from the “masjid al-hara[a]m” to the “masjid al-aqsa”).  (The term, “masjid” is from the Nabataean “masg-dha”, meaning a sanctuary or place of worship.)  This wording is telling, as it leaves things oddly vague.  It is quite possible that it meant “from Petra to Jerusalem”.  In c. 900, the Persian writer, Al-Tabari spoke of the “masjid al-hara[a]m”, describing it as being upon higher ground looking down over a river.  This could not possibly have been in the place now referred to as Mecca (there have never been any rivers on the Arabian peninsula); nor could it be referring to Jerusalem (there were no rivers in the valleys surrounding the Temple Mount).  What it DOES describe is a shrine that existed on the outskirts of Petra (where there WERE waterways).  And to top it all off, Petra was sometimes referred to as “Kadesh” (holy place) in Classical Antiquity.  That comes from the Syriac “Q-D-S”, which came to mean “holy” in Arabic (and eventually the moniker used for the city in which “the farthest mosque”).  If not for the present thesis, this would be an odd coincidence.

2:144 says to turn your face toward the “masjid al-haram” (noble sanctuary) rather than specifying Makkah / Bakkah or the Kaaba.  Such vague wording could refer to virtually any sacred space.  The author may well have been enjoining his audience to turn FROM Petra (the pagan temenos) TO Jerusalem (the Abrahamic temenos).  Otherwise, the author surely would have specified “Mecca”, to make it clear he wasn’t referring to JUST ANY “noble sanctuary”.  Indications that “masjid al-haram” may have been referring to a hallowed place in Jerusalem is the characterization of it as “my house” in the Koran.  The Temple Mount was always referred to as god’s house.  Moreover, the inner sanctum of the temple (the holy of holies, and thus the dwelling place of the Abrahamic deity) was a cubic room.

This alteration of the qibla would have made sense at the time, as the Mohammedan movement was likely seeking to eschew their pagan heritage, and divorce themselves from the legacy of the Nabatean cube.

Of course, the city of David would only do for the time being.  Indeed, Jerusalem would have needed to be a temporary fix, as it was affiliated with the legacy of the Jews and Christians.  The Mohammedans needed a unique temenos: one that was tailored to suit their newfangled Ishmaelite identity; and the city of David didn’t quite fit the bill. {25}  The Abbasids would eventually designate a Hijazi location (dubbed “Mecca”) as the axis mundi.  (Recall that the qiblas in all masjids did not start facing Mecca until after the Abbasids took control c. 750.)  In doing so, they would be forced to manufacture an etiological myth to justify that choice.  The modified Abrahamic lore would designate the recently-founded “Umm al-Qura” [“mother of settlements”] as the venue for the fabled “Akedah” (recast as the “adha” of Ishmael); as if that location had been pivotal to Abrahamic lore ALL ALONG.

That was not the only new city the Abbasids founded.  They rejected the city of Damascus as the seat of the caliphate, as that had been associated with the dreaded Umayyads.  So they built a new Islamic capital near the site of the old Ctesiphon, christening it “Bagh-dad” (Middle Persian for “god-given”).  That the city was named using Pahlavi rather than CA nomenclature is very telling (a matter I explore in my essay on “The Syriac Origins Of Koranic Verse”).  While Baghdad was being built, the Abbasids temporarily relocated the capital to Kufa (near the former Lakhmid capital of Hir[t]a), then to Anbar (which had formerly been known as Peroz-Shapur).  Tellingly, the onomastic “Anbar” was also from Middle Persian, not CA.

The Syriac-speaking Arabs of “Nabatu” (the Nabataeans) are not explicitly accounted for in Mohammedan lore.  This is further testament to the fact that those Arabs who became Mohammedans (i.e. the Ishmaelites / Saracens) saw THEMSELVES as part of the Nabataean peoples.  (This topic is explored at length in my essays on the Syriac origins of the Koran.)

What of the matter of Arabs conversant in the Abrahamic tradition?  Is it true that there were Jewish Arabs (i.e. Jews who were considered Arab) in Late Antiquity?  Yes.  In fact, mention of Jewish Arabs goes back to the late 2nd / early 1st century B.C., with the writings attributed to the Maccabean leader, Alexander Jannaeus, which recounted the wars waged against the Pharisees, Seleucids, and Nabataeans.  During this time, the (Syriac-speaking) Nabataeans (who were recognized as Arabs) lost territory in Gilead.  (Jannaeus overtook the Roman city of Gadara, which was located on the Nabataean frontier; and seems to have made it as far as Gerasa.)  Here, the the Sadducees were characterized as Arabs.

But wait.  Going back to Classical Antiquity, weren’t Arabs associated with the Arabian peninsula?  No.  Until the Middle Ages, the ethnic group (known alternately as Saracens or Ishmaelites) was associated with Nabataea: a region known in the Greco-Roman vernacular as “Arabia Petraea”.  This corresponded to the lands east and south of the Dead Sea, (initially known as the lands of Moab and Edom), in which Syriac was spoken.  Thus the etymology of the term, “Arab” has Greek origins; which makes it peculiar that the Creator Of The Universe dubbed his native language “arabiyyah” in the Koran.  To wit: The name for his language did not COME FROM his language.  While Arabic was based on Syriac, the NAME “Arabic” was Hellenic (that is: Greco-Roman).

In the 1st century B.C., the Greek historian, Diodorus of Sicily referred to “Arabia” in his “Bibliotheca Historica”; and even mentioned that the Arabs had erected a temple there.  And where, exactly, was that?  Diodorus describes a location in the vicinity of…you guessed it…PETRA.  In other words, he thought of Nabataea as Arabia—in keeping with the Greco-Roman label “Arabia Petraea”.  A century later, when Saul of Tarsus wrote (in his letter to the Galatians) that he went to “Arabia”, he was almost certainly NOT referring to the Arabian peninsula.  He was probably referring to this area—wandering in what was known as “Paran” (the Biblical “wilderness”, which corresponds to the Negev desert).

As late as the 7th century (AFTER the Mohammedans overtook the region), geographers were still under the impression that “Arabia” referred to the southern part of the Levant.  This is attested by the Armenian polymath, Anania of Shirak in his “Ashkharatsuyts”, where he explicitly correlated “Arabia” with “Paran”.  He even mentioned that this Levantine region contained within it the location of what the Arabs sometimes referred to as “Mecca”. (!)  How, then, did people refer to the Arabian peninsula?  It was called “Yoqtan”.  Meanwhile, the people of the Hijaz were thought of as OTHER, associated with “Thamud”.  (Note the legend of the Abrahamic prophet, Salih.)  Such alterity would not make sense of the originators of the Mohammedan lore thought of THEMSELVES as Hijazis.

The Christmas Eve sermon by Byzantine patriarch, Sophronius of Jerusalem in December of 634 (on the verge of the Arabs overtaking Palestine) described the conquering peoples as “the godless Saracens”.  Not only was Sophronius unaware of a new religion; at that point, the Arabs were not even known to be monotheistic.  Sophronius apparently still associated them with Nabataean culture; so thought of them as pagan.

During the Rashidun and Umayyad eras, the Mohammedans were referred to as either “Saracens” or Ishmaelites (“Sons of Ishmael”) by virtually everyone in the region writing commentaries or chronicles.  Their dominion was referred to as the Saracen / Ishmaelite kingdom; and their leader was referred to as the Saracen / Ishmaelite king (alt. “amir al-mu-mineen”; leader of the faithful).  The Syriac “Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius” from the 7th century is a case in point.

The etymology of “Saracen” is telling.  Those in the western Levant (what the Romans called “Palaestina Prima”) referred to the Ishmaelites as “Easterners”.  This was “Sh[a]-R-K[i]” in the indigenous language: Syriac.  That was rendered “Sarakenos” in Greek (by the Byzantines) and “Saracin” in Old French (by the Franks).  The Anglicized version followed.  Had the people in question primarily hailed from the middle of the Hijaz, this label would not have made any sense.  For, in that case, they would have all come to Palaestina Prima exclusively from the south (up through Idumaea).  The area dubbed “Arabia” at the time went from Syria (at its northern end) down to “Arabia Petraea” (at its southern end): a topic I discuss in my essay on the Syriac Origins Of Koranic Verse. {21}  Prior to the Mohammedan conquests, the Arab peoples were simply known as, well, Arabs (a topic I explore in my essay on “The Syriac Origins Of Koranic Verse”).  Tellingly, the “Chronicle” by Thomas the Presbyter mentioned a battle between the Romans and the Arabs of “the praised one” [“Mu-H-M-D”] in Palestine, just inland from Gaza, c. 634.  What happened?  “About four thousand poor Palestinian villagers were killed: Christians, Jews, and Samaritans.  The Arabs ravaged the whole region.”  Not the Muslims.  The Arabs (alternately known as the “Ishmaelites”).  There was not yet any identifiable new Faith, Islam to speak of.

According to the “Petra theory”, the Umayyad ruler, Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan is most likely the figure who (at the end of the 7th century) instigated the lore that would eventually coalesce into “Islam”–replete with nascent versions of (what would later become) the conventional Mohammedan narrative: MoM as the “Seal of the Prophets” (last messenger of the Abrahamic deity) who grew up as a Qurayshi merchant in Mecca.  It is at THIS point that we first catch wind of a novel Faith that is referred to “Islam”.

Only thereafter would “Islam” as a distinct religion be posited in contradistinction to antecedent Abrahamic traditions.  In such a case, the strategy is relatively straight-forward (from the perspective of the Umayyad caliphate): Legitimize the metastasizing Arab Empire via the declaration of a new Faith that was mutually exclusive with the Faiths of the (Zoroastrian) Sassanian Empire to the east AND of the (Christian / Trinitarian) Byzantine Empire to the west…not to mention distinct from the Faith of the Jews…even as it superseded ALL of them. {18}  The Nabataean roots of both Classical Arabic AND the “Kaaba” (as well as some of the newfangled Mohammedan lore) could then be disregarded entirely.

Concocting a newfangled religion by co-opting extant lore is a good strategy for controlling a populace.  When a new memeplex appropriates memes from antecedent memeplexes, it rarely announces that this is what it has done; as it likes to fashion itself as sui generis.  Of course, ALL memeplexes are derivative…even as NONE openly concede this fact.

So what of the emergence of an entirely new religion with a distinctly Ishmaelite pedigree?  Establishment of a religion is an effective way for a government to consolidate–and subsequently maintain–power.  Roman Emperor Constantine employed the strategy in the early 4th century–commissioning the fabrication of an OFFICIAL “Christianity”, defined at the Council of Nicaea in the spring of 325…then at subsequent ecumenical councils during the rest of the 4th century.  (That process culminated with the Edict of Thessalonika c. 380, whereby the official Nicene creed was rendered the IMPERIAL creed.)  Constantine retroactively attributed his vision of “Sol Invictus” [solar deity of triumph] to the Abrahamic deity.  The rest was history.

Making Nicene Christianity the official STATE religion proved to be an effective stratagem–as Emperor Theodosius would demonstrate 55 years later with the aforementioned edict.  The embryonic Israeli government would do so in the 20th century, pursuant to World War II–concocting a revisionist version of “Zionism” in order to justify the establishment of a theocratic ethno-State in Palestine.  Tragically, in all these cases, the ploy worked.

By proffering a potent enough ideology, rulers can get their subjects to go along with almost anything (see Robespierre, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Kim Il Sung, Pol Pot, etc.)  In each case, we find some version of Providentialism (a.k.a. “Manifest Destiny”), which invariably involves an ethno-centric worldview (and usually some kind of cult activity).  The Umayyad caliph Malik likely had a similar stratagem in mind.  This comports with the archeological evidence; as nothing is mentioned of an individual with a given name, “Mu-H-M-D”…or even a new holy book…until after his reign.  This indicates that a precipitous transition probably occurred around this point (the last decade of the 7th century).  Archeological evidence seems to support this.  Indicative of this awkward metamorphosis: A Byzantine coin dated to c. 647 had “Mu-H-M-D” over-written in Syriac, leaving the image of an emperor holding a cross in-tact (though with the visage erased).

In a seemingly careless moment, Malik even admitted that the Koran was created during his reign.  When he speculated about the time of his death, he noted that he was born during the month of fasting, became caliph during the month of fasting, and had the Koran compiled during the month of fasting; and so may even die during the month of fasting.  Why would he make such a statement if the task had already been completed more than a generation earlier–that is: during Uthman’s caliphate (as other parts of Islamic historiography stipulate)?

In this scenario, the material from which Malik worked may simply have been excerpts from an extant lectionary–recitations cobbled together in an ad hoc fashion from a potpourri of sources.  Even then, the content of the “Recitations” was–invariably–undergoing a metamorphosis.  For the earliest copies of what came to be the current “Cairo” version of Islam’s holy book would still not emerge until later.

And so it goes: The initial movement (under the aegis of the aureate Mohammedan enterprise) may well have simply been an Abrahamic revival movement.  Said movement was later appropriated by the Umayyad rulers after the fact–and subsequently codified in uniquely “Islamic” terms so as to distinguish it from pre-existing monotheistic Faiths.  This was done for purely political purposes. {19}

One of the snags in the “Petra theory” is that it makes it more difficult (though not impossible) to account for Abu Bakr and the subsequent two “rightly-guided” caliphs: Umar and Uthman–who were ostensibly denizens of the Hijaz.  (Ali is another story entirely.)  To wit: Pursuant to a Petra-based genesis, what would have been THEIR basis for succession?  Granted, the traditional accounts of these figures (the exalted “Rashidun”) could be a post-hoc fabrication–just another part of the hallowed folklore later used to legitimize the new imperialism.  This is not too far-fetched; though there remains much work to be done to account for such figures.

More to the point: If this were all true, how would the movement’s epicenter have eventually transitioned–logistically speaking–from Petra (in Idumea) to Mecca (in the Hijaz) between MoM’s alleged ministry and the Umayyad Dynasty…even as the throne of the Caliph ended up in Damascus?  This is unclear–unless, that is, the tale of MoM is a COMPLETE fabrication.

The only hypothesis is that the governor of Petra at the time, Abdullah ibn Zubayr (a Mohammedan), rebelled against the Umayyad caliphate (headquartered in Damascus) c. 683; and sought to relocate the Kaaba…which had been inherited from the Nabataeans in Petra to an alternate place.  Consequently, he allied with the Abbasids (headquartered in Baghdad), who eventually selected the Hijaz as the home-base of the new-fangled Faith.

Tellingly, it was Umayyad caliph Abd al-Malik (r. 685-705 in Damascus) who would be the one to build the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem (c. 691) and begin to assert a new Arab identity: an Abrahamic Faith with an Ishmaelite pedigree, replete with a new liturgical language (Classical Arabic).  To what extent “Makkah” was on the agenda AT THAT POINT–and how important a role it was playing IN THIS NEW SCHEME–is anyone’s guess.

We might note that the Battle of the Zab (c. 750) took place in Mesopotamia.  It was THAT event which ushered in the Abbasid era.  And it was the Abbasids who eventually relocated the focal point of the new religion to the Hijaz.  The Muslim historian, Al-Tabari (ref. “Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk”; vol. 20, no. 537) even goes so far to say that Ibn Zubayr destroyed the (original) Kaaba–that is: the one in his own city, Petra.

As it so happens, an entire year (year 70 after the Hijra; c. 690) has been redacted from Al-Tabari’s history, which would have been around the time that the Hijazi settlement at “Makkah” would have become the “temenos” for the new Faith…beginning with the (anti-Umayyad) imams of Kufa.

As it came to pass, it was in Kufa that scribes began modifying the (Nabataean) Syriac script–a process that would eventually yield Classical Arabic.  Sure enough: The first mosques with a qibla that facing the Hijazi “Makkah” were in Kufa.  And THAT would promptly become the major theological center of the burgeoning Mohammedan movement.  It is no great feat to connect the dots here.

Again, the MOTIVATION to re-write the history so that a Hijazi site rather than a Nabataean / Palestinian site was the “temenos” is plain to see: To rationalize an Ishmaelite-centric reification of the Abrahamic legacy.  Said re-location of the “temenos” was–naturally–concomitant with the need to accord to the new prophet (as the SEAL OF all prophets) an explicitly ARABIAN pedigree.  For an Arabian target-audience, the appeal of doing so is self-explanatory.

On the dome in Jerusalem (dubbed “al-Qubbat al-Sakhrah”), caliph Malik had inscribed the following proclamation in an early version of Classical Arabic: “The Messiah, Jesus, son of Miriam, was only a messenger of god…So believe in god and his messengers.  And say not ‘three’.  Cease!”   (This would become verse 171 of Surah 4 in the Koran.)  The inscription then stipulates that a figure (referred to as “one who is praised”) is the “messenger of god”.  The main thesis was that the Abrahamic deity did not have a son.  In other words: The central message being conveyed was that any contention of a triune god was nonsense.  The primary focus of the inscription was NOT on a distinctly new Faith (with its own holy book); it was on the one-ness of god; and thus the rejection of the Trinitarian model. {25}

Concluding Thoughts:

It is worth considering the formidable explanatory power of the “Petra theory” for the genesis of the Mohammedan movement.

First:  It explains the otherwise inexplicable disappearance of the Nabataeans; as well as the abrupt, complete abandonment of Petra.  No need to be confounded.  The Mohammedans WERE the (former) Nabataeans and Ghassanids; and the newly-minted Ishmaelites opted to divorce themselves from the legacy of their (former) pagan capital.  Theories about droughts and famines don’t add up, as no such conditions were reported by others in the region.  Suffice to say: When one group of people vanishes, and another group—who speaks the same language (see “The Syriac Origins Of Koranic Verse”) and shares some of the same folklore (see “Syriac Source-Material For Islamic Lore”)—suddenly appears in roughly the same area, it is not unreasonable to suppose that they might be the same people, though with a new group identity. {26}

Second:  It provides an alternate explanation for how a band of Bedouins from the Hijaz suddenly stormed out of the barren deserts of Arabia and—within a single generation—conquered THE ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST, as well as much of north Africa.  There were likely only a few thousand Hijazis at the time.  Are we to suppose that they hopped on camels (there were no horses), and conquered the Levant, all of Mesopotamia, and much of Persia…pushing back the armies of the Byzantine Empire and OBLITERATING the Persian Empire with such expediency?  Such an astonishing feat doesn’t sound quite as implausible once we consider that the conquering peoples already had a viable civilization in the Levant; and had simply opted to re-invent itself.

Recall that MoM was likely a post hoc fabrication, concocted by the Saracens (i.e. EASTERNERS) for largely political reasons. {21}  These zealously monotheistic Arabs sought an ideological flashpoint to mobilize members of their burgeoning movement.  What better way to do this than to posit a warrior prophet, chosen by god?  Behold a campaign of agit-prop that could be used on anyone brought into their fold.  As with Constantine vis a vis Christianity, this novel creed would serve to unify an ethnically diverse, expanding dominion.  Its theme was unimpeachable; and could be used to justify their hegemonic campaign.

And so it went: The Mohammedan pitch furnished members with a casus belli, as well as a rationalization for their cause; and did so in a way that Nabataean paganism (and itinerant Syriac monks) could not.  Moreover, this made-to-order Messianic creed provided Arabs with an exciting new identity: a distinct Ishmaelite pedigree that surely galvanized participants.  (I explore the appeal of that pitch in part one of my series, “About Mohammed”.)

In considering various explanations for the archeological record, we mustn’t underestimate the power of memetic inertia.  After all, debunking coveted myths is far more difficult than purveying them.  (We might recall the words of Mark Twain: “It’s easier to fool the masses than to convince them that they are being fooled.”)  It’s why people are inclined to spread juicy gossip rather than disregard it.  Such is the nature of memetic inertia.

To propagate an enticing rumor is second nature; to terminate the rumor requires self-discipline.  And so it goes with maintaining one’s position on things in which one has a staunch vested interest.  The desire to stand one’s ground and save face is one of the most powerful forces in the known universe; so people are far more likely to dig in their heels than abandon the hallowed ground on which they stand.  This predisposition is only amplified when vested interests are involved; and souls are (believed to be) at stake.

The “Petra theory” involves conjectures that comport with the later development of the canon of Hadith.  However, rough theoretical compatibility does not mean inexorable logistical contingency, let alone (conclusive) corroboration.  So we must be cautious in arriving at facile conclusions.  Indeed, we could easily indulge in fanciful suppositions here–“filling in the gaps” by positing a spruced-up alternative narrative.  That’s tempting; but we would then risk committing a mis-step similar to the one that religious apologists commit: pretending to know things we simply don’t know…and, most likely, may not ever be able to know for sure.

What many of us often forget is that it’s okay to admit, “We just don’t know.”  After all is said and done, conjecture is only conjecture; which–though unsatisfying–sometimes is all we’ll ever have. {20}  Certainty can be elusive as well as illusory.  We must always be careful not to confuse a coveted hypothesis with conclusive-ness.  “My personal hunch is X” can slowly become “X has just GOTTA be the explanation.”  This is especially so when one is BANKING ON X being true.

Pet theories are often not seen as a mere theory by the pet-owner, especially after having reared it.  While making a concerted effort to avoid dogmatism, it is also important to refrain from bouts of hyper-skepticism (and its close cousin, over-speculation).  Either way, we must resist the urge to put forth inferences merely out of convenience–the easy way out of a quandary.  Rejecting false certainties does not require concocting other false certainties to take their place.

Regarding the “Petra theory” as it now stands, agnosticism may well be the most prudent course.  There is more evidence presented in part 2 of this essay.  If there is anything I missed (or simply got wrong), I’m all ears.  Critical feedback is encouraged.  As is the case with my essay on “The Forgotten Diaspora”, this is not the final word on the matter.  Rather, it should serve as a point of departure for further inquiry.  Indeed, this is an on-going, open-ended process that will continue to evolve as further evidence comes to light.  Clearly, several questions remain; and more investigation is warranted.