Mecca And Its Cube

FOOTNOTES:

{1  This ayah refers to the location as THE VALLEY OF “Makkah”.  However, present-day “Mecca” is located at the inner edge of the Hijazi coastal plain known as “Tihamah”.  Petra is in a valley.  Mecca can only be said to be situated in a valley in an extremely vague sense.  There are some nearby hills on its outskirts; though the nearest mountain to the current city is over 8 kilometers away.  In any case, this is THE ONLY time a location by that name is mentioned in the entirety of the Koran.  Elsewhere, the “mother of settlements” (wherever it was) is not mentioned by name.}

{2  In describing the fabled “Night Journey”, the opening verse of Surah 17 refers to what could be EITHER Mecca or Petra as “the sacred place of worship” and to what might be Jerusalem as “the remote house of worship”.  Such vague references are telling.}

{3 The Quraysh were a subset of the “Banu Kinanah” tribe of southern Arabia.}

{4  The Arabic moniker, “al-Lah” is derived from the Syriac, “eloah”–with which the Late Aramaic “alah[a]” and the Ancient Hebrew “eloah” (royal plural, “elohim”) were related.  Recall that “Allah” is the Nabataean cognate of the aforesaid Aramaic (“Elah” / “Elaha”).  Also note that the Phoenician term for the supreme deity was “Aliyy”, derived from the Old Semitic root, “El”.}

{5  There were various Kahlani tribes–notably the Banu Azd of Marib and the Banu Hamadan.}

{6  There are various etymological coinky-dinks involved here.  A Semitic term for virgin is “ka’ibah”.  During a trip to Petra in the late 4th century, in reporting on the temple to Dushara, Cypriot bishop Epiphanius of Salamis may have been confused by the aforesaid homophony, and consequently mistaken the “ka’abu” for a shrine to a virgin goddess–perhaps Dushara’s mother.  The notions of virgin purity and of sanctity may have had hermeneutic parity.}

{7  There are alternate theories for the etymology of “kaaba”.  One theory is that it was the Tamil term for Shiva, “Kabaali”.  This is likely a coincidence, as Old Tamil is based on proto-Dravidian, which dates back to the 4th millennium B.C. exclusively in regions east of Persia (mostly, southern India).  Cross-pollination of memes was, of course, possible between the Far East and the Middle East during Classical Antiquity.  (For example, the Meluhha people of the Indus Valley civilization are alluded to in ancient Sumerian records.)  However, even if the Sumerians / Akkadians adopted this phoneme from the Far East, Semitic precursors were typically not based on Sumerian, let alone on Dravidian.  So this particular meme would have had to have migrated on its own, irrespective of etymology.  That is possible, though rather unlikely.}

{8  How is it that the Abrahamic deity was not inclined to intervene in any of those other cases?  The world’s FIRST cubic shrine seems to have been the Akkadian “Abu” temple at Eshnunna (now “Tell Asmar”), dedicated to Tishpak c. 2300 B.C.  Next was a Zoroastrian structure near Persepolis (at Naghsh-i Rostam) in Fars: an Achaemenid “Kaaba-[y]e Zartosht” [Cube of Zoroaster] at Mardvasht that was erected in the early 5th century B.C. (over a thousand years before Mohammad was born).  Where was the Abrahamic deity then?  Why not any revelation for the Persians when they worshipped Ahura-Mazda at THEIR “kaaba”?  When the Nabataeans erected their cubic shrine in Petra, they were employing a similar architectural idiom…as would the Himyarites when they erected their cubic shrine in Zafar…and as would the Quraysh when they erected their cubic shrine in Mecca.}

{9  Abraham may have originally hailed from a Chaldean town known as “Ur”–roughly 1.6 thousand kilometers away from the Hijazi location eventually dubbed “Mecca”.  Suffice to say, the authors of the Koran expected their audience to be clueless about geography.}

{10  Both “A[a]d” and “Thamud” were mentioned so frequently to remind the audience what god did to people who displeased him.  These were places / tribes that he destroyed for their lack of fealty.}

{11  The “spring by the sea” [Yanbu al-Bahr] may or may not have existed as a trading port at the time.}

{12 An early document that may have mentioned Mecca by name was a Christian eschatological tract, the “Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius”.  The document was originally written in Syriac by a pro-Roman/Byzantine author, but is difficult to date (probably originating at the end of the 7th century, though the eventual use of the moniker “Makkah” in the text may well have occurred only in later recensions).  Tellingly, in this text, the invading Arabs are referred to as “Sons of Ishmael” (i.e. Ishmaelites), not as “Muslims”.  Conspicuously, no religion called “Islam” is mentioned.  This is rather odd if FAITH had been the primary way the invaders (the antagonists in the tract) had defined themselves at the time.  Moreover, the derided “mushrikun” of MoM’s hometown are said to be an agrarian people, tending olive trees and other flora (ref. 6:136-139 in the Koran): an impossibility in Arabia.  Petra, though, is located in a valley with trees, and had plenty of irrigation.}

{13  The only way out of this geographical conundrum is to suppose that it was not Abraham himself, but his son Ishmael, who established the Meccan cube.  This requires one to assume that Ishmael somehow ended up the Hijaz; then establish his own cultic practices amongst the indigenous people (Bronze Age Bedouin).  This is plausible insofar as we take seriously the Biblical account that, at Sarah’s request, Abraham banished Hagar and Ishmael from Canaan; and this fabled mother and son subsequently made the 1,400-kilometer journey south into the deserts of western Arabia (for no apparent reason)…with their destination on barren land that was nowhere near any trade-routes…AND that Ishmael somehow (eventually) made it all the way back to Hebron for his father’s funeral (Genesis 25:9).  Yet EVEN THIS is contradicted by Bukhari in his Hadith (vol. 4; no. 583), which tells us that when Abraham banished Hagar and Ishmael, he first sat them under a tree not too far from the Kaaba, next to the (what was referred to as) the “Zam-Zam” well.  He then escorted them to the place (a valley) to which they were to be exiled.  (In the Koran, “Bakkah” is the place where Hagar wept for her banished son.)  Wait.  The “Zam-Zam” well?  Where did THAT come from?  As it turns out, there was a “Zam-Zam” spring–as well as a Mount Arafat–at Lalish in northern Mesopotamia.  These two sites became integral parts of the Yazidi pilgrimage…which seems to have had Assyrian origins.  In the end, Abraham would have never been anywhere south of Edom.  Some Abrahamic accounts even state that Abraham entered Canaan via She[c]hem, which is from the north (i.e. Galilee, via Syria; as that city is located to the north of Jerusalem).  Clearly, he did not come up through Edom.  Even when he eventually made it to Hebron farther to the south, it would have been a matter of having come from the north.}

{14  The reification of a storied city is not unheard of.  Indeed, it is common for cities to take on mythical status, as with–say–the hanging gardens of Babylon or the Achaean place of spell-binding opulence, “Sybaris” (in what is now Calabria).  Around the world, examples abound wherein we hear, “This is supposedly the place where…” in local folklore.}

{15  In 1744, Prince Muhammad ibn Saud entered into his Faustian pact with the religious fanatic, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab of the Najd.  After the first World War (that is: pursuant to the demise of the Ottoman Empire), the theocratic Saudi state achieved dominion across Arabia.  The final step was ousting the only regime to have claimed Mecca as their capital: the Hashemites (in 1925).  Of course, by then, Rihyad was already the Saudis’ center of operation.  The Hashemites–who HAD operated out of Mecca–had enjoyed sovereignty in the Hijaz during the 19th (and first quarter of the 20th) century; but were banished.  It’s worth recalling that the triumph of the House of Saud–and thus of Wahhabism–was the result of British backing (which involved yet another Faustian alliance).  The exiled Hashemites now rule Jordan…which, yet again, was the result of British bumbling.  The dunderheaded “mandate” following the first World War collapsed after the SECOND World War…leading to further disaster across the region (including the ethnic cleansing of Palestine).}

{16  6:163 is a peculiar passage, as MoM is instructed by the Koran’s protagonist to proclaim that he is the first of the Muslims (i.e. of those who submit to god’s will).  This is, of course, in direct contradiction to the rest of Koranic historiography, in which a raft of preceding (Abrahamic) prophets are all deemed to have been Muslims…all the way back to Adam.  Conventional lore does not make MoM the first MUSLIM; it simply makes him the LAST PROPHET…of a religion (Islam) that had existed since the days Adam and Eve roamed Eden.  This narrative falls apart if we do NOT suppose that all the antecedent Abrahamic prophets were bona fide Muslims.}

{17  “Mu-H-M-D” as a GIVEN name was established post hoc.  In other words, it imputed to the “nabi” retro-actively from what had merely been a general descriptor.  Testament to this fact is that, throughout the Koran, the prophet-in-question is referred to by A DOZEN OTHER general descriptors: “[a]H-M-D” [praiseworthy], “bashir” [announcer], “mu-bashir” [one who announces], “shahid” [witness], “siraj munir” [lamp], “noor” [light], “da’i” [implorer], “khatam an-nabiyyin” [seal of the prophets], “nadhir” [bearer of a warning], “mu-dakir” [one who reminds], “mu-zamil” [one who is wrapped], and “mu-dathir” [one who is covered].  The first reference to “Mohammed” occurred in a tract attributed to a 7th-century Bagratuni (Armenian) writer, Sebeos: the sacred history of the Armenians now known as “A History of Heraclius”.  Tellingly, the author referred to the Arab conquerers not as “Muslims”, but as those who were of the stock of Abraham by Ishmael, son of Hagar (alt. “sons of Ishmael”).  He mentions in passing that their leader was referred to as “Mahmet”.  Said figure “became prominent”, as he is the one who persuaded the Ishmaelites to recognize the god of Abraham.  The author notes that this man was versed in Mosaic lore; and consequently unified all the Arab tribes under one Faith.  Tellingly, it was not until the early 8th century that we find an explicit statement of Islam and of Mohammed.  It appears in an inscription on the Umayyad mosque in Damascus: “Our Lord is god; Our religion is Islam; and our prophet is Mu-H-M-D.”  Still no mention of a new holy book.  As for the use of these other terms, it is likely that they were general descriptors.  For more on “Mu-H-M-D”, see Appendix 3 of my essay: “Genesis Of A Holy Book”.  For more on “Islam”, see my essay: “The Syriac Origins Of Koranic Text”.}

{18  The Byzantine Empire was essentially just the Eastern Roman Empire (“Basileia ton Romaion”), which was later affiliated with the Eastern Orthodox Church (the original liturgical language of which was Koine Greek) rather than the Roman Catholic Church (the liturgical language of which was Vulgar Latin).  This demarcation became especially salient pursuant to the Great Schism of the 11th century.  In any case, during Late Antiquity, the western and eastern Roman empires followed two separate POLITICAL paths, roughly concomitant with the disparate denominations of Christianity.}

{19  Regarding the initial movement’s conception of “believers”: Descriptions of the fabled Medinan constitution attest to this fact; as it is said to have equated the Ummah with all “People of the Book” [“Ahl al-Kitab”]–that is: not exclusively with the Mohammedans, but with Sabians [Mandaeans], Samaritans, Jews, and (non-Trinitarian) Christians as well.  (Funny enough, the Abrahamic deity did not deem this fabled document sufficiently important to ensure its survival for posterity.)  This contrasts starkly with what came to be the prevailing taxonomy.  In the current categorization, “believers” (“mu’mineen”; i.e. those with “iman”) are equated exclusively with Muslims; whereas non-believers (“kuffar”; i.e. those who conceal, which includes fellow Abrahamic confessors) are–ipso facto–equated with all non-Muslims.  “Ummah” is now a label pertaining exclusively to the world’s Muslims; thus disqualifying other “People of the Book” along with the rest of mankind.}

{20  Want a conjecture for how Mecca REALLY came to be?  Consider this: In the year 713, an earthquake destroyed many of the free-standing structures in Petra (while structures built into the cliffs remained mostly intact).  Let’s suppose that Caliph Abd al-Malik OFFICIALLY established Islam c. 691, as that is when the Dome of the Rock was erected; and when he commissioned the use of a new liturgical language: Classical Arabic.  It was also the FIRST time a revelation known as the “Recitations”, a distinct Faith known as “Islam”, a figurehead formally recognized as “Mu-H-M-D”, and a community identified as “Muslims” appear in the historical record.  By the time that earthquake occurred, Al-Malik’s heir, Al-Walid was caliph.  The destruction–possibly taken as an ominous sign–called for the designation of a new “temenos” for the new-fangled Faith.  Al-Walid selected a place in the Hijaz, as that is where his family was originally from.  His grandfather (Al-Malik’s father, Marwan ibn al-Hakam) hailed from Ta’if.  (Ta’if was a center for the Banu Thaqif, and had served as the “temenos” for the Arabian goddess, Allat; though its pagan history would promptly be erased.)  That particular town was not ideal, as it was situated in the midst of steep, mountainous terrain–and so was not readily accessible to pilgrims.  The place where Mecca was founded is located less than a hundred kilometers northeast of Ta’if, on the other side of the Hunayn valley.  As it happens, that valley is where a storied battle had taken place c. 630…which is precisely the year–we are told–that MoM seized Mecca!  Voila: The makings of a founding myth.}

{21  The Persians referred to the Arabs as “Tazi”; which prompted the Chinese to refer to them as the “Dashi”.  The appellation, “Easterner” (“Saracen”) for the early Ishmaelites makes sense, as a similar label was applied to Syriac Christians (e.g. Jacobites, Nestorians, Chaldaeans, etc.) by Roman (Latin and Greek) Christians—who derisively referred to them as “Eastern Christians”.  Such a characterization stands to reason, as Eastern Christians spoke the same language as the “Saracens”: Syriac (until, that is, Arabic became the lingua franca of the region over the course of the late 8th and early 9th century).  Procopios of Caesarea-Palaestina used the term “Sarakenos”.  The ethnonym was also used in the Doctrine Jacobi c. 634.  As we’ve seen, “sons of Ishmael” was the other way of characterizing this group.  In the 7th century, the Syriac (monophysite) patriarch of Tur-Abdin, Gabriel of Qartmin (that is: of Beth Qustan), was said to have met with the leader of the “sons of Ishmael”.  In the early phase of the Mohammedan movement, never was the term “Muslim” used.  (For more on the term, “Muslim”, see my essay on “The Syriac Origins Of Koranic Text”.)  Fulcher of Chartres referred to “Saracens” in his memoirs c. 1124.  And in his travelogues, a monk named Bernard referred to the Al-Aqsa mosque as a “Saracen synagogue”.  Their language was often referred to as “the Saracen tongue”.  The appellation, “Saracen” held through the late medieval period, during which time Dar al-Islam fragmented far beyond the binary (creed-based) Sunni-Shia divide that had existed since the caliphate of Ali.  Even so, for many centuries, even Kurds and Turks were subsumed under the “Saracen” banner—as was the case with the (Sunni) Ayyubids, who were routinely referred to as “Saracens” by both the Franks and Byzantines.  The appellation held even with Shiites—as with the (Arab / Berber) Fatimids.  The first Muslim ethnicities to be held in contra-distinction to “Saracens” were the Seljuks (who hailed from the Eurasian Steppes) and Mamluks (who operated out of Cairo): both of Turkic pedigree.  (The Saffarids, Samanids, Ghaznavids, and Ghurids—who were all Persian—did not interact with the West, so weren’t given an Occidental exonym.)  Moors, Turks, Kurds, Mongols / Tatars, and Persians eventually came to be seen as ethnically-distinct kinds of Muslim.  Thereafter, the ethnic ramification of Dar Al-Islam would continue—with the Andalusians / Maghrebis (Moorish), the Ottoman Turks (western Turkic), the Buyids and Safavids (Persian), the Ilkhanate (Mongol / Tatar), and the Mughals (eastern Turkic, mixed with Indian).  In spite of this, the antiquated taxonomy persisted.  In the 13th century, Dominican monk, Burchard of Magdeburg [alt. of Mount Zion] referred to Muslims as “Saracens” in his “Description Of The Holy Land”; as did both the Dominican monk, Ric[c]oldo of Monte Croce “Contra Legem Sarraccenorum” [Against The Laws Of The Saracens] AND the Franciscan monk, Magister Thietmar of Westphalia in his travelogue.  In the 14th century, writers like Niccolo of Poggibonsi (a Franciscan pilgrim) and Ludoph von Suchem (a German priest) were still referring to Muslims as “Saracens” in their travelogues.  And as late as the 15th century, the Dominican writer, Felix Fabri of Ulm referred to Arab Muslims as “Saracens” in his extensive writings; as did the Franciscan pilgrim, Francesco Suriano in his “Treatise Of The Holy Land” c. 1485 (though such writers tended to use alternate labels for non-Arab Muslims, like Moors, Turks, Tatars, and Persians).  By the Enlightenment, the appellation “Saracen” had become somewhat out-dated; as the Ummah had become too ethnically diverse to be associated with one particular race, let alone with lands to the east.  By then, Muslims no longer hailed exclusively from the eastern Levant (they’d made it as far west as Andalusia); so “Easterner” no longer made much sense.  (Eventually, a confabulated etymology was touted, whereby “Saracen” was said to have derived from Abraham’s wife, “Sarah”.  But this made no sense, as Ishmaelites were considered HAGARENES in Abrahamic genealogy; as they were the progeny of Hagar, not Sarah.)  By the time the Franciscan monk, Eugene Roger penned “The Holy Land” in 1664, the medieval term “Saracen” was no longer used.  However, the use of “Ishmaelites” continued.  For example, in the 18th century, the (Polish) Jewish writer, Gedaliah (a disciple of the Ashkenazi leader, Judah the Pious) referred to Levantine Muslims as “Ishmaelites” in his work, “Seek The Peace Of Jerusalem”.  However, the “sons of Ishmael” were no longer merely from east of the Jordan, and were certainly not exclusively Arab; so that too became somewhat of a colloquialism.  From the beginning, the Mohammedans were alternately referred to in Syriac as the “Ma-hagraye”, meaning “those who have migrated”.  This is the term that served as the basis for the Arabic “Mu-hajirun” (rendered “Magaritai” in Greek).  They were alternately conceptualized as Ishmaelites (i.e. sons of Ishamel) and Hagarenes (descendants of Abraham via Hagar; see Footnote 28 below).  The term “Mu-S-L-M” for that group was not used until the 740’s (as an endonym); which supplanted the original moniker for Mohammedans: “Mu-min-een”—a general descriptor for “those who believe” (i.e. the Faithful within the Mohammedan movement).  During the Enlightenment, the prevailing moniker was “Mohammedan” or some variation thereof.  In any case, by the modern era, Muslims were primarily referred to as “Muslims”; as that is how they referred to themselves.  For more on this onomastic metamorphosis, see the work of Crone, Cook, Donner, Shoemaker, and Hoyland.}

{22  The “Sakhra” may correlate with the Arabic locution “maqam Ibrahim”: the stone of Abraham; or that on which Abraham stood.  The “masjid al-hara[a]m” mentioned in Islamic lore can be alternately interpreted as any space that served as the place of prayer.  (Even “place of prayer” is vague, as “masjid” can also be interpreted as “sanctuary”.  For more on “hara[a]m”, see Footnote 50 of my essay on “The Syriac Origins Of Koranic Text”.)  The semiotic of this lexeme–as it may have existed in the 7th century–is somewhat unclear.  Note that the Temple Mount was also referred to as “Q-D-S”, which is simply an Arabized version of the Semitic “kadesh”, meaning “holy”.  The cavern beneath the Sakhra rock was also known as the “well of souls”, which is where the Ark of the Covenant was placed (so legend has it).  In reality, this was the summit of a hill (Moriah) upon which was located the threshing floor of a Jebusite named Arahunah; the very spot that the Hebrews later designated as the dwelling place of their godhead, Y-H-W-H.  This divine presence (“shekhinah”) was originally in a tent (“tabernacle”) at S[h]alem, then in a small cedar temple located on Moriah (which may have correlated with the place known as “Bet[h]-El”), and later in a rectangular stone temple (the fabled “second temple” erected by Zeru[b]babel ben Shealtiel in the 6th century).  At one end of the temple was a cubic space, traditionally known as the “holy of holies” or the “house of god” (hence “Bet[h]-El”).  That inner sanctuary served as the worldly abode of the Abrahamic deity (according to Judaic theology).  What often goes unmentioned is the hollow that was dug into the ground underneath the hill’s summit.  It was in that space that the first Mohammedans may have built shrines.  In any case, they were engaged in some sort of idolatry from the earliest days of their movement (see Footnote 29 below).}

{23  The Lakhmids were Arabs who were largely Syriac Christians—which is to say that they spoke Syriac and were well-versed in Abrahamic lore.  The Lakhmids were vassals of the Persians up to their last leader: Al-Numan III [ibn al-Mundhir IV] of Hir[t]a, who ruled until 602.  Al-Numan III had a Jewish mother and was reared by the renown (Arab) Christian poet, Adi ibn Zayd al-Ibadi.  Having fallen out of favor with his Persian overlords, he was eventually overthrown by an Arab lackey of the Sassanids: I[l]yas ibn Qabisah al-Ta’i: the Arab figure of the Banu Tayy upon whom the legend of MoM is likely based).  Soon thereafter, I[l]yas ibn Qabisah HIMSELF would vie for Arab independence—though the exact circumstances of these squabbles are shrouded in mystery.  Sporadic clues come from hazy accounts of the fabled Battle of Dhi Qar, which seems to have occurred at some point between 602 and 622, and involved the Banu Bakr.  Accounts of this period are convoluted, as I[l]yas ibn Qabisah is often conflated—rightly or wrongly—with a figure known as Hani ibn Qabisah (leader of the Banu Bakr).  The relationship between each of these men (assuming they are not one-in-the same figure) and the Sassanids—and with each other—is unclear.  According to the standard Islamic narrative, the (Abrahamic, Syriac-speaking) progeny of I[l]yas ibn Qabisah were eventually overthrown by the Arab general, Khalid ibn al-Walid ibn al-Mughira c. 633.  It is anyone’s guess exactly how and when the folklore surrounding I[l]yas ibn Qabisah (as “Mu-H-M-D”) and Hani ibn Qabisah (as “Abu Bakr”) may have emerged.  What we do know is that the result was an independent Arab (possibly Maghar-ite) State in the vicinity of the former Lakhmid domain, which was referred to as “Tachka-stan” by the Armenian historian, Sebeos.  Sebeos recounted how this “praised one” (“Mahmet”) of the Arabs established a Syriac religious community (which was comprised of both Ishmaelites and Jews, as its membership was based on their common descent from Abraham).  The rest, as they say, was history.  Or not.}

{24  For more on this matter, see “The First Dynasty Of Islam: The Umayyad Caliphate” by Gerald R. Hawting; “In God’s Path: The Arab Conquests And The Creation Of An Islamic Empire” by Robert G. Hoyland; and “God’s Caliph: Religious Authority In The First Centuries Of Islam” by Patricia Crone and Martin Hinds.  For a broader general reading on the present topic, see “Hagarism And The Making Of The Islamic World” by Patricia Crone and Michael Cook.  Also note “The Hidden Origins of Islam: New Research Into Its Early History” by Karl-Heinz Phlig; as well as “Witnesses To A World Crisis: Historians And Histories Of The Middle East In The 7th Century” and “The Last Great War Of Antiquity” by James Howard-Johnston.  For those who read French, another notable work is the 3-volume “Le Coran Des Historiens”, the findings of a project headed by Mohammad Ali Amir-Moezzi and Guillaume Dye.  Regarding the history of the pilgrimage to Mecca, the best scholarship was done by F.E. Peters in his 1994 book, “The Hajj”.  Though flawed, it is well-researched.}

{25  The inscribed passage characterizes a “praised one” (“Mu-H-M-D”) as a “servant of god” (“abd-ullah”) and a “messenger of god” (“rasul Allah”), then makes mention of a “prophet” (“nabi”); though there is no explanation for who that figure might be.  It subsequently declares Jesus of Nazareth to be “Rasul Allah”, and equates the “Messiah” with “Abd-ullah”; which means that all of these terms were general descriptors; not appellations for a singular figure.  The passage then admonishes the “people of the book” (those of the Abrahamic Faith) against embellishing their religion (via Trinitarianism).  It goes on to describe Jesus as the “rasul” [messenger] and “abd” [servant] of god; and concludes that the true Abrahamic Faith is one of “submission” (“Islam”)–a matter I explore in my essay on “The Syriac Origins Of Koranic Text”.  It is also very telling that there is no mention of a “Quran”; nor of a final revelation; nor of a last prophet.  Even more telling, there is no mention of the “Mi’raj” (the fabled Night Journey): the event that the Dome was purportedly built to commemorate. (!)  Clearly, this inscription was made well before (what eventually became) Islamic lore had coalesced.}

{26  Another example of this phenomenon is discussed in my essay on “The Forgotten Diaspora”, where the abrupt dissolution of the great (Jewish) [k]Hazar Empire in the North Caucasus was promptly followed by the emergence of Ashkenazim in Eastern Europe.  That entailed a migration of over 2,000 kilometers, whereas the present thesis entailed virtually no migration at all.}

{27  There are other possibilities.  “Safa” may come from the Safa Hills of Nabataea, located just south of the Nabataean city of Suada in Coele-Syria (Hellenized to “Dionysus Soada”).  Many etymologies continue to be shrouded in mystery; and such matters warrant further investigation.}

{28  The name for the female figure known as “[h]Agar” seems to have come from the name of the Dilmunite location known as “[h]Agarum” [alt. “Akarum”], which served as the temenos for the godhead “Inzak” (possibly a correlate of the Babylonian “Shamash”) going back to the 2nd millennium B.C.  The location likely corresponded to what came to be called “Al-Ahsa” / “Al-Hasa” (in Arabic).  Up until the Mohammedan conquests, Dilmun would have been part of the Lakhmid kingdom (Arab vassals of the Sassanians), during which time the city may have been known as “Pit-Ardashir” (Middle Persian).  Tellingly, the Dilmunites also used the Semitic moniker “El” for their godhead.  Why?  Because—in addition to Persian—they would have spoken SYRIAC.}

{29  Still doubt whether bowing to—and circumambulation of—the Kaaba constitutes idolatry?  Do a simple thought experiment.  Change its shape from a cube to a humanoid figure.  (Does the structure need to be an actual STATUE?  Clearly, idolatry is not defined by the SHAPE of the object-in-question; it is the TREATMENT of the object.)  Would anthropologists who stumbled upon the exact same activity oriented around a DIFFERENT object hesitate to characterize it as idolatry?  What if the worshippers notified them that the structure was not believed to ITSELF be the deity, but just REPRESENTED the deity?  Fair enough.  But consider that, per Juche, there is idolatry of Kim Il Sung in North Korea.  Supplicants do not believe that a statue of their patriarch is ACTUALLY HIM.  Indeed, they would kow-tow to ANY effigy of the deified figure.  After all, idols are generally seen as proxies for the ultimate object of devotion, not just the object of devotion ITSELF.  That’s how shrines work.  So, to the claim of MERE representation, the aforementioned anthropologists might reply: “Ok, so any other statue could be treated in the same manner?”  The answer would be: “No.  It needs to be THIS PARTICULAR statue.”  Case closed.}

{30  An early Muslim source (cited by the Ayyubid historian, Abu al-Fida of Damascus in the early 14th century) provides the following account of the “Sabians”, to whom the source refers as a Syriac people: “The [Syrians] are the most ancient of nations, and Adam and his sons spoke their language. [Here, he’s probably thinking of the precursor to Syriac: Old Aramaic.]  Their religious community is that of the Sabians, and they claim that they received their religion from Seth [brother of Cain and Abel] and Idris [Enoch]. They have a book that they ascribe to Seth [probably referring to the Syriac “Book of Enoch”].  In it, good precepts are recorded—such as enjoin truth-speaking and courage, and give protection to the stranger; and evil practices are mentioned, from which they are commanded to abstain.  The Sabians had certain religious rites—among which are seven fixed times of prayer, five of which correspond with that of the Muslims.”  Abu Ismail Maghribi also noted that the Sabians fasted for a full lunar month.  Regardless of who they may have actually been, the fact that the authors of the Koran saw fit to single out the Sabians (as fellow “People of the Book”) is quite telling.  The sect was clearly on their mind while they were formulating their new creed.  Little would they know that, shortly thereafter, the group would cease to exist.  (This is the case whether we conjecture that the label referred to the Elkesaites, Mandaeans, Manichaeans, or anyone else.)  It is laughable to suggest that this particular sect was worth mentioning in an eternal book, composed billions of years ago.  (The universe is over 13 billion years old; and the Final Revelation is believed to have existed since the beginning of time.)  Becoming so quickly dated not only belies claims of the eternality of the “Recitations”; it shows how time-bound (read: short-sighted) the authors really were.  We are expected to believe that the message was addressed to all mankind, and that it was pertinent to the history of the entire world.  Would the Sabians really have been worth mentioning?  Recall that the target audience included people who would live well over a thousand years later, in far-away lands.  Today, even those living in the Middle East aren’t sure what, exactly, this exonym might be referring to.  Are we to suppose that someone living in Des Moines, Iowa today should be able to relate to…the Elkesaites?  Of all people, would the Creator of the Universe have opted to mention a soon-to-be-defunct religious group when seeking to make what was supposed to be a timeless point?  Of course not.  The explanation is quite clear.  At the time, Syriac-speaking Arabs from Arabia Petraea (who were seeking to establish their own Abrahamic creed) WOULD have been concerned with such a sect.  After all, the Nabataeans spoke a dialect of Syriac and regularly interacted with Syriac-speaking Jews and Christians throughout the Levant.}

{31  “Marwa” is a phonetic contortion of “Moreh”, which was itself a variation on “Moriah”, the site of the temple mount in Jerusalem.  But what of “Safa”?  Well, as it turns out, this was an alternate name for mount Skopos [Lookout] in Jerusalem (as referenced by Josephus).  Obviously, these would NOT have been the hills between which the banished Hagar and Ishmael was frantically looking for water; as the mother and son would have been in a barren desert; not in the Kedron Valley.  UNLESS…the people composing the material, being from the area, were familiar with the two aforementioned Judean hills; so were apt to incorporate them into their tale.  It would have been later, as the Islamic narrative was created, that the two hills were purported to have been in the Arabian desert over 1,200 kilometers to the south.  Laughably, two rock outcroppings in Mecca are now said to have been the two fabled hills.  Another theory: Originally, the hills were not “Safa” and “Marwa”, but Mina and Arafat.  Bottom line: The Islamic lore was adapted from antecedent lore; and most certainly did not originate in what is now known as Mecca.}