The Prayer Issue Revived

[Raj-ah]

Salaam,

Dear J-K; your calling upon ayman on almost your every second post in this particular debate has said it all. Arguments of cOde are much stronger then yours.

Regarding your not taking Ahadith or any other Historical document as an evidence in support of 5 prayers when in contrast your have failed to bring up a single one in your support is not understandable.

Ayman?s theory is like a half boiled egg. No documentary support. He builds his whole edifice on calligraphy & inscriptions, which are lame without historical proofs. Prayers and practical prayers have been established in Jews the Bible talks about it, it talks about Kibla being a physical place and not metaphorical place. So this Kibla thing being physical is not invented by Arabs as protrayed by ayman.

The earliest dated ḥijāzī inscription was written by Zuhayr "at the time of Umar's death" in 24 AH, thus mentioning the name of the second caliph. This inscription, it appears, is destined to be the most famous of all the Arabic inscriptions as the UNESCO has added it to the Memory of the World Register of Documentary Collections. The Discovery Channel also mentioned the importance of this inscription in the news.
So therefore there was a person by the name of Umar who ruled the Arab at that time and not all these stories are fabricated as you and your friend ayman think.

Ayman?s theory is flawed and is destined towards disuniting Muslims.

[ayman]

Peace C0de, everyone,

Two major problems with this hypothesis.
#1: This town was always more important to the Babylonians and the Jews then the Arabs. Here is the wiki page of the history of this town: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tayma Do you see any reference to any ancient Arab temple?  While the Greek account clearly says that the temple it is talking about is an Arab temple.

There was no such thing as Babylonians at the time of Diodorus Siculus in the 1st century BC. Babylonia ceased to exist almost 400 years earlier. The Arab Lihyanite Kingdom took it over from the fifth to the third century BC. At the time of Diodorus Siculus it was under the dominion of the Arab Nabataeans. So it was very much Arab!

This is the problem with ?Wiki archeologists?. You take information in isolation without looking at the big picture and how each piece fits with everything else we know.

#2: Look at the location Tayma: (zoom out)
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Tayma&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B2GGGL_enCA206CA206&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wl
This location is Northwards and towards the East of Medinah, 400km away. It is hardly even in the Hejaz as it is on the border of the Nefd Desert. So it is not "between the Thamudites and the Sabeans." is it? As the Sabeans are located here:
All the way down the Western Coast near Yemen.

There was no such thing as the present region named Hejaz at the time of Diodorus Siculus in the 1st century BC. So it being in or outside Hejaz is irrelevant. Even the map that you provided shows that the region presently named Hejaz had a different border in 1916-1923.

Also, you might want to get your eyes checked because the Google map of Tayma actually shows that it is indeed located between the Thamudites and the Sabeans. In fact, here is your map with the Google map of the location of Tayma superimposed on it and, as everyone can see, it is located exactly between the regions where the Thamudites and the Sabeans lived:

This is not even an option for you as it is located in this province:

"Dumat al-Jundal (Arabic: دومة الجندل‎), is a ruined ancient city located in North Western Saudi Arabia in the Al Jawf province."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumat_Al-Jandal
Not even close to the Thamudites, let alone the Sabaeans. So no point in even discussing this option.

This is just your myopic point of view. Again, when superimposing the maps that you provided yourself, it is apparent that it is very close to the Thamudites. This is especially true given the fact that after the destruction of Thamud and by the time of Diodorus Siculus the tribes referred to as Thamudites were scattered all over north western and north Arabia and were not residing specifically in a certain town such as Hegra (Madian Saleh).

Yes it is. Mecca is the only location which fits this Greek description. You have no alternatives at this point.

Almost every town in ancient Arabia had a temple and the more important the town and the better it was situated on trade routes, the more important was its temple. It is the law of supply and demand. In fact, alleged Mecca is not even an alternative since it is completely absent from the archeological records and only appears on the scene in the 8th century CE.

Another alternative of the many available is Tabuk, which also had a temple. Around the same time as Diodorus Siculus, a Nabataean temple foundation text dated to 166 BC from Rawafa refers to a Thamudic tribal confederation operating under Roman control.

Another alternative is Al-Hegr/Madiyan which is also very well documented in the archeological record.

Another alternative is Dedan which is located just south of Al-Hegr/Madiyan and which is also very well documented in the archeological record.

Yet another alternative further south and closer to Sabaa is Qaryat-al-faw which is also very well documented in the archeological record.

So any of the many towns that we have in the archeological record are much better alternatives than the completely invisible and NEVER mentioned NOT EVEN ONCE Mecca.

(lol) ... this rhetorical paragraph might have been really effective... if it was preceded by a valid argument. 

The rituals are independent of the location. Doing a crazy ritual in Mecca doesn?t somehow make it logical. You really have no logical grounds to stand on with respect to the pagan rituals going on in Mecca and this is why you evade the issue. To borrow your analogy, ?if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it must be a duck? or ?if it spins seven times around a stone cube like a pagan and kisses and reveres a black stone in a vagina-shaped enclosure like a pagan, and wears newborn-style wraps like a pagan, then it must be a pagan?.

Peace,

Ayman

[jonny_k]

Peace "c0de",

Jonny + Bigmo

Salaam brothers

@ Jonny

lol, are you serious? How does giving another example of the same type "further your point" when that entire argument has already been parried?

JK- No it hasnt since the rituals are ultimately derived from hadith too. This point is not escapable.

Completely invalid reasoning. There are so many rituals in the Quran which are TOTALLY illogical."logic" has nothing to do with it. Look at this verse from the Quran, see how many actions we are told to do which make no sense "rationally" speaking:

[2:196]* You shall observe the complete rites of Hajj and`Umrah for GOD. If you are prevented, you shall send an offering, and do not resume cutting your hair until your offering has reached its destination. If you are ill, or suffering a head injury (and you must cut your hair), you shall expiate by fasting, or giving to charity, or some other form of worship. During the normal Hajj, if you break the state of Ihraam (sanctity) between `Umrah and Hajj, you shall expiate by offering an animal sacrifice. If you cannot afford it, you shall fast three days during Hajj and seven when you return home - this completes ten - provided you do not live at the Sacred Masjid. You shall observe GOD, and know that GOD is strict in enforcing retribution.

Faith is not about "reason and rationality".... this is why it is Faith.

JK- NOW suddenly it's not about reason but yet you insisted that when somehting contradicts either the Quran or REASON, YES YOU SAID IT YOURSELF, then you wont accept it. So why are you playing the faith card here? If this interpretaion of the Quran contradicts reason you should rethink whether there isnt a more rational understanding of the verses WHICH IS EXACTLY what is the case. The above translation i a sunni translation. The verse can be translated entirely different so that thres no rituals at all.

Exactly! The Quran already mentions the divine injunction to pray (all 5 times are listed). The hadith are only adding details. They are not adding divine injunctions.

JK- ADDING DETAILS IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM. How do you know thoose added details are from GOD which are not in Quran? This is where it gets absurd

Do whatever you want... I dont care what your personal beliefs are and what you accept or reject. But this isnt about your personal beliefs, this is a DEBATE! And you cant win a debate by ignoring evidence.

JK- For the last time if you dont see the bias for considering the very religious document of the religion/sect which supports 5 daily salat to "prove" people prayed 5 times a day back then then i really cannot help you.

Your point has already been addressed... you are just repeating yourself.

repetition... (its getting boring now dude)

JK- I can say the same for you since your not actually addressing these points of mine but talking around them. As i said if you dont see the flaw of looking at non religious documents in order to get the details about what rituals people actually performed back in time your on the wrong track BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY A RELIGIOUS DOC WANTS TO PORTRY PPL AS GOOD "BELEIVERS". Get it? GOD Bless!

[jonny_k]

Peace "rajah",

Salaam,

Dear J-K; your calling upon ayman on almost your every second post in this particular debate has said it all. Arguments of cOde are much stronger then yours.

JK- No his arguments are not stronger BUT I LACK SECULAR HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE IN THIS AREA AND BRO AYMAN KNOWS IT. So only he could explain this well. If I did try to explain the historical points against a historian, as c0de clims he is, i could be making a significant no of false statements which although logically pointing to how nonsensible rituals are, could be used against me with a twist of emotion. On the other hand ayman, since hes the author of those articles and hes been reaearching the history for years, it is him whol answer the points pertaining to history and i myself will answer pertaining to reason and logic.

Regarding your not taking Ahadith or any other Historical document as an evidence in support of 5 prayers when in contrast your have failed to bring up a single one in your support is not understandable.

JK- Ive brought up a lot of evidence in support of mine. Ive explained with reason and logic why rituals dont make any sense at all and that those quranic verses dont imply rituals.

Ayman?s theory is like a half boiled egg. No documentary support. He builds his whole edifice on calligraphy & inscriptions, which are lame without historical proofs.

JK- ARE YOU SERIOUS? Secular calligraphy and inscriptions dont count as historical proof BUT HADITH DO???! It cant get any more absurd than that can it?

Prayers and practical prayers have been established in Jews the Bible talks about it, it talks about Kibla being a physical place and not metaphorical place. So this Kibla thing being physical is not invented by Arabs as protrayed by ayman.

JK- If this is true it would only show that once again the sunni/shia "muslims" took one Jewish/Christian concept and made it their own just like they did with circumcision, eve being made crooked out of the the rib of adam, dogma, death penalty for apostates as in the OT, NON of which are to be found in the Quran. So why wouldnt they adopt the physical "qiblah" conecpt too? This only makes my case stronger.

The earliest dated ḥijāzī inscription was written by Zuhayr "at the time of Umar's death" in 24 AH, thus mentioning the name of the second caliph. This inscription, it appears, is destined to be the most famous of all the Arabic inscriptions as the UNESCO has added it to the Memory of the World Register of Documentary Collections. The Discovery Channel also mentioned the importance of this inscription in the news.
So therefore there was a person by the name of Umar who ruled the Arab at that time and not all these stories are fabricated as you and your friend ayman think.

JK- I never said that all stories in hadith are fabricated but those pertaining to rituals most certainly are and ayman has provided evidece for that.

Ayman?s theory is flawed and is destined towards disuniting Muslims.

JK- Oh common. Real Muslims dont unite because of rituals. Scientists are amongst the most peaceful groups. Yes they disagree many times over the details BUT they never kill each other because one of the scientist "apostates" from a certain theory. People have this tendency tp adopt nonsensible rituals because they think it unites them while i doesnt. Understanding the Quran with reason and logic is what should unite us here. GOD Bless!

[thegod]

raj-ah-Ayman’s theory is flawed and is destined towards disuniting Muslims.

To be fair to him, it is not his theory; many years back some non-muslims fancied that muhammad would be better-off somewhere in the north of arabia.

Crone finds that Muhammad's career took place not in Mecca but hundreds of kilometers to the north.

Years later, they no longer subscribe to it for want of acceptable evidence. Then, yes, it doesn't help that it's a failed theory. :-)


ma'a salaam.

God bless all.

al'hamd li Allaah Rabb al'aalameen

[c0de]

Ayman + Jonny

@ Ayman

There was no such thing as Babylonians at the time of Diodorus Siculus in the 1st century BC. Babylonia ceased to exist almost 400 years earlier. The Arab Lihyanite Kingdom took it over from the fifth to the third century BC. At the time of Diodorus Siculus it was under the dominion of the Arab Nabataeans. So it was very much Arab!

Digging a deeper grave for your point here bro:

Did you know that Diodorus Siculus chronicled and the Nabataeans??? He was very aware of their activities and their settlements. So if this mysterious shrine was a Nabataean artifact and located at Tayma, he would have said that it was a Nabataean artifact, and would have specified its location. But he did NOT. Because it was not located in a place that was familiar to him. And this location, and this tribe which you are suggesting was VERY familiar to him:

Proof

"Classical references to the Nabataeans begin with Diodorus Siculus; they suggest that the Nabataeans' trade routes and the origins of their goods were regarded as trade secrets, and disguised in tales that should have strained outsiders' credulity. Diodorus described them as a strong tribe of some 10,000 warriors, pre-eminent among the nomads of Arabia, eschewing agriculture, fixed houses, and the use of wine, but adding to pastoral pursuits a profitable trade with the seaports in frankincense and myrrh and spices from Arabia Felix (today's Yemen), as well as a trade with Egypt in bitumen from the Dead Sea."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabataeans

There was no such thing as the present region named Hejaz at the time of Diodorus Siculus in the 1st century BC. So it being in or outside Hejaz is irrelevant. Even the map that you provided shows that the region presently named Hejaz had a different border in 1916-1923.

Also, you might want to get your eyes checked because the Google map of Tayma actually shows that it is indeed located between the Thamudites and the Sabeans. In fact, here is your map with the Google map of the location of Tayma superimposed on it and, as everyone can see, it is located exactly between the regions where the Thamudites and the Sabeans lived:

#1: I know the "hejaz" was actually named at that time, I provided the map because it closely correlates to that area

#2: Thank you for superimposing the two maps and helping MY POINT! It is even more clear now that the point specified at Taymya is not "between" the Thamudites and the Sabaeans. It is much too Northwards almost in Nabatean territory.

This is just your myopic point of view. Again, when superimposing the maps that you provided yourself, it is apparent that it is very close to the Thamudites. This is especially true given the fact that after the destruction of Thamud and by the time of Diodorus Siculus the tribes referred to as Thamudites were scattered all over north western and north Arabia and were not residing specifically in a certain town such as Hegra (Madian Saleh).

LOL !!! The description said it was BETWEEEN the Natateaens and the Sabeaens. Not in the Thamudite Kingdom! Only Mecca fits that description, and none of the two locations you provided suffice. You have destroyed your own argument...

Almost every town in ancient Arabia had a temple and the more important the town and the better it was situated on trade routes, the more important was its temple. It is the law of supply and demand. In fact, alleged Mecca is not even an alternative since it is completely absent from the archeological records and only appears on the scene in the 8th century CE.

Another alternative of the many available is Tabuk, which also had a temple. Around the same time as Diodorus Siculus, a Nabataean temple foundation text dated to 166 BC from Rawafa refers to a Thamudic tribal confederation operating under Roman control.

Another alternative is Al-Hegr/Madiyan which is also very well documented in the archeological record.

Another alternative is Dedan which is located just south of Al-Hegr/Madiyan and which is also very well documented in the archeological record.

Yet another alternative further south and closer to Sabaa is Qaryat-al-faw which is also very well documented in the archeological record.

So any of the many towns that we have in the archeological record are much better alternatives than the completely invisible and NEVER mentioned NOT EVEN ONCE Mecca.

Not a single one of these alternatives fits the bill:

Tabuk: Out of the question. Look at the location: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Tabuk,_Saudi_Arabia_locator_map.png

Mada'in Saleh: Was actually inhabbited by the Thamudites! Again, this location is much too North anyway, so it wasn't between them and the Sabeaens.

"Dedan": I suppose you mean Al-Ula (as Dedan in biblical language is a general term for Arabia). Well, this location is also near Tayma, so another non-starter. Also, this entire area was well known to the Greeks and they would have mentioned it, and its people by name.

Qaryat-al-faw: This tribe was actually part of the "Sabaean Kingdom of Ma'rib (central Yemen)", and hence inside their territory. Again, not an option for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kindites Also, as you can see, their Kingdom flourished much later then the 1st century (3 centuries later in fact).

So any of the many towns that we have in the archeological record are much better alternatives than the completely invisible and NEVER mentioned NOT EVEN ONCE Mecca.

Actually, the very fact that Mecca was "invisible" confirms its identity in the Greek records. Because if they had known about this town, and if it was part of the major Kingdoms of the Area (the Nabeatens, or the Sabeaens) then the Greek Historian would have named it specifically. All the towns you have mentioned, are either in the North (Nabeatean territory), or the South (Sabeaen territory). Only Mecca falls right in between, and hence fits the description perfectly.

The rituals are independent of the location. Doing a crazy ritual in Mecca doesn?t somehow make it logical. You really have no logical grounds to stand on with respect to the pagan rituals going on in Mecca and this is why you evade the issue. To borrow your analogy, ?if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it must be a duck? or ?if it spins seven times around a stone cube like a pagan and kisses and reveres a black stone in a vagina-shaped enclosure like a pagan, and wears newborn-style wraps like a pagan, then it must be a pagan?.

Before you use your "logic" to attack religious rituals (which are illogical to begin with), I suggest you try to apply it to your argument.




@ Jonny

No it hasnt since the rituals are ultimately derived from hadith too. This point is not escapable.

lol, you just don't get it do you?

NOW suddenly it's not about reason but yet you insisted that when somehting contradicts either the Quran or REASON, YES YOU SAID IT YOURSELF, then you wont accept it. So why are you playing the faith card here? If this interpretaion of the Quran contradicts reason you should rethink whether there isnt a more rational understanding of the verses WHICH IS EXACTLY what is the case. The above translation i a sunni translation. The verse can be translated entirely different so that thres no rituals at all.

err... yea. Your supposed to apply reason to rational things (like arguments)... not to irrational things (like religious rituals)... 
and as for your "alternative" translations... have fun convincing anyone with semantics. 

JK- ADDING DETAILS IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM. How do you know thoose added details are from GOD which are not in Quran? This is where it gets absurd

Adding details (i.e. method) is not the problem if the ritual is itself mentioned in the Quran.

JK- For the last time if you dont see the bias for considering the very religious document of the religion/sect which supports 5 daily salat to "prove" people prayed 5 times a day back then then i really cannot help you.

  bro that "religious document" is ALSO a historical document. Whether you like it or not.

I can say the same for you since your not actually addressing these points of mine but talking around them. As i said if you dont see the flaw of looking at non religious documents in order to get the details about what rituals people actually performed back in time your on the wrong track BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY A RELIGIOUS DOC WANTS TO PORTRY PPL AS GOOD "BELEIVERS". Get it? GOD Bless!

... when you actually come up with an alternative historical document... let me know. Cuz this is getting quite boring.


PeAcE


p.s. ... where did I claim I was a "historian" again? You dont need to be a "historian" to see glaring errors in someone's argument. Maybe if you weren't placing so much hope and faith in the wrong people, you will see that yourself.

[jonny_k]

Peace "c0de",

lol, you just don't get it do you?

JK- 

err... yea. Your supposed to apply reason to rational things (like arguments)... not to irrational things (like religious rituals)... 
and as for your "alternative" translations... have fun convincing anyone with semantics. 

JK- Yeah and the rational arguments do not support rituals. Your admitting rituals are not about rationality and at the same time you claim to use rational arguments to support the rituals. your creating an oxymoron here.
Another question I'd ask is that if rituals are illogical and irrational THEN WHY WOULD GOD command us to perform them? Obviously GOD is in no need of us performing rituals so they should have an extra ordinary benfit for us. But if theyr not rational then it means they dont so it's just plain nonsense to claim GOD commands rituals.

Adding details (i.e. method) is not the problem if the ritual is itself mentioned in the Quran.

JK- But this is EXACTLY THE PROBLEM. How do you know those "details" are Divinely inspired and if so why didnt GOD just put them in the Quran to leave no ambiguity? This is what your not getting apparently.

  bro that "religious document" is ALSO a historical document. Whether you like it or not.

JK- Not usable in favor of ritual details becuase in that aspect itd be extrmely biased and other sources would be required. It seems you just dont get it do you?

... when you actually come up with an alternative historical document... let me know. Cuz this is getting quite boring.

JK- The Quran should contain all relevant details regarding Divine injunctions. As for birth dates of certain people, sure regarding that aspect you can trust hadith somewhat. I see no motive here why the religious folks would lie except in cetain specific cases. Place of birth of the Prophet would be biased too in the hadith though because of strong motive to promote some city as being holy. Get it?

p.s. ... where did I claim I was a "historian" again? You dont need to be a "historian" to see glaring errors in someone's argument. Maybe if you weren't placing so much hope and faith in the wrong people, you will see that yourself.

JK- You told me that you had a major in history. From that i assumed it. GOD Bless!

[c0de]

JK- Yeah and the rational arguments do not support rituals. Your admitting rituals are not about rationality and at the same time you claim to use rational arguments to support the rituals. your creating an oxymoron here.
Another question I'd ask is that if rituals are illogical and irrational THEN WHY WOULD GOD command us to perform them? Obviously GOD is in no need of us performing rituals so they should have an extra ordinary benfit for us. But if theyr not rational then it means they dont so it's just plain nonsense to claim GOD commands rituals.

There is a difference between using rational arguments to support the material justifying the ritual, and using rationality to justify the ritual itself. If you can't sense this subtle distinction, it is not my fault. But your argument is crippled because you can't seem to manage this.

JK- But this is EXACTLY THE PROBLEM. How do you know those "details" are Divinely inspired and if so why didnt GOD just put them in the Quran to leave no ambiguity? This is what your not getting apparently.

The difference is that I rely on evidence to support my views. While you rely on semantics... that is how I know your view is wrong.

JK- Not usable in favor of ritual details becuase in that aspect itd be extrmely biased and other sources would be required. It seems you just dont get it do you?

Yea... everything which doesnt support your argument is "biased"... rite 

JK- The Quran should contain all relevant details regarding Divine injunctions. As for birth dates of certain people, sure regarding that aspect you can trust hadith somewhat. I see no motive here why the religious folks would lie except in cetain specific cases. Place of birth of the Prophet would be biased too in the hadith though because of strong motive to promote some city as being holy. Get it?

Yea, I know: the Quran does contain all the important details regarding divine injunctions. The 5 times, bowing, standing, Surah fatiah.. The hadith does not add any of this (thats the point). It doesnt add any divine injunctions in this regard.

JK- You told me that you had a major in history. From that i assumed it. GOD Bless!

I am majoring in History and Pol Sci, doesnt make me a "historian". But like I said, you dont need to be a "historian" to deal with Mr. Ayman's argument. You could have done it yourself had you tried, and not taken his word for it.

PeAcE

[ayman]

Peace C0de, everyone,

Did you know that Diodorus Siculus chronicled and the Nabataeans??? He was very aware of their activities and their settlements. So if this mysterious shrine was a Nabataean artifact and located at Tayma, he would have said that it was a Nabataean artifact, and would have specified its location. But he did NOT. Because it was not located in a place that was familiar to him. And this location, and this tribe which you are suggesting was VERY familiar to him:
Proof
"Classical references to the Nabataeans begin with Diodorus Siculus; they suggest that the Nabataeans' trade routes and the origins of their goods were regarded as trade secrets, and disguised in tales that should have strained outsiders' credulity. Diodorus described them as a strong tribe of some 10,000 warriors, pre-eminent among the nomads of Arabia, eschewing agriculture, fixed houses, and the use of wine, but adding to pastoral pursuits a profitable trade with the seaports in frankincense and myrrh and spices from Arabia Felix (today's Yemen), as well as a trade with Egypt in bitumen from the Dead Sea."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabataeans

I see that you are not talking about Babylonians anymore LOL. Well at least you learned something new today.

I also see that are still pathetically trying to become the miracle archeologist who will somehow save his crazy pagan rituals by copying and pasting from Wiki .

The Nabataean kingdom wasn?t actually in Tayma but was north of Tyama (just look at your sorry map). The main inhabitants of Tayma were not the Nabataeans but were Arab tribes (and Jews) who at the time acted as proxies for the Nabataeans.

#1: I know the "hejaz" was actually named at that time, I provided the map because it closely correlates to that area
#2: Thank you for superimposing the two maps and helping MY POINT! It is even more clear now that the point specified at Taymya is not "between" the Thamudites and the Sabaeans. It is much too Northwards almost in Nabatean territory.

Get your eyes checked.

LOL !!! The description said it was BETWEEEN the Natateaens and the Sabeaens. Not in the Thamudite Kingdom! Only Mecca fits that description, and none of the two locations you provided suffice. You have destroyed your own argument...

You seem to ignore that after their destruction, the Thamudites were scattered over a large area, as far north as the Negev.

Not a single one of these alternatives fits the bill:
Tabuk: Out of the question. Look at the location: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Tabuk,_Saudi_Arabia_locator_map.png
Mada'in Saleh: Was actually inhabbited by the Thamudites! Again, this location is much too North anyway, so it wasn't between them and the Sabeaens.
"Dedan": I suppose you mean Al-Ula (as Dedan in biblical language is a general term for Arabia). Well, this location is also near Tayma, so another non-starter. Also, this entire area was well known to the Greeks and they would have mentioned it, and its people by name.

Any of those towns fit much better than a NON-EXISTENT town. Tabuk fits very well and had a temple that seemed to have peaked in importance around the time of Diodorus. As for Al-hegr, the term Thamudites referred not to its inhabitants but to nomads who roamed north Arabia. Remember that the inhabitants of the town of Saleh were destroyed. Dedan fits very well too and by the way it is near of El-hegr (just south of it), not near Tayma, further evidence that you need to get your eyes checked.

Qaryat-al-faw: This tribe was actually part of the "Sabaean Kingdom of Ma'rib (central Yemen)", and hence inside their territory. Again, not an option for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kindites Also, as you can see, their Kingdom flourished much later then the 1st century (3 centuries later in fact).

You can?t even read from the very Wiki link that you provided. Qaryat-al-faw is not a tribe, it is a town! There is no Wiki article on Qaryat-al-faw so no wonder you are confused. LOL

Qaryat-al-faw in central Arabia was firmly Arab and inhabited by Arab tribes (even the link that you provided confirms this). In fact, the earliest pure Old Arabic inscription is from Qaryat-al-faw. Interestingly, this inscription dates from the time of Diodorus. So it was inhabited by Arabs during his time.

Actually, the very fact that Mecca was "invisible" confirms its identity in the Greek records. Because if they had known about this town, and if it was part of the major Kingdoms of the Area (the Nabeatens, or the Sabeaens) then the Greek Historian would have named it specifically. All the towns you have mentioned, are either in the North (Nabeatean territory), or the South (Sabeaen territory). Only Mecca falls right in between, and hence fits the description perfectly.

You are obviously desperately looking for any straw to hang on to. You are doing this because you KNOW VERY WELL that Mecca is never even remotely mentioned. You also KNOW VERY WELL that none of the people of the book ever heard of Mecca or visited it. You also KNOW VERY WELL that none of the people of the book ever spun seven times around a cube and kissed and revered a black stone WHILE THE PAGAN WORSHIPPERS OF ALLAT CERTAINLY DID.

Before you use your "logic" to attack religious rituals (which are illogical to begin with), I suggest you try to apply it to your argument.

The craziness of those pagan rituals is independent of location. Pagan is as pagan does. You keep evading the issue because you know that your pagan rituals are indefensible. Frankly speaking, I don?t care about the location and I wouldn?t mind supporting Mecca even if it was built in the 8th century CE had it been a place where no partners are setup with the god.

Peace,

Ayman

[c0de]

I see that you are not talking about Babylonians anymore LOL. Well at least you learned something new today.

I gave you the history of the city, I never said that the Babylonians existed in the 1st century. I ignored to mention it the last time because it was irrelevant to the argument as you had mistaken the referrence I made the first time. But if you want to persue it, please show me where I said the Babylonians were around by 1st century.

I also see that are still pathetically trying to become the miracle archeologist who will somehow save his crazy pagan rituals by copying and pasting from Wiki .

Your frustrations are showing... nice. Keep it up 

The Nabataean kingdom wasn?t actually in Tayma but was north of Tyama (just look at your sorry map). The main inhabitants of Tayma were not the Nabataeans but were Arab tribes (and Jews) who at the time acted as proxies for the Nabataeans.

Point Being: The area was well known to the Greek historian at 1st century. Plus, no great "arab" shrine mentioned, as the city was most likely dominated by arab >jews<

Get your eyes checked.

I would suggest the same to you, but it wouldnt help. You will go to any length to disprove the obvious.

You seem to ignore that after their destruction, the Thamudites were scattered over a large area, as far north as the Negev.

and that proves your point?

Any of those towns fit much better than a NON-EXISTENT town. Tabuk fits very well and had a temple that seemed to have peaked in importance around the time of Diodorus. As for Al-hegr, the term Thamudites referred not to its inhabitants but to nomads who roamed north Arabia. Remember that the inhabitants of the town of Saleh were destroyed. Dedan fits very well too and by the way it is near of El-hegr (just south of it), not near Tayma, further evidence that you need to get your eyes checked.

None of these towns fit. You have not dealt with the objections in the previous post. Instead, all you have done is "evaded the issue"

You can?t even read from the very Wiki link that you provided. Qaryat-al-faw is not a tribe, it is a town! There is no Wiki article on Qaryat-al-faw so no wonder you are confused. LOL

I was obviously talking about the tribe AT this location. A little trigger happy, are we?

Qaryat-al-faw in central Arabia

"central" arabia, now is it? (lol). How is the border of Yemen, "central" arabia?

In fact, the earliest pure Old Arabic inscription is from Qaryat-al-faw. Interestingly, this inscription dates from the time of Diodorus. So it was inhabited by Arabs during his time.

And they were also part of the Sabeaen territory... so I am sorry, not "between" the two locations, but part of the Sabeaens.

You are obviously desperately looking for any straw to hang on to. You are doing this because you KNOW VERY WELL that Mecca is never even remotely mentioned. You also KNOW VERY WELL that none of the people of the book ever heard of Mecca or visited it. You also KNOW VERY WELL that none of the people of the book ever spun seven times around a cube and kissed and revered a black stone WHILE THE PAGAN WORSHIPPERS OF ALLAT CERTAINLY DID.

I have no need to be desperate... because your argument is completely self-defeating. You made such an effort to show us that all of these alternative locations you have provided were "well documented" at the time of Diodorus... Yet you fail to realize that this very same argument defeats your own purpose. Because if they were so "well documented" then why did this Greek Historian not mention this mysterious location by name? Why did he not say that it was located in Sabeaen Territory? Or the Northern areas which the Greeks were familliar with? Why did he give its location as between these two areas and did not actually name the place? Percisely because Mecca is not well documented, while these other places are. And its invisibility actually destroys your argument, because it is itself proof of it. Since the account from Greek history mentions a shrine that was revered by all Arabs, without actually giving its location, or giving it a name.

The craziness of those pagan rituals is independent of location.Pagan is as pagan does. You keep evading the issue because you know that your pagan rituals are indefensible. Frankly speaking, I don?t care about the location and I wouldn?t mind supporting Mecca even if it was built in the 8th century CE had it been a place where no partners are setup with the god.

PeAcE