Why Are Mecca and the Annual Hajj Completely Absent from Ancient Arab, Jewish, Christian, Roman, and Archaeological Records?

📢 A Message to Our Readers

Dear Truth-Seekers!

It is the most important issue we need to focus on today.

Why?

Because modern science has turned it into that “ultimate weapon” which will EXPOSE the falsehood completely.

It will leave no “gray areas”, but it will bring everything into clear black and white, where truth stands apart from falsehood. And when the truth becomes this clear, it becomes much easier for us to make the right choice. 

Table of Contents

The stories of the Bible vs. the Stories of Muhammad

According to the stories narrated by the Prophet Muhammad, to strengthen his new religion:

• Mecca has been inhabited since the time of Abraham (i.e., 2000 BC).
• The descendants of Ismael spread throughout Arabia, and all of Arabia was monotheistic and followed the "Abrahamic God." It was only 300 years before Muhammad's arrival that they turned to idol worship.
• Mecca was the most famous and well-known city in Arabia because it was located on the most important trade route, and caravans and Arab nomads came there to fill water from the Zamzam spring.
• And then it was the holiest city for all of Arabia, where people came from all over Arabia every year to perform Hajj. (Just as Mecca is the most famous and well-known city among Muslims today due to its sanctity).

However, modern science has proven all these religious stories to be false:

1. Discovery of a huge archaeological treasure in Arabia:
   There is no rain and no humidity in the Arab region, so things are naturally preserved. With the help of modern science, archaeologists have discovered thousands of archaeological treasures from every region in Arabia. These archaeological finds include idols, images, and thousands of inscriptions carved on rocks and stone tablets. But the extent of surprise was immense when no trace of Mecca, nor a monotheistic God, nor Abraham and Ismael, nor of any Hajj and animal slaughter, nor any monotheistic mosque or place of worship was found in the archaeological records. Instead, only Sabaean places of worship, their idols, and their teachings were found in these cities (whereas, according to the story of Prophet Muhammad, all of Arabia was completely monotheistic until 300 years before his birth).
2. Books of ancient Roman historians regarding the history of Arabia:
   The next problem arose when it was found that Northern Arabia was part of the Roman Empire, and ancient Roman historians mentioned every city in the entire Arab region in detail in their books. These books describe in detail the kingdoms in almost every region and the dynastic lines of the kings within them. Similarly, even the tribes present in each region are mentioned in them. Therefore, it was immensely surprising when modern historians found no trace of a city named Mecca in these books, nor any mention of a mosque, a monotheistic God, or Abraham or Ismael, or performing Hajj to Mecca in any city. And along with Mecca, there is no mention of the Zamzam spring either (even though, according to Prophet Muhammad's story, Mecca was the most important and well-known city in Arabia where people from all over Arabia came for Hajj every year, and all the nomadic tribes of the area came here to water their animals, and it was on the most important trade route through which all trade caravans passed).

You can see the condition of Muslims today, where they have inscribed "Allah" and other Islamic writings everywhere. Therefore, it is impossible that there are thousands of inscriptions and writings with the names of idols in Arabia, but any mention of a monotheistic God, Abraham and Ismael, and Mecca and Zamzam and Hajj is completely absent.

These Islamic stories began when Prophet Muhammad wanted to alter the story of Abraham narrated in the Bible and include his own character.

According to the Bible:

• When Abraham, at his wife Sarah's insistence, banished Hagar and Ismael, they both wandered alone in the wilderness of Beersheba (present-day Israel).
• Ismael was a 16-year-old boy. When Ismael became exhausted from thirst in the wilderness of Beersheba, Hagar made him sit under a bush and went to sit on a distant hill so she wouldn't have to watch her son die. At that moment, a spring of water appeared there.
• Abraham wanted to sacrifice Isaac, not Ismael, and at that time, a ram appeared.
• The descendants of Ismael settled from the south of present-day Israel to Western Iraq, passing through Southern Syria and Northern Arabia. This is a fertile inhabited strip that has always been populated. You can see the strip indicated by the red line on this map; this is the area where, according to the Bible, the descendants of Ismael settled. Whereas present-day Mecca is located in west-central Arabia, which was completely barren and uninhabited until the time of Christ.
• The descendants of Ismael called themselves Jews and used the same Bible. There was no difference between them and other Jews. Later, the Jewish descendants of Ismael and Isaac mingled so much that it became impossible to distinguish between them.

Whereas, according to Prophet Muhammad's modified story:

• Adam first built the Kaaba in Mecca and declared it the first house of God on Earth. Then the Kaaba disappeared without a trace.
• Abraham brought Hagar and Ismael not to Beersheba (present-day Israel), but to Mecca, and then left them alone in Mecca and returned. There was no trace of a Kaaba built by Adam, only wilderness and no population. The Islamic stories do not explain why the Kaaba built by Adam disappeared without a trace and why God did not keep it populated.
• Ismael was a baby. He started crying from thirst, so Hagar circled two hills named Safa and Marwah. Then a spring of water flowed from Ismael's foot. Then the Arab nomadic tribe "Bani Jurhum" passed by, saw the water, and settled there.
• Later, Abraham came to Mecca again and built the Kaaba with the help of Ismael.
• Abraham wanted to sacrifice Ismael, not Isaac, and then a ram appeared.
• The descendants of Ismael spread throughout Arabia. They did not call themselves Jews but followers of the religion of Abraham.
• Prophet Muhammad claimed that he himself was a descendant of Ismael.

However, the Arabs of Prophet Muhammad's own time had no knowledge of these stories. They knew nothing of Adam, Abraham, Ismael, or Hagar, nor did they know that they themselves were descendants of Ismael. They heard these claims for the first time from Prophet Muhammad.

Bible vs. Muhammad: ... Who is right?

So now the question is, how to decide who is right and who is wrong in this conflict between the Bible and Muhammad?

Or are both of them wrong?

Here, modern scientific research emerged, which at least proved regarding Muhammad that, without a doubt, the stories Prophet Muhammad narrated about the existence of "Mecca" and the "Abrahamic God" in ancient Arab history cannot be correct.

Change of Qibla... The beginning of animosity with the Jews... The beginning of new stories

Since Muhammad was presenting his new religion as a continuation of the God of the Jews and Christians, for the first time in Mecca, he changed the Qibla and ordered prayers facing Jerusalem instead of the Kaaba. Upon arriving in Medina, Muhammad initially adopted more Jewish Sharia laws to appease the Jews. However, Prophet Muhammad soon faced complete failure, and the Jews did not accept Prophet Muhammad's claim to prophethood, but instead continued to declare him a false prophet.

Hence, from there began the animosity with the Jews, and Jerusalem was abolished as the Qibla, and the Kaaba was designated as the Qibla for the second time.

People understood that Prophet Muhammad was angry that the Jews were not accepting him as a prophet, and the Qibla was changed as punishment for this crime. Therefore, Prophet Muhammad called those critics 'fools' in the Quran. It is mentioned in the Quran as follows:

(Surah Al-Baqarah, verses 143-146):
The foolish people will say, "What has turned them (the Muslims) from their Qibla (Jerusalem) which they used to face?" ... So We appointed the Qibla which you used to face only that We might test those who follow the Messenger from those who would turn on their heels.

Thus, a question arose in the minds of people (including Muslims): what kind of God is this, and what kind of wisdom does He have, that He first directs towards the Kaaba, then changes the Qibla to Jerusalem, then after a year and a half, when He becomes displeased with the Jews, He decides that the direction should be towards the Kaaba and not Jerusalem?

It was not possible for the author of the Quran (i.e., Muhammad) to answer this objection of the people. Therefore, to silence these people, Prophet Muhammad addressed them in the Quran as "fools." Then Prophet Muhammad offered the excuse that Allah wanted to see who would turn back on their heels.

This is a very strange excuse that Allah changed the Qibla twice just to see some people turn back on their heels. It is extremely interesting that there is not a single person in history who turned back on their heels because of the change of the Kaaba.

Therefore, this question still remains for Muslims: when not a single individual was to turn back on their heels from Islam due to the change of Qibla, then what was the need for Allah to arrange for the Qibla to be changed twice? It is clear that Prophet Muhammad here used Allah's name to express his personal animosity towards the Jews.

The matter did not stop at the change of the Kaaba, but the Prophet now had to prove himself "superior" to the Jewish prophets at all costs. Hence, other stories were fabricated from here that:

• Hagar and Ismael came to Mecca with Abraham, not Beersheba (Israel).
• The next story was that Abraham sacrificed Ismael, not Isaac. The purpose of making Ismael "Dhabih Allah" (sacrificed to God) was clear: to give him superiority over Isaac. And then, to enhance his own superiority, Prophet Muhammad claimed that he was a descendant of Ismael.

All these stories were initiated by Prophet Muhammad after his arrival in Medina and after the change of Qibla.

Why did the Kaaba vanish after Adam, requiring Abraham to rebuild it?

It was essential for the Prophet of Islam to assert his superiority over the People of the Book and their prophets and Qibla. Therefore, later, after the change of the Kaaba, the Prophet of Islam claimed that the Kaaba is superior to Jerusalem because Abraham and Ismael built it before Jerusalem. Furthermore, to give the Kaaba more eminence, it was claimed that the Kaaba was the first house of Allah on Earth, first built by Adam (Surah Al-Imran, verse 93). It is noteworthy that during his 13 years in Mecca, Muhammad did not mention that the Kaaba was the first house of Allah on Earth. Instead, after migrating to Medina, following disputes with the Jews, and at the time of the change of Qibla, the author of the Quran (i.e., Muhammad) remembered to state that the Kaaba was the first house of Allah on Earth, in order to prove its superiority over Jerusalem. (See Maududi sahib's Tafhim al-Quran regarding the period of revelation of Surah Al-Imran).

So, the author of the Quran (i.e., Muhammad) claimed that the Kaaba was the first house of Allah on Earth, but then no reason was given why this first house of Allah became ruined and desolate after Adam, why even its trace disappeared? Why was Abraham completely unaware of the Kaaba's existence when he arrived in that desert with Hagar and Ismael? Why did Abraham have to rebuild the Kaaba? And why did Allah not protect His first and most sacred house?

You can ask Muslims a thousand times, but they will never answer you from the Quran and Sunnah; instead, they will prevaricate.

Why didn't the countless prophets and all of Bani Israel who came after Abraham come to Mecca for Hajj every year?

The author of the Quran (i.e., Muhammad) further claimed that after Abraham built the Kaaba, Allah commanded him to invite all people of the world to come for Hajj.

(Surah Al-Hajj, verses 26-27) And (remember the time) when We designated for Abraham the site of the Kaaba (and commanded him), "Do not associate anything with Me, and purify My House for those who circumambulate, and those who stand (in prayer), and those who bow, and those who prostrate. And proclaim among the people the Hajj; they will come to you on foot and on every lean camel (riding) from every distant path.

According to this command, it became obligatory for the countless prophets who came after Abraham and all of Bani Israel to perform Hajj at the Kaaba in Mecca every year. However, when we look at the Bible, there is no mention whatsoever of Jews and Christians going to Mecca for an annual Hajj or anything similar.

Upon this, Islamists immediately claim that the Bible is "corrupted" and therefore the testimony of the Bible cannot be accepted.

But the problem is that the Bible is not the sole witness. Whether it's the Bible, or other historical books written by Jews and Christians, or ancient books on the history of Jews and Christians written by Roman Empire historians, there is no mention whatsoever of any prophet or all of Bani Israel coming to Mecca for Hajj every year. Furthermore, this fact becomes even clearer in light of archaeological evidence.

1. Absence of Ancient Jewish Texts and "Eid al-Adha"

The most fundamental sources of Jewish history, beliefs, and worship are their own sacred texts, including the Old Testament (Tanakh) and the Dead Sea Scrolls. These texts predate the birth of Jesus Christ by a significant margin.

• Old Testament (Tanakh): This contains detailed commandments regarding Jewish laws, rituals, festivals, and sacrifices. The Torah specifically mentions three annual pilgrimages (Passover, Shavuot, and Sukkot), where all men were obliged to appear at the Temple in Jerusalem. Sacrifices were also offered during these festivals, but their purpose was not to celebrate a festival like "Eid al-Adha" in remembrance of Abraham's sacrifice. Although Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac (the Akedah) is given great importance in Jewish tradition, it is not celebrated as a specific annual feast.
• Dead Sea Scrolls: These scrolls provide valuable information about Jewish sects from the 1st century BCE and 1st century CE, but they also contain no mention of a pilgrimage towards Mecca or a festival like "Eid al-Adha."

These books contain every detail of the fundamental principles, history, and worship of Judaism, but there is no reference to any festival that resembles the Islamic Eid al-Adha or any mention of a pilgrimage to Mecca.

2. Absence of Mecca Pilgrimage in Early Christian Literature

After the time of Jesus and in the writings of early Christian generations, there is also no mention of Mecca as a pilgrimage site. The fundamental philosophy of Christianity is that worship is not confined to a specific geographical location, but should be "in spirit and truth."

• New Testament: The Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and Epistles mention Christian worship, rituals, and missionary journeys, but contain no reference to Mecca or any kind of pilgrimage there. The journeys of the apostles and early Christians were focused on Jerusalem, Rome, Antioch, and other Roman cities.
• Writings of the Church Fathers: Important Christian leaders and historians of the 4th and 5th centuries CE, such as Eusebius, Saint Jerome, and Augustine, wrote extensively on Christian history, beliefs, and pilgrimage sites. They mentioned pilgrimages to Jerusalem and other sites in the Holy Land, but none of their writings contain any reference to Mecca as a Christian pilgrimage site. For example, "The Pilgrim of Bordeaux's" itinerary from 333 CE and Egeria's itinerary from the 4th century CE describe detailed pilgrimages to the Holy Land, but there is no mention of Mecca.
• Concept of Sacrifice in Christianity: Christian belief holds that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross atones for the sins of all humanity, and thereafter the need for ritual animal sacrifices ceased. Therefore, there is no festival of animal sacrifice or any ritual like "Eid al-Adha" in Christianity.

3. Silence of Roman and Greek Historians: A Significant External Testimony

Roman and Greek historians who were active before and after the time of Jesus Christ wrote detailed accounts of Arabia, Jews and Christians, and their customs. The absence of any mention of an annual pilgrimage to Mecca in their writings is strong external evidence.

• Herodotus (484-425 BCE): The "Father of History" mentioned some tribes of the Near East and Arabia in his book "Histories," but gave no reference to Mecca or any annual pilgrimage there.
• Pliny the Elder (23-79 CE): In his vast encyclopedia "Natural History," he wrote about the geography and tribes of Arabia, but did not clearly mention Mecca or any religious role it played.
• Ptolemy (100-170 CE): The Greek geographer included maps of Arabia in his book "Geography" and mentioned "Macoraba," which some connect to Mecca, but he did not describe it as a religious center or pilgrimage site, nor did he mention any Jewish or Christian pilgrimage.
• Procopius (500-560 CE): The Byzantine historian provided detailed information on pre-Islamic Arab tribes, but his writings also contain no reference to Mecca or any annual pilgrimage there.

These historians were writing at a time when Judaism and Christianity existed within the Roman Empire, and details of their religious activities and sites were extensively documented. If an important ritual like an annual pilgrimage to Mecca existed, it would have been impossible for these reputable historians to overlook it.

4. Archaeological Evidence and Historical Context

Modern archaeological research and the study of ancient Arab history also support the fact that external evidence regarding Mecca as a major and ancient commercial or religious center before the advent of Muhammad is extremely limited or non-existent.

• Archaeology finds no clear traces of pre-Islamic Mecca or any specific evidence of Abrahamic monotheism, while inscriptions and historical records of other cities in the Arabian Peninsula (like Dedan, Tayma) are quite rich.
• Even those historians who shed light on the history of ancient Arab idolatry (such as evidence of idolatry in Neo-Assyrian inscriptions from 911 BCE) made no mention of Mecca or Abrahamic pilgrimage.

Therefore, in light of all available historical, religious, and archaeological evidence, it is absolutely clear that Jews and Christians never celebrated a festival like "Eid al-Adha" nor did they ever turn towards Mecca for an annual pilgrimage.

Muslim Excuse: Ancient Empires' "Organized Perfect Global Conspiracy" to Erase All Evidence of Mecca, Abraham, and Hajj

During excavations, hundreds and thousands of archaeological artifacts were recovered from every ancient city in Arabia. If we compile the excuses presented by Islamic apologists regarding these, the overall situation becomes something like this:

• Jews, Christians, the Roman Empire, and Sabaeans knew that Prophet Muhammad would be born in the future to abolish their religions. Therefore, even before Prophet Muhammad's birth, they conspired together to prepare a great, organized, and perfect global conspiracy against Muhammad and Islam.
• Under this great conspiracy, the entire Jewish world and the entire Christian world (i.e., in all countries where Jews and Christians existed) collaborated to corrupt all copies of the Torah and Bible. They removed all mention of Abraham, the prophets who came after him, and the entire Jewish and Christian communities' annual pilgrimages to Mecca and the annual sacrifices of millions of animals from the Torah and Bible.
• And this corruption was not limited to the Torah and Bible alone. Besides the Torah and Bible, other historical books were written in the Jewish and Christian worlds. All these historical books were also corrupted, and all mention of Abraham, other prophets, and the entire Jewish and Christian communities' annual pilgrimages to Mecca was removed from them.
• After the Torah, Gospels, and other books, it was the turn of archaeological findings. All the archaeological findings (inscriptions carved on rocks and stones, etc.) found throughout the Jewish and Christian worlds, which were related to the pilgrimage to the Kaaba in Mecca and the annual sacrifice of animals, were destroyed to prove Prophet Muhammad and Islam false in the future.
• Then, the ancient Roman Empire systematically joined this conspiracy with the Jewish and Christian worlds, and all ancient Roman and Greek historians who were compiling the history of Arabia also, under the conspiracy, omitted any mention of Mecca, Hajj, and the annual sacrifice of millions of animals.
• According to Islamic apologists, 300 years before Prophet Muhammad's birth, the people of Arabia were monotheistic and followers of the Abrahamic religion. But after that, innovations appeared among the Arabs, and they abandoned the monotheistic God and began worshipping stars and idols, becoming Sabaeans (refer to Islamic references further in this article). And upon becoming Sabaeans, they also became part of this global conspiracy of Jews, Christians, and the Roman Empire, and they completely erased all mention of Allah, Abraham, Mecca, Hajj, and sacrifice from all of Arabia, leaving no book or archaeological artifact undisturbed. They obliterated all such inscriptions carved on rocks and stones and destroyed the places of worship of the Abrahamic religion in every city.
• The Sabaeans not only destroyed the archaeological evidence related to the Abrahamic religion, the Kaaba, and Hajj, but afterward, they carved new inscriptions on rocks and stones according to the Sabaean religion, demolished the mosques of the Abrahamic religion and built Sabaean places of worship in their place... And they did all this because they also knew that Prophet Muhammad was going to be born in the future, and they had to stop Prophet Muhammad and Islam through this perfect conspiracy.

Can any sensible person ever believe in this "great perfect conspiracy theory" of Muslims?

See further contradiction: on one hand, based on Islamic traditions, they claim that Jews settled in Medina because they loved the prophet who was to come to that city in the future and were eagerly awaiting him... but on the other hand, Muslims claim that Jews and Christians had such intense hatred for the coming Prophet Muhammad that they conspired globally to remove all mention of Muhammad, Mecca, Kaaba, annual Hajj, and annual animal sacrifices for Eid al-Adha from their books.

Why did Muhammad make the Kaaba and the rituals of Hajj part of Islamic law?

Archaeological Evidence: No Existence of "Mecca" and "Abrahamic God" in Ancient Arabia

A huge treasure of ancient artifacts has been discovered from many places in Arabia. The reason for this is that the climate of Arabia has no humidity, so all these things remained very well preserved.

From these ancient artifacts (archaeology), it is proven that Mecca had no existence until the birth of Christ (Jesus). The era of Christ was 600 years before Prophet Muhammad. While Abraham came 2000 years before Christ.

For example, thousands of stone inscriptions and rock carvings have been found in the Arab region that are several hundred years older than the time of Christ, but in these thousands of carved inscriptions, there is no mention of Mecca, nor a single word about any monotheistic God, Abraham, Ismael, or any such prophets, or people from all over Arabia going for Hajj to the Kaaba in any single city of Arabia.

Stone inscription from 700 BCE found in the Yemen region (Details on Wikipedia).

Islam claims that Mecca is an ancient city that came into existence in the time of Abraham (i.e., approximately 2000 BCE, and 2600 years before the time of Muhammad). And it was the most famous city in Arabia because people from all over Arabia would come here every year for Hajj with their sacrificial animals. It was also located on the most important trade route.

But a very strong evidence against this Islamic claim is that:

• No single ancient artifact of any kind, such as stone inscriptions or rock carvings, monuments, tombs, or any other form, is found throughout Arabia. Whereas a huge treasure of artifacts from ancient Arab cities and kingdoms is still preserved in the form of stone tablets (inscriptions) and rock carvings, places of worship, tombs, or other archaeological documents.
• These ancient artifacts found in other cities are so abundant that archaeologists were able to compile a complete record of the kings and cities of those areas.
• From here, experts also got a treasure of information about the wars fought between different cities in that area and which cities existed in Arabia.
• From here, experts got information about which places of worship existed in which areas, and which idols and stars were worshipped there.

But despite such a vast informational treasure, these ancient artifacts do not show any existence of a city named Mecca, nor any mention of Arabs going there for Hajj, nor a single word about any monotheistic God, Adam, Noah, Abraham, or Ismael throughout Arabia.

If Mecca really existed before the time of Christ, then certainly many more ancient artifacts related to Mecca should have been found compared to surrounding cities, because according to Islam, Arabs were descendants of Ismael, who went to Mecca for Hajj every year, and Mecca was located on a trade route. But here the situation is that ancient artifacts related to Mecca are "zero," while there is an abundance of ancient artifacts, numbering in the thousands, related to cities north and south of Mecca located on the trade route.

Even more interestingly, the trade route on which Mecca was located has historical records dating back centuries before Christ, mentioning Arab kingdoms located on that route. Mecca is located between two famous cities on this well-known trade route, Qedar Kingdom of Qedar and Dedan Al-`Ula. This trade route runs parallel to the Red Sea.

The region of Al-Sabaeans is located in southwestern Arabia, and according to archaeologists, the people of this area began writing "documented texts" 1000 years BCE [Link]. Among all Central Asian civilizations, the Yemen region has the greatest abundance of inscriptions carved on stones and rocks. The number of these carved inscriptions is in the thousands. Despite reading these thousands of carved inscriptions, archaeologists could not find any trace of Mecca, nor Hajj, nor the existence of any monotheistic religion of Abraham.

These carved inscriptions were saved from destruction because there is very little rain in this region of Yemen compared to the rest of the world. Whereas in Mecca, there is 10 times less rain than in Yemen. Therefore, if ancient Mecca really existed, these inscriptions would have been preserved in even greater numbers than in Yemen due to the lack of rain. But here the situation is that the number of such ancient artifacts in Mecca is "zero."

Similarly, on this trade route, many cities north of Mecca have these stone and rock carvings that detail the families who ruled these areas. For example, Dedan Al-`Ula and Tayma Tayma are cities located north of Mecca on this trade route. Memorial tombs, rock and stone carvings, and graffiti from these cities provide us with detailed artifacts dating back to 800 BCE.

But despite being located between these three cities on the trade route, no inscription mentions Mecca, Abraham, or Hajj, nor any monotheistic religion of an Abrahamic God.

Today, we find the names of the dynasties of kings in these other Arab cities in sequence, which are present in these thousands of carved inscriptions. These have been compiled by K. A. Kitchen, Von Wissmann, and many other experts. These records are almost continuously available from 1000 BCE to several centuries after Christ.

Northern Arabia: Thamud, Lihyan and Nabataeans

These are the cities that were located north of present-day Mecca.

Thamud:

• The artifacts of Thamud begin from 800 BCE and are continuously found until 500 CE.
• The number of inscriptions carved on stone tablets is "several thousands."
• There are countless such inscriptions in the archaeological sites of other Arab cities where the tribes of Thamud, their gods, and their wars are mentioned, but nowhere is Mecca mentioned, nor any Abrahamic monotheistic God, nor Hajj.

Lihyan:

• Full documentation of the dynasties of Lihyan kings exists, starting from 330 BCE.
• Inscriptions found here mention their gods.
• Artifacts exist in the form of stone inscriptions, idols of gods, tombs, and graffiti on stones.

Nabataeans:

• This city had special importance because it controlled the trade route that connected Northern Arabia with the Syrian region. This is the same route where Mecca settled several hundred years after Christ.
• All "internal" and "external" evidence regarding the city of Nabataeans exists. External evidence includes detailed mentions of Nabataeans in the archaeological findings of other regions.
• Internal evidence includes "coins" bearing the names of Nabataean rulers. A large number of ancient buildings like tombs exist. There is a large number of stone inscriptions found from the areas of Petra Petra and Madain Salih Mada'in Saleh, with the help of which all details from the rulers of 175 BCE onwards are available.

Artifacts of cities south of Mecca

Kingdom of Main:

• The historical record of all the kings of this city exists from 430 BCE. The names of the brothers, sons, and other relatives of these rulers are also available.
• Records of small cities around the Kingdom of Main that were settled in history and then vanished also exist.

Kingdom of Qataban:

• The names of the rulers of this city and the historical events that occurred are also consistently available (including religious places of worship). The number of ancient rulers was 31, who ruled from 330 BCE to 160 CE.
  
  

SABA Kingdom of Sheba and HIMYAR Himyarite Kingdom:

• The number of rulers of Sheba and Himyar was 102, starting from 900 BCE and extending to 600 CE. All their names and historical events are detailed in the existing artifacts.
  
  

City east of Mecca

Kingdom of Kinda:

This kingdom was located east of Mecca. Its capital was 500 miles away from Mecca. External evidence includes inscriptions found in Sheba that mention this kingdom. Internal evidence includes stone inscriptions and other artifacts found here.

Further east of Mecca, historical artifacts of Mesopotamia and the Arabian Gulf regions are also available in great detail. But nowhere is Mecca mentioned. For example:

Present-day Bahrain Dilmun:

• Pottery found here indicates that its history is as old as that of Mesopotamia. Traces of royal dynasties begin from 1800 BCE. Ancient Bahrain is mentioned by historians from ancient Persia and other regions.
  
  

Present-day Oman Magan:

• Archaeological artifacts from Oman begin from 2800 BCE and are found on countless inscriptions. These artifacts predate Abraham. Abraham came in 2000 BCE. External evidence related to ancient Oman is also available in detail. Despite such an abundance of ancient artifacts, there is no mention of Abraham or Mecca anywhere.

Medina mentioned in ancient Yemeni inscriptions, but Mecca missing

• As mentioned above, historical artifacts have been found in abundance in Yemen, but surprisingly, there is no mention of Mecca anywhere, nor a single word about any Abrahamic monotheistic God.
• Compared to Mecca, the Kingdom of Qedar, the Kingdom of Kinda, and other cities located north of Mecca on the trade route are mentioned. If there is no mention, it is the mention of Mecca that is missing.
• Even more surprisingly, these Yemeni inscriptions also mention the city of "Medina," which is located north of Mecca, but despite this, the city of Mecca is completely absent.
  
  

Even in the history of the nations that occupied Arabia, neither Mecca nor the monotheistic Abrahamic God is present:

• The Babylonians and Ninevites occupied Arabia, but there is no mention of Mecca in their history, nor any mention of the religion of a monotheistic Abrahamic God.
• Persia occupied Arabia, but there is no mention of Mecca in their history, nor any mention of the religion of the Abrahamic God. Not only did they occupy, but they also traded, but they could not find any trace of Mecca anywhere.
• Rome also occupied Arabia and wrote its history, but in their history, neither Mecca is found, nor any existence of the Abrahamic God whatsoever, but other idols and places of worship are mentioned in detail.

Read highly detailed information about all these archaeological proofs in this English article. Link.

Ancient artifacts also disproved Abraha's Islamic story

An archaeological inscription written on a rock has been found in the Al-Saba'iyun region south of Mecca (known as Abraha Inscription of Marib (Ry 508 / CIH 541)), whose official English translation is (link):

English Translation: "With the power of the Almighty, and His Messiah King Abraha Zeebman, the King of Saba'a, Zuridan, and Hadrmaut and Yemen and the tribes (on) the mountains and the coast wrote these lines on his battle against the tribe of Ma'ad (in) the battle of al-Rabiya in the month of "Dhu al Thabithan" and fought all of Bani A'amir and appointed the King Abi Jabar with Kinda and Al, Bishar bin Hasan with Sa'ad, Murad, and Hadarmaut in front of the army against Bani Amir of Kinda. and Al in Zu Markh valley and Murad and Sa'ad in Manha valley on the way to Turban and killed and captured and took the booty in large quantities and the King and fought at Halban and reached Ma'ad and took booty and prisoners, and after that, conquered Omro bin al-Munzir. (Abraha) appointed the son (of Omro) as the ruler and returned from Hal Ban (halban) with the power of the Almighty in the month of Zu A'allan in the year sixty-two and six hundred."

This inscription completely refutes the Muslim claim that Abraha was made like eaten straw by the Ababil birds. On the contrary, this inscription indicates that Abraha attacked various Arab tribes, trampled them, reached far, collected booty and slaves everywhere, and returned safely to his country without becoming eaten straw on the way.

This inscription mentions neither elephants, nor Ababil birds, nor the Quraysh, nor the Kaaba, nor Abraha's defeat.

Similarly, Procopius of Caesarea is a historian from Abraha's time who wrote details about Abraha in his book, but nowhere did he mention Abraha's elephants, or their journey towards a city called Mecca, or Ababil birds, or these elephants becoming straw.

This archaeological and historical evidence directly proves the Muslim claim false. Muslims have no answer to this.

Ancient Historians and Geographers

Beyond the absence of archaeological evidence, the detailed records compiled by numerous Roman and Greek geographers and historians provide further compelling evidence against Mecca's early existence or the presence of an Abrahamic monotheistic religion throughout Arabia. None of these extensive ancient sources acknowledge the city of Mecca, nor do they find any trace of such a faith.

Let's examine key historical accounts:

1. Nabonidus (5th Century BCE Babylonian King): This Babylonian monarch visited and established a kingdom in the Arabian region. His journey to Tayma (east of Medina) is documented in a poem; he conquered Tayma, then Medina and Khaybar. Throughout his entire narrative, there is no mention of Mecca, an Abrahamic God, or an annual Hajj pilgrimage.
2. Herodotus (5th Century BCE Historian): In his seminal work "History," Herodotus describes a "new area called Arabia" recently settled in the south, known for producing incense, frankincense, cinnamon, and opium. He lists several cities but notably excludes Mecca. This explicitly contradicts the idea of Arabia being settled by Abraham in 2000 BCE, as Herodotus clearly portrays it as a recent development. He also has no knowledge of any Abrahamic monotheistic God.
3. Theophrastos (4th Century BCE): This philosopher and botanist wrote extensively about Yemeni and other Arab regions and their cultures. Yet, he too fails to mention Mecca or the religion of an Abrahamic God.
4. Eratosthenes (3rd Century BCE): Eratosthenes documented Arab societies along the Red Sea but does not name Mecca. Instead, he explicitly states that the entire geographical area where Mecca is now located was "completely uninhabited." He similarly found no evidence of an Abrahamic God in other documented societies.
5. Alexander the Great's Expeditions (4th Century BCE): Alexander, known for his meticulous intelligence gathering before conquest, dispatched four military expeditions to collect comprehensive information about Arab culture, military capabilities, trade, and routes. The records of these expeditions, particularly Anaxicrates' systematic measurements, were crucial for later historians. Despite this exhaustive reconnaissance, those participating in Alexander's expeditions found no city named Mecca and no evidence of an Abrahamic God anywhere in Arabia.
6. Agatharchides (2nd Century BCE): Agatharchides meticulously chronicled Arab cities and all places of worship along the Red Sea. He does not mention Mecca, the Kaaba, or Hajj, and finds no trace of an Abrahamic God across Arabia.
7. Strabo (1st Century BCE): Strabo provides detailed accounts of all tribes and cities in Central and Western Arabia. However, Mecca, the Hajj to the Kaaba, and any Abrahamic God are absent from his writings.
8. Aelius Gallus's Roman Expedition (24 BCE): The Roman conqueror Aelius Gallus led an expedition to occupy Arabia. His campaigns mention numerous other Arabian cities, but there is no record of Mecca or Hajj. It is highly improbable that conquerors would overlook a valuable oasis or significant pilgrimage site if it existed. He also found no existence of an Abrahamic God throughout the rest of Arabia.
9. Pliny the Elder (1st Century CE): Pliny documented 92 tribes and 62 cities in Arabia. Remarkably, he does not even name Mecca, nor does he mention any religion of an Abrahamic God.
10. Ptolemy (1st Century CE): Ptolemy, renowned for his world maps, described the geography of 114 cities in Arabia. However, Mecca is nowhere mentioned. While Ptolemy did include a city called Macoraba, which some Muslims claim is Mecca due to phonetic similarity, the geographical indicators and boundaries described for Ptolemy's Macoraba are inconsistent with the actual location and features of Mecca.

This consistent and widespread silence from a diverse range of ancient historians and geographers, many of whom specifically focused on Arabian regions and trade routes over centuries, strongly challenges the notion of Mecca's antiquity or its centrality as a pre-Islamic Abrahamic religious site.

Analysis of Claims Presented by Muslims

---

Muslim Claim Regarding Baca:

Muslims' next claim was that the Old Testament mentions the city of Baca, which they assert is Mecca. For this, Muslims cite the following reference from the Old Testament:

(Psalms 84:5-8) Happy is the man who finds refuge in You, whose mind is on the [pilgrim] highways. They pass through the Valley of Baca, regarding it as a place of springs, as if the early rain had covered it with blessing ..... Better one day in Your courts than a thousand [anywhere else]

Muslims claim that Baca is described here as "the house of God," which was only in Mecca.

The reality is that Muslims are exhibiting extreme "dishonesty." They have not presented this reference completely, as the very next sentence clearly mentions the region of Zion.

(Psalms 84:6)They pass through the Valley of Baca, regarding it as a place of springs, as if the early rain had covered it with blessing.
(Psalms 84:7)They go from rampart to rampart, appearing before God in Zion.

And this region of Zion is mentioned 152 times in the Bible because it is a hill east of Jerusalem, and Baca was a valley on the path through which pilgrims passed to the holy land of Jerusalem. (Link to detailed English article). Read more about Zion on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Zion

It is the dishonesty of Muslims that they dwell on the meaning of Baca, creating lengthy and convoluted arguments to raise doubts, and then claim that since there are doubts, Baca should be considered Islamic Mecca. During this process, they completely conceal the original argument involving Zion and do not mention a single word about it. See this deception and modus operandi of Muslims on their website: Link.

Furthermore, remember that in contrast to Arab history, Roman and other historians have described the conditions of Jews, Christians, Jerusalem, and the Kingdom of Israel in great detail. However, in hundreds of years of this history, these Roman, Greek, and other historians nowhere mention that Jews and Christians ever went to Baca (Arabia) for pilgrimage.

---

Muslim Claim: Diodorus Siculus Mentioned the Kaaba Before Christianity

This famous Muslim Website quotes a famour historian Diodorum Siculus (link):

Diodorus Siculus, a first century B.C. Greek historian while discussing Arabia writes: “The people that inhabit these parts are called Bizomenians and live upon wild beasts taken in hunting. Here is a sacred temple in high veneration among all the Arabians.” (The Historical Library of the Diodorus the Sicilian, Translated by G. Booth, Esq., J. Davis Military Chronicle Office, London 1814 vol.1 p.184)

The problem with this Muslim Website is that it lacks crucial geographical context and misrepresents the location of the "sacred temple."

The Truth is:

Diodorus Siculus, in his Bibliotheca Historica, does indeed mention a "sacred temple in high veneration among all the Arabians." However, when we examine the full context of Diodorus's work, it becomes clear that:

1. Geographical Location: Diodorus places this temple firmly in North-West Arabia, specifically within the territory of the Nabataeans, who were known for their capital city of Petra (modern-day Jordan). His description of the region involves the Red Sea coast north of the Thamudites and Sabeans, far from the location of Mecca in Hijaz.
2. Description of the People: The "Bizomenians" he refers to are nomadic tribes in that northern region, whose lifestyle (hunting wild beasts) doesn't align with the traditional descriptions of Mecca's inhabitants as traders and merchants.
3. No Mention of Mecca: Crucially, Diodorus never mentions a city called "Mecca," "Bakkah," or any location that can be definitively identified with the modern-day city of Mecca. He describes other Arabian cities and regions in detail but not Mecca.

In essence, the Islamist website's quote cherry-picks a sentence about a revered temple while omitting all the geographical and contextual information from Diodorus that clearly places this temple in a completely different part of Arabia (the North-West, near Petra) and attributes it to different peoples than those traditionally associated with ancient Mecca.

---

Muslim apologists frequently cite Edward Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire as evidence for the Kaaba's pre-Christian antiquity. They often present the following passage:

"The genuine antiquity of Caaba ascends beyond the Christian era: in describing the coast of the Red sea the Greek historian Diodorus has remarked, between the Thamudites and the Sabeans (present day YEMEN), a famous temple, whose superior sanctity was revered by all the Arabians." (Reference: Gibbon's Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, Volume V, pp. 223-224)

However, relying on this quote as proof for Mecca's ancient significance is problematic for several reasons:

1. Gibbon's Own Limitations: Edward Gibbon, an 18th-century historian, explicitly admitted his limited familiarity with ancient Arabian history, even describing himself as "careless" in this regard. His primary focus was Roman history, not pre-Islamic Arabia.
2. Misinterpretation of Diodorus Siculus: Gibbon's reference to the Greek historian Diodorus Siculus contains a significant geographical error. While Diodorus does mention a "famous temple," he places it in the northern region of Arabia, specifically north of the Thamudic territories. This location contradicts Gibbon's implied placement "between the Thamudites and the Sabeans (Yemen)," as Mecca is geographically south of the Thamud. Diodorus's original text describes a region and peoples (like the "Bizomenians") distinct from those associated with Mecca.
3. Perpetuation of an Error: Despite subsequent historical and archaeological research clarifying Diodorus's actual geographical context, Gibbon's misinterpretation has been uncritically repeated by some later historians. Muslims have extensively promoted this inaccurate claim, persistently disseminating it even when confronted with overwhelming evidence of its error.

Therefore, the continued use of this specific Gibbon quote by Muslims as historical validation for the Kaaba's ancient origins appears to be a deliberate perpetuation of a known historical inaccuracy.

You can read more details about Gibbon and the Kaaba in English here (Link).

---

Historian Agatharchides:

The argument for Mecca's ancient existence often hinges on Edward Gibbon's flawed interpretation of Diodorus Siculus. However, Diodorus himself drew heavily on the even older and remarkably detailed work of Agatharchides of Cnidus (c. 145 BCE), an historian whose extensive research provides compelling counter-evidence to the traditional Islamic narrative.

Agatharchides, working under the Ptolemaic dynasty, benefited from over a century (3rd-2nd BCE) of meticulous royal expeditions commissioned to survey the Red Sea region for trade routes to Yemen. This was a comprehensive effort to map every detail: tribes, settlements, desolate areas, and trade routes. Furthermore, Agatharchides compiled information from seven earlier historians and numerous eyewitness accounts from traders in the region.

While Agatharchides' original work is lost, it was extensively preserved by later historians, particularly Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, and Photius (in his Bibliotheca). The accuracy of Agatharchides' data is consistently validated by modern research, such as his correct observation about the "white seawater" opposite Saba and the precise location of various tribes. The sheer detail of the Ptolemaic survey, which took over a century to complete, underscores the thoroughness of Agatharchides' information, extending to "every city, small town, and settlement, but almost every tribe, their places of worship, and all important routes."

Despite this unparalleled breadth and detail concerning the Red Sea Arabian coast, Agatharchides' comprehensive survey reveals no trace of:

• Mecca or the Kaaba
• The Jurhum, Khuza'a, or Quraysh tribes
• The Zamzam spring
• The mountains of Paran
• A monotheistic God (Allah), Abraham, or Ishmael in any Arabian cities
• Annual Hajj pilgrimages to Mecca from other parts of Arabia

Agatharchides systematically described the Red Sea coast from north to south, starting with the Nabataeans (whose capital was in Jordan) and proceeding southward region by region until Yemen. Crucially, his meticulous progression would have taken him directly through the geographical area where Mecca is situated today. Yet, he makes no mention of Mecca, the Kaaba, or the tribes traditionally associated with it – an astonishing omission if Mecca were truly a significant trade or religious hub at that time.

The "famous temple" mentioned by Agatharchides (and subsequently copied by Diodorus and Photius), which Muslims, based on Gibbon, erroneously claim is the Kaaba, is explicitly placed near the Gulf of Aqaba, several hundred miles north of Mecca. Agatharchides identifies this region as "Ilat" and its inhabitants as "Batmizomaneis" (or "Banizomenes" in Diodorus), not Jurhami, Qurayshi, or Khuza'i. His precise description places this temple "next after this section of the coast [near the Laeanites Gulf, i.e., Gulf of Aqaba]... within the gulf," clearly tying it to the Aqaba region.

Furthermore, both Diodorus and Photius, immediately after describing the Banizomenes and their temple, mention the "Thamoudeni Arabs," indicating that the Thamudic territory begins after this temple's region. Given that the Thamudic area itself is hundreds of miles north of Mecca, it is geographically impossible for a temple located north of the Thamud to be the Kaaba in Mecca.

Therefore, the assertion that Diodorus (and by extension, Agatharchides) provides historical evidence for Mecca or the Kaaba's pre-Christian existence is demonstrably false. The detailed and highly authenticated historical record compiled by Agatharchides, accessible through Diodorus and Photius, firmly refutes these claims. The persistent promotion of this narrative despite overwhelming counter-evidence points to a fundamental disregard for historical accuracy.

---

Muslim Claim Regarding Macoraba:

It is impossible for Muslims to answer why Greek, Roman, and other historians did not mention a well-known city like Mecca in their detailed documents about Arabia. Muslims have resorted to the excuse that the Greek scholar Ptolemy, in his book Geography, wrote the name of a city as "Macoraba," which they speculate might be Mecca. This "conjecture" fabricated by Muslims has no value to be called "evidence."

The following characteristics of the city of Macoraba were described in Ptolemy's map:

1. There is a river north of Macoraba.
2. The city of Macoraba is located outside mountain ranges.
3. It is located south of the ancient city of Carna. Other cities are also present nearby.
4. He gave the coordinates for the city of Macoraba in terms of longitude & latitude (73 20 22 -AP).

None of these four characteristics apply to the current city of Mecca. There is no river north of Mecca, Mecca is located in a mountain range, there is no city named Carna north of Mecca, and no other cities are present around Mecca, and the current Mecca is not located at the map coordinates.

Ptolemy himself did not visit these areas of Arabia but compiled the map by listening to people's verbal accounts of the cities' names, characteristics, and distances. These people (whose testimonies formed the basis of the map) were capable of accurately describing the characteristics around the city (e.g., presence of a river or mountains, or presence of nearby cities), but they were very inexperienced in measuring distances and made mistakes. Another error in distance occurred because the Romans used one unit of measurement for distance, while the Arabs used a different one. Therefore, these distance errors also appeared in Ptolemy's map.

The Romans (from where Ptolemy hailed) divided Arabia into 3 parts:

1. Arabia Petrea, which was part of the Roman Empire. Therefore, Ptolemy did not make mistakes in the map here; the described cities are present at their coordinates.
2. Arabia Deserta, which was the desert part of Arabia and located under the Roman Empire, and was desolate and barren.
3. Arabia Felix, which consisted of Yemen, Oman, Southern Saudi Arabia (Najran, etc.).

Since Arabia Felix was a wealthy region and contained countless cities, Ptolemy depicted this region as very large, which was an error. In this regard, Ptolemy significantly underestimated the area of Arabia Deserta, the Arab desert. In this desert, Ptolemy showed only 20 cities, while in Arabia Felix, he showed over 200 cities.

Modern geographers used the rivers on Ptolemy's map for accuracy because rivers rarely change their location over time, and even if dry, their course remains. Therefore, when modern geographers extended the rivers on Ptolemy's map to the rivers on the current map, the cities in that area began to fit their coordinates correctly. Only then could it be determined that Macoraba referred to the present-day Yemeni region of Al-Mahabishah. Other characteristics also fit correctly, for example, it has a river to its north, it is not located in a mountain range, and it is located south of the Yemeni city of Carna, and other nearby cities are also correct.

Read the complete article with details here and complete information about corrections in Ptolemy's map here.

---

Macoraba ... and the Double Standards of Islamists

The Islamist approach to Ptolemy's ancient maps, particularly concerning the city of "Macoraba," exemplifies a clear double standard. Their position can be summarized as follows:

They readily accept the presence of "Macoraba" on Ptolemy's map and assert, without definitive proof, that it refers to Mecca. In this specific instance, they argue Ptolemy made no error.

However, they simultaneously reject the three other critical characteristics Ptolemy associated with Macoraba:

1. The presence of a river to its north.
2. Its location in a non-mountainous area.
3. Its position south of the city of Carna.

Their rationale for this rejection is that if Ptolemy could err in map coordinates and distances, he could also be mistaken about nearby geographical features like rivers, mountains, and the relative positions of other cities.

This constitutes a blatant double standard. If one is to deny the accuracy of Ptolemy's geographical details—rivers, mountains, and adjacent cities—then consistency demands that the identification of "Macoraba" itself be equally questioned. Conversely, if the name "Macoraba" is deemed reliable, then the other associated geographical features should also be accepted.

It's crucial to note that accurately measuring precise map coordinates was an immense challenge for ancient cartographers. However, accurately identifying and naming nearby cities, mountains, and rivers was a far simpler task for people of that era.

Furthermore, modern geographers have successfully corrected the coordinate errors in Ptolemy's maps, leading to a coherent and accurate placement of ancient cities, rivers, and mountains. Despite this, the Islamist argument persists in denying these corrected geographical facts while clinging exclusively to the name "Macoraba," without offering any credible justification for this selective acceptance.

Debunking "Macoraba": Flawed Linguistic Claims and Absence of Evidence

Islamist apologists present two key claims regarding "Macoraba" on Ptolemy's map, both of which are easily refuted:

Claim 1: "Macoraba" is more similar to "Mecca" than "Al-Mahabishah."

Response: If phonetic similarity alone is the criterion, then the city of Maqarib, mentioned by the Muslim historian Yaqut al-Hamawi, bears a much stronger resemblance to "Macoraba." Crucially, the geographical coordinates provided by Yaqut al-Hamawi for Maqarib also align more precisely with the likely location of Ptolemy's Macoraba than do Mecca's. Therefore, if phonetic matching is the sole justification, consistency dictates that "Macoraba" should be identified with Maqarib, not Mecca.

Claim 2: The Etymology of "Macoraba" points to Mecca.

Response: Muslims often resort to speculative etymologies, with various "linguists" offering convoluted derivations for "Macoraba" to link it to Mecca. These conjectures include:

• "Mecca al-Rabba" (Great Mecca, using Hebrew "al-Rabba")
• Derived from "mihrab" (a mosque niche)
• Derived from "muharaba" (combat)
• Meaning "great slaughterhouse" (referring to animal sacrifice)
• Meaning "Mecca, the capital"

None of these etymological claims are supported by evidence; they are pure conjecture. The fundamental flaw is that these "linguists" cannot even agree on the original language of "Macoraba"—some propose Hebrew, others Arabic, and so on. This unproven linguistic guesswork is not historical or linguistic evidence. It's also important to note that these attempts to link Macoraba to Mecca only emerged after the 17th century CE. No ancient historian, geographer, or linguist ever referred to Macoraba as Mecca.

The larger historical picture entirely undermines these claims:

If a city like "Mecca al-Rabba" existed as a significant, pre-Christian pilgrimage site and trade hub, it would leave behind a wealth of archaeological evidence. We would expect to find thousands of artifacts and frequent mentions in ancient historical records. Similarly, traces of a monotheistic God (Allah), Abraham, or other prophets would be found in other Arabian cities.

Instead, the archaeological record of ancient Arabia consistently reveals thousands of remains of polytheistic goddesses, gods, and Sabaean places of worship in other ancient cities. There is nothing of the sort for Mecca from that early period.

Therefore, Muslims are not relying on thousands of pieces of corroborating evidence, but rather on the sole, isolated name "Macoraba," and even that connection requires significant distortion and baseless conjecture to maintain. This approach demonstrates a profound lack of intellectual honesty when confronted with the actual historical and archaeological record.

---

Muslim Excuse: Mecca Was Not a Famous City Initially, So Ancient Historians and Geographers Did Not Mention It

The complete absence of archaeological evidence from Mecca, starkly contrasting with the thousands of remains found in surrounding ancient cities, presents a significant challenge to traditional Islamic narratives. Similarly, ancient historians and geographers meticulously detailed every city, royal succession, minor settlement, and tribal presence along the Arabian trade routes, yet none mention Mecca, Abraham, Ishmael, the Kaaba, Hajj, or Zamzam. This stands in direct opposition to Muslim claims that Mecca was Arabia's "most famous" city, a vital trade hub, and the annual pilgrimage site for all Arabs – a status it holds today across the Muslim world, even without its former commercial role.

With no logical historical or archaeological explanation, some Islamist websites resort to a desperate and disingenuous excuse. For example, this Muslim website writes (Link):

"Here, the atheist again presented the argument of it being a famous commercial center and a trade route, although these are much later matters. A place that was settled a long time after the arrival of Abraham, then its trade began, and then much later its connection with the civilized world was established, becoming a trade route and a sacred center. Therefore, the atheist's claim that this commercial city was not visible to historians of Abraham's era is foolish."

This excuse is fundamentally dishonest and relies on a blatant misrepresentation of the timeline:

• Who is talking about "Abraham's era"? The historians and geographers we cite lived between 1,500 and 2,500 years after Abraham's purported time.
• Are we to believe that Mecca remained so insignificant for two and a half millennia after Abraham that it completely escaped the notice of all these meticulous chroniclers?
• Was Mecca not on any trade route during this vast period?
• Did no one perform Hajj to the Kaaba for these 2,500 years that it remained unmentioned?

By disingenuously linking these undeniable historical and archaeological silences only to Abraham's era, these apologists attempt to deceive their audience. The hard truth remains: for 1,500 to 2,500 years following Abraham's supposed time, historians find no record of a city named Mecca, nor any trace of a monotheistic God (Allah), Abraham, or Ishmael in any part of Arabia. This deliberate chronological distortion is a clear tactic to sidestep compelling evidence.

---

Muslim Excuse: The Valley of Paran

The assertion that Mecca is the biblical "Wilderness of Paran" represents another desperate attempt by some Muslims to retroactively insert Mecca into ancient religious narratives. According to the Bible, Abraham's journey with Hagar and Ishmael led them from Hebron (30 miles south of Jerusalem) to the Wilderness of Beersheba, and later, Ishmael was raised in the Wilderness of Paran, unequivocally located near Beersheba, in present-day Jordan near the southeastern border of Israel.

Just as later Muslim scholars like Ibn Ishaq fabricated genealogies to connect Prophet Muhammad to Ishmael, a similar and equally baseless maneuver was performed to identify Mecca as Paran. The claim posits that "Paran" was Mecca's ancient name, directly referencing the biblical wilderness.

However, this excuse crumbles under scrutiny:

• Muhammad's Ignorance: Prophet Muhammad himself had absolutely no knowledge of Mecca ever being called Paran. The name "Paran" is conspicuously absent from the entire Quran and the voluminous Hadith literature.
• Companion's Ignorance: None of Muhammad's companions had any awareness of Mecca possessing the name Paran.
• Meccan Disbelievers' Ignorance: Even the pre-Islamic inhabitants of Mecca, and indeed all of Arabia, possessed no knowledge of Mecca ever being called Paran.

The sole origin of this claim traces back to a figure named Wahb ibn Munabbih. He is the first and only person to assert that Mecca's old name was Paran. But who was Wahb ibn Munabbih (Link)?

• Born 24 years after Muhammad's death, Wahb was of Persian descent and born in Yemen, not Mecca.
• He was widely accused of introducing Israelite stories (Isra'iliyat) into Islam, leading to strong condemnation. Shia Muslims openly denounce Wahb as a liar, and even some Sunni Muslims share this assessment.
• For instance, Ibn Khaldun explicitly accused Wahb of narrating false stories (Link). Abdullah ibn Mas'ud famously forbade learning Quranic exegesis from Wahb and Ka'b al-Ahbar due to their reliance on Israelite tales (Link)۔ .
• Wahb is also implicated in fabricating narratives to support the Umayyad rulers, even claiming that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz was the awaited Mahdi: إن كان في هذه الأمة مهدي فهو عمر بن عبد العزيز. (Reference: Tarikh al-Khulafa by Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti)
• A significant portion of Wahb's writings, rooted in Israelite narratives, surprisingly constitutes a large part of the Arabian Nights (أَلْف لَيْلَة وَلَيْلَة‎) (Link)

While later Muslim historians like Yaqut al-Hamawi and al-Maqdisi mentioned Mecca being Paran, their claims are baseless. They appeared centuries after Prophet Muhammad and provided no chain of narration or primary source for this assertion; they were merely echoing a notion that had gained traction among Muslims post-Wahb. Thus, Wahb ibn Munabbih remains the singular source for this claim, utterly unknown to anyone else in the ancient world.

Geographically and Historically, the "Paran" claim is untenable:

• According to the Bible, the Wilderness of Paran is located in present-day Jordan, near the southeastern border of Israel, roughly a thousand kilometers (over 600 miles) away from Mecca.
• Attempts by some Muslims to phonetically manipulate biblical words (e.g., "Paran" to "Faran") have been thoroughly debunked by Christian scholars, exposing these tactics as dishonest. (Links 1, 2, 3)
• Beyond the Bible, hundreds of thousands of ancient Jewish and Christian texts exist, yet none mention Mecca or identify Mecca as Paran.
• Crucially, archaeological evidence from Arabia provides no support whatsoever for "Paran" being the name for Mecca or even the broader Hijaz region. Inscriptions and writings from various ancient Arabian cities mention surrounding areas but never Paran. No archaeological finds from Mecca itself or the Hijaz indicate this name.
• Furthermore, ancient Roman, Greek, and other historians, who meticulously detailed Arab regions for eight centuries before Muhammad, make no mention of a region named Paran in their histories or maps, nor any Islamic stories related to Ishmael, Abraham, Zamzam, or the Kaaba in this context.

The "Valley of Paran" excuse is a transparent fabrication, relying on a single, discredited source and a wilful disregard for overwhelming geographical, archaeological, and historical counter-evidence.

---

Images of Abraham and Mary in the Kaaba

Muslim apologists often present a narration from Sahih al-Bukhari to assert that pre-Islamic Arabs possessed knowledge of Abraham. The specific tradition states:

Sahih al-Bukhari, Book of Prophets (Link): 
"Yahya bin Sulaiman narrated to us, he said Abdullah bin Wahb narrated to me, he said Amr bin Al-Harith informed me, from Bukair, from Kuraib, the freed slave of Ibn Abbas, and from Ibn Abbas, that the Prophet Muhammad entered the House of Allah and saw pictures of Abraham and Mary there. He said, 'What is wrong with the Quraysh? Even though they know that angels do not enter a house in which there are pictures. This is a picture of Abraham, and he is casting lots.'" 

However, relying on this narration as solid historical evidence for pre-Islamic Arabian knowledge of Abraham is fraught with problems:

1. Late Collection and Non-Neutral Source: These narrations were compiled significantly later than the events they describe. Critically, Sahih al-Bukhari is an Islamic religious text, not a neutral historical source. Within the context of early Islamic scholarship, the fabrication of narrations to glorify Islam and its figures was not uncommon.
2. Lack of Independent Verification: For this to be considered robust evidence, one would expect corroboration from independent sources. Yet, no mention of such images or widespread knowledge of Abraham appears in pre-Islamic Arab poetry or, crucially, in the Quran itself. The Quran mentions the worship of idols like Lat, Uzza, Manat, and angels in the Kaaba, but conspicuously makes no reference to the worship or images of Mary or Abraham there.
3. Ibn Abbas was only 9 years old: The narrator of this tradition was Ibn Abbas, who was only 9 years old at the time of the victory of Mecca (when this incident happened). He didn't participate in that army which invaded Mecca. He was not present there and was not a direct witness. 

The numerous other narrations describing idols in the Kaaba mention deities like Hubal, Manat, Lat, and Uzza. However, not a single one of these narrations mentions pictures of Abraham or Mary.

Furthermore, the polytheists of Mecca did not even know Abraham, so how could they worship his image? This is evidenced by another narration from Sahih al-Bukhari:

Sahih al-Bukhari 3827:

Zayd ibn Amr ibn Nufayl went to Syria in search of the true religion. He met a Jewish scholar and asked about his religion, saying it was possible he might adopt it. The scholar replied that Zayd could not be on their religion unless he took his share of God's wrath. Zayd said, "I flee from God's wrath and can never bear it, nor do I have the strength for it. Can you tell me of another religion?" The scholar said, "I know no other religion (for you) except that of Hanif." Zayd asked, "What is Hanif?" He said, "The religion of Abraham. He was neither a Jew nor a Christian and worshipped no one but Allah." So Zayd left there and met a Christian scholar. Zayd explained the same to him. He said, "You will come to our religion, but you will have to take your share of God's curse." Zayd said, "I flee from God's curse, and I cannot bear God's curse and wrath at all, nor do I have the strength. Can you tell me of another religion?" He said, "I know no other religion for you except that of Hanif." He said, "What is Hanif?" He said, "The religion of Abraham. He was neither a Jew nor a Christian and worshipped no one but Allah." When Zayd heard their discourse about Abraham, he departed from there. When he came out, he raised both his hands and said, "O Allah, I bear witness that I am on the religion of Abraham." Layth said that Hisham wrote to him through his father and Asma bint Abi Bakr. Asma said, "I saw Zayd ibn Amr ibn Nufayl standing with his back against the Kaaba, saying, 'O people of Quraysh! None among you is on the religion of Abraham except me.'"

This narration thus testifies that the polytheists knew neither about the Hanif religion nor about Abraham, let alone installing Abraham's image in the Kaaba and worshipping it. The Meccan Arab Zayd ibn Amr became aware of Ibrahim for the FIRST only after the Jewish and Christian scholars told him about Ibrahim. 

Furthermore, the issue is that Ibn Abbas's narration claims Muhammad said the Quraysh knew that angels do not enter a house with pictures. However, this claim is also a 'Khabar Wahid' (solitary narration) and is not found in any other account stating that the Meccan polytheists knew angels would not enter a house with pictures. In fact, far from the Meccan polytheists knowing this, Muhammad himself was unaware of it until an incident occurred in Medina.

Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2806:

... the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: "Jibra'il came to me and said: "Indeed I had come to you last night, and nothing prevented me from entering upon you at the house you were in, except that there were images of men at the door of the house, and there was a curtain screen with imagines on it, and there was a dog in the house. So go and sever the head of the image that is at the door so that it will become like a tree stump, and go and cut the screen and make two throw-cushions to be sat upon, and go and expel the dog." So the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) did so, and the dog was a puppy belonging to Al-Husain or Al-Hasan which was under his belongings, so he ordered him to expel it.

This incident happened in Medina. Thus, this proves Muhammad himself didn't know till his Medinan life, that angels don't enter in a house where there are images. How could then pagan Quraysh would know about it. 

Even after Muhammad's death, many Muslims themselves were not fully aware of the rules regarding images. For example, consider this narration from Sahih Muslim, where Aisha states that she too was unaware of the ruling on images, and only learned it when Muhammad expressed his disapproval. The same narration states that a person inquired about this matter from Aisha even after Muhammad's death.

So, if Muhammad and even some Muslims themselves were not fully aware of the ruling on images until the Medinan period, how could the Meccan polytheists have known and acted upon it, especially since they worshipped idol-like images?

PS: 

There are also a few more traditions, like in Sirah Ibn Ishaq (page 552, English version) and from Al-Azraqi’s Akhbar Makkah, which claim, there was an image or a statue of Maryam with Isa in her lap in Kaba, along with other 360 statues, and the Prophet removed all images or broke all statues, except of Maryam and Isa. 

Please note the following important distinction:

1. The pre-Islamic Arabs did not claim descent from Ibrahim or Ismael. This idea appears much later when Muhammad first claimed it in front of them.
2. However, the Arabs may have known about Mary (Maryam) and Jesus (Isa) because many Christians lived in and around Mecca, especially from nearby regions like Najran.

So, there’s nothing unusual even if images of Mary and Jesus were found inside the Kaaba. The pagan Arabs had filled the Kaaba with 360 idols and images, drawing from a variety of religions and cultures. They had a polytheistic and inclusive mindset, similar to present day Hindus, who often accept deities from other regions and belief systems. In fact, some modern-day Hindus even go so far as to include Prophet Muhammad among their divine figures.

As for the specific story in Ibn Ishaq’s Seerah (or in Al-Azraqi’s work) that claims Muhammad saw the image/statue of Mary/Jesus and did not remove it, then this tradition is weak and rejected by Muslim scholars themselves. It has a weak chain of narration and contradicts the Islamic stance against shirk (associating partners with Allah), as leaving an image in the Kaaba would imply tolerance of shirk, which is inconsistent with Muhammad’s mission.

Examining the "Religion of Hanif" and Other Muslim Historical Claims

Muslim narratives frequently present a convenient historical narrative to connect their faith to Abrahamic roots. However, a closer look reveals significant inconsistencies and a profound lack of corroborating evidence.

The Fabricated "Religion of Hanif" Excuse

Muslims often put forth a deceptive claim about pre-Islamic Arabian history:

• They assert that Arabs, as descendants of Ishmael, remained true to the religion of Abraham, known as the "Religion of Hanif."
• It is further claimed that the entire Arab world, adhering to this 'Religion of Hanif,' annually visited Mecca for Hajj, offered sacrifices, and maintained monotheistic practices, purportedly on this true Abrahamic religion, until just **300 years before the advent of Muhammad**.
• According to this narrative, a figure named Amr ibn Luhayy then led them astray, causing them to abandon the "Religion of Hanif" and embrace idolatry.

This entire construct is an outright fabrication. Not a single piece of archaeological evidence for a widespread 'Religion of Hanif' has ever been discovered in any ancient Arab city. On the contrary, thousands of artifacts—Sabaean places of worship, idols, and inscribed texts—have been unearthed, painting a picture of pervasive polytheism.

Furthermore, ancient historians and geographers who meticulously documented the conditions of Arabia found no trace of an Abrahamic religion or an Abrahamic God throughout the entire Arabian Peninsula (i.e., in any ancient Arab city). This glaring absence directly contradicts the Muslim narrative.

It remains impossible for Muslims to explain why, across 2600 years of Arabian history from Abraham to Muhammad, there is no mention whatsoever of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Mecca, the Kaaba, or a Hanif/Abrahamic religion in any external historical or archaeological record.

Observe the stark contradiction in Muslim claims: on one hand, they contend that the descendants of Isaac preserved every detail about Allah, Adam, Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, their places of worship, and their history with 100% accuracy. On the other hand, they claim that the descendants of Ishmael (Arabs) completely forgot all of it.

Another inconsistency lies in the Muslim assertion that the Hanif religion was "well-known" among Arabs. Yet, paradoxically, neither the Arabs of Muhammad's time nor any earlier Arabian historical accounts mention Abraham.

A Muslim website, attempting to rebut atheism, offered what it called the "greatest" evidence for the Hanif religion in Mecca: that only four individuals in Mecca followed it. Of these, three later strayed and became Christians, leaving only one person, Zayd ibn Amr ibn Nufayl, who allegedly remained on the Hanif religion. (Source: Ilhaad.com)

However, the significant problem with Zayd ibn Amr is that he himself possessed no knowledge whatsoever of a 'Hanif religion.' According to the Sahih al-Bukhari narration, Zayd ibn Amr learned about the Abrahamic religion for the first time only after encountering Jewish and Christian scholars who mentioned Abraham to him. This implies Zayd and other Meccan Arabs were entirely unaware of any lineage to Abraham until Muhammad's later claims.

Sahih al-Bukhari 3827:

Zaid bin 'Amr bin Nufail went to Sham, inquiring about a true religion to follow. He met a Jewish religious scholar and asked him about their religion ... He said, "I do not know any other religion except the Hanif." Zaid enquired, "What is Hanif?" He said, "Hanif is the religion of (the prophet) Abraham who was neither a Jew nor a Christian, and he used to worship None but Allah (Alone)" 
Then Zaid went out and met a Christian religious scholar and told him the same as before ... He replied, "I do not know any other religion except Hanif." Zaid enquired, "What is Hanif?" He replied, Hanif is the religion of (the prophet) Abraham who was neither a Jew nor a Christian and he used to worship None but Allah (Alone)" When Zaid heard their Statement about (the religion of) Abraham, he left that place, and when he came out, he raised both his hands and said, "O Allah! I make You my Witness that I am on the religion of Abraham."

This narration irrefutably demonstrates that Zayd was not even aware of Prophet Abraham, let alone the notion that Arabs were his descendants. Therefore, it is evident that the Hanif or Abrahamic religion was decidedly **not** "well-known" in Arab society. Rather, Zayd ibn Amr's knowledge of Abraham stemmed entirely from the accounts of Jewish and Christian scholars he met. This incident, therefore, paradoxically serves as "proof" that Arabs had no indigenous knowledge of Abraham or the Abrahamic religion prior to outside influence.

The Muslim claim that the Hanif/Abrahamic religion was generationally passed down among Arabs, and that people of Muhammad's time connected themselves to it through this lineage, is inconsistent. Zayd's acceptance of Abraham's faith had no connection to inherited Arab tradition but stemmed directly from knowledge provided by Jewish and Christian scholars. His experience is a testament to the *absence* of this knowledge within Arab society.

Just as atheists today are disillusioned with their former religion, Islam, Zayd ibn Amr faced a similar predicament, being disillusioned with his ancestral idolatry. When he heard about Abraham, he embraced that faith. Similarly, the other three individuals initially accepted Abraham's faith but later found Christianity more appealing and converted. The narrative further mentions one person who accepted Islam but later became disillusioned and apostatized, feeling alienated from Islam just as he had been from idolatry. These instances highlight intellectual and spiritual seeking rather than an inherited tradition.

In summary, the lengthy Muslim arguments fail to present a single piece of archaeological evidence for the existence of an Abrahamic religion in ancient Arabia. They also fail to explain the complete absence of Abraham and the Abrahamic God from the archaeological records of ancient Arab cities, or from the writings of ancient historians who documented Arabia.

Muslim Claim: The entire Arab was MONOTHEIST and follower of Ibrahim untill just 300 years before Muhammad

In fact, the Muslim claim is laughable. They argue that until just 300 years before Muhammad, the Arabs were supposedly monotheists. Yet within those last 300 years, they completely forgot every part of Abraham’s teachings. A Muslim website made to refute atheism writes the following (link: http://web.archive.org/web/20161207122113/http://ilhaad.com:80/2016/10/hanifiat-before-islam/):

Arab sources almost unanimously report that the practice of polytheism and idol worship, especially in Mecca, was introduced by a Bedouin Arab chief named ‘Amr bin Luhayy al-Khuzā‘ī. He became familiar with idol worship during a journey to Syria. He is commonly regarded as the one who corrupted the religion of Abraham. Before his innovations, the Arabs are said to have followed the Hanif religion.  
“He was the first who altered the religion of Ishmael and set up idols…” (Ibn Hisham, 1/81 and following)۔۔
They replaced the religion of Abraham and Ishmael with something else. They fell back into the misguidance of the earlier nations, though some traces of Abraham’s practices remained, such as reverence for the Kaaba and performing pilgrimage.” (Ibn Hisham, 1/82; Shah Waliullah Dehlawi, Hujjatullah al-Balighah, 1/272 and 279)

It is claimed that ‘Amr bin Luhayy introduced his innovations around 300 years before the Prophet’s time. Before that, the Arabs are said to have followed the religion of Abraham:

“The descendants of Ishmael remained on the path of their forefather until ‘Amr bin Luhayy appeared, which was around 800 years before the Prophet’s mission…”

Now look at the absurdity of this claim. The descendants of Ishmael supposedly preserved Abraham’s teachings for 2,300 years, from Abraham until 300 years before Muhammad. Then somehow, in just three centuries, they forgot everything. They are said to have forgotten who Allah was, the story of Adam and Eve, the flood of Noah, the lives of Abraham and Ishmael, and even the history of the Kaaba. Meanwhile, several Jewish tribes, who were descendants of Isaac, had settled in Arabia. Yet despite living alongside them, the Arabs allegedly forgot all this knowledge.

Another question arises about ‘Amr bin Luhayy. Ancient Greek, Roman, and other historians wrote about Arabia centuries before his time and even before the era of Jesus. In those records, Arabs are consistently described as Sabians and idol-worshippers. There is no mention of Abraham, Ishmael, or the Kaaba in any of that material.

It is simply not believable that the descendants of Isaac, meaning the Jews, remembered everything including Allah, Adam, Noah, and Abraham, while the descendants of Ishmael forgot one hundred percent of it. This becomes even harder to accept when we consider that the Ishmaelites, or the Arabs, had regular trade and contact with the Israelites. Surely, those Israelites would have reminded them over and over about Allah, the prophets, and the divine teachings.

If the Arabs had really been followers of Abraham’s religion and descendants of Ishmael, then Jewish and Christian historical records would have consistently mentioned this. The Jews and Christians, as descendants of Isaac, would have frequently reminded the Arabs that they were from Ishmael’s line and that their true religion was the worship of Allah. But in reality, only the northern Arab tribes were recognized as Ishmaelites, and most of them became Jewish. They did not need reminders because they had preserved the knowledge. On the other hand, the central and southern Arab tribes were never identified by Jews or Christians as Ishmael’s descendants, nor were they reminded about Abrahamic teachings.

The Muslim website created to counter atheism also names a few people from pre-Islamic Arabia, besides Zayd, who rejected idol worship. It then claims that these individuals were followers of Abraham’s religion. But this claim is also incorrect. These individuals had no actual knowledge of Abraham, so how could they have been following him? In reality, they rejected idol worship out of personal disillusionment. They were no different from modern atheists who reject Islam today. These people were simply looking for a better path, since the old one made no sense to them. Some became Christians. Others converted to Islam but later left it, just as they had left idol worship earlier.

In short, despite presenting a lengthy article, the Muslim website fails to provide any real evidence that a religion called "Abrahamic monotheism" ever existed in ancient Arabia. It also cannot answer the crucial question of why the archaeological remains of ancient Arabian cities show no mention of Abraham or a deity named Allah. Similarly, ancient historians make no reference to Abraham or monotheism in their accounts of pre-Islamic Arabia.

Muslim Claim: People of the Jahiliyyah Era Knew That Arabs Were Descendants of Ishmael

Muslims have claimed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael  
Some Pre-Islamic poetry mentions Ishmael, his father Abraham, and the sacrifice story, such as the Pre-Islamic poet "Umayyah Ibn Abi As-Salt", who said in one of his poems: بكره لم يكن ليصبر عنه أو يراه في معشر أقتال ([The sacrifice] of his first-born of whose separation he [Abraham] could not bear neither could he see him surrounded in foes).
"Zayd ibn Amr" was another Pre-Islamic figure who refused idolatry and preached monotheism, claiming it was the original belief of their [Arabs] father Ishmael. Also, some of the tribes of Central West Arabia called themselves the "people of Abraham and the offspring of Ishmael", as evidenced by a common opening of speeches and harangues of reconciliation between rival tribes in that area.

(1) Umayyah ibn Abi al-Salt

The first Muslim claim is about Umayyah ibn Abi al-Salt, who is said to have written in a poem: "بكره لم يكن ليصبر عنه أو يراه في معشر أقتال" — "The sacrifice of his first-born, whose separation he could not bear, nor could he see him surrounded by enemies."

– Umayyah ibn Abi al-Salt was not a poet of the Jahiliyyah period; he was a contemporary of Muhammad. He met Muhammad in Mecca after Muhammad had already declared his prophethood. Umayyah initially accepted Muhammad’s claim of prophethood (though he later renounced it). Therefore, Muslims must prove that this poem was not influenced by Muhammad’s stories after Umayyah became a Muslim.
Umayyah was from the city of Taif. In contrast, the Quraysh who lived in Mecca knew nothing about being descendants of Ishmael, even though the Kaaba was in Mecca, and according to Muslims, thousands came annually to perform Abrahamic and Ishmaelite rites. Then what value does Umayyah's claim even hold?
– Umayyah himself was a theatrical figure. He began his religious life as a polytheist. After meeting Zayd ibn Amr, a follower of Hanif religion, he adopted “Hanifism” to become a major religious figure. When Hanifism didn’t gain him much traction, and after meeting Muhammad in Mecca, he started following him. But later, he denied Muhammad’s prophethood and dreamed of becoming a prophet himself. He became an ally of the Quraysh pagans, composed elegies for their dead, and eventually returned to polytheism, dying in that state. (link)
– And the poems attributed to Umayyah (such as the one Muslims claim about Ishmael) are themselves forged.
The renowned Arabic literary scholar Dr. Taha Hussein writes: "The poems attributed to Umayyah and other Hanif poets of the Prophet’s era are falsely attributed. Ignorant Muslims falsely attributed them to make Islam seem ancient and pre-existing." (Fi al-Adab al-Jahili / Dar al-Ma'arif / 1958 / p. 145)

Zayd ibn Amr ibn Nufayl

Islamist writers have misled regarding Zayd ibn Amr ibn Nufayl. They wrote:

"Zayd ibn Amr" was another Pre-Islamic figure who refused idolatry and preached monotheism, claiming it was the original belief of their [Arabs] father Ishmael. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael#Pre-Islamic_Arabia

This is a falsehood by Muslims. Zayd had no knowledge whatsoever of Abraham, let alone knowing that Arabs were his descendants. According to Sahih Bukhari, Zayd first learned about Abrahamic religion when he met a Christian scholar who mentioned Abraham to him for the first time.

Sahih Bukhari, Book of Virtues of the Ansar, Chapter on the Hadith of Zayd ibn Amr ibn Nufayl (link):
When Zayd asked the Syrian scholar about the true religion, he told him to be a Hanif. When Zayd asked what a Hanif was, the scholar said: the religion of Abraham, who was neither a Jew nor a Christian but worshipped no one but Allah… When Zayd heard about Abraham for the first time, he raised his hands and said: “O Allah! I testify that I am on the religion of Abraham.”

So it’s proven here that Zayd did not even know about Prophet Abraham, let alone that Arabs were his descendants through Ishmael.

Did Some Arab Tribes Claim Descent from Abraham?

This excuse is also presented (link):

Also, some of the tribes of Central West Arabia called themselves the "people of Abraham and the offspring of Ishmael", as evidenced by a common opening of speeches and harangues of reconciliation between rival tribes in that area. 

This is not proof either, because many Jewish tribes from Jerusalem and Northern Arabia had settled in Medina and other parts of Arabia. These Jewish Arab tribes believed themselves to be descendants of Abraham/Ishmael.

But Mecca, and specifically the Quraysh living in Mecca, had no knowledge whatsoever of being descendants of Ishmael, even though the Kaaba was in Mecca and thousands of Arabs visited annually for pilgrimage. Astonishingly, it was the local people who had forgotten Abraham and Ishmael.

The Zamzam Story

Zamzam is also a problem that Muslims have tangled themselves in:

• To refute the People of the Book and prove descent from Abraham, Muhammad claimed that the Zamzam well originated in Abraham’s time (about 2600 years ago).
• But Arabs in Muhammad’s time knew well that Zamzam was not a 2600-year-old well. In fact, it had only been rediscovered 30–40 years earlier by Abdul Muttalib.
• So Muslims invented a new excuse: that the Zamzam well was indeed from Abraham’s time, but had been hidden 400 years before Muhammad. According to this excuse, this happened when the tribe Jurhum, who had control of Zamzam, became corrupt. When they were defeated by the Khuza'a tribe, the Jurhumites hid two golden idols and the Black Stone in the Zamzam well and buried it. Later, Abdul Muttalib rediscovered it. (See this excuse on a Muslim website)

According to Muslim traditions themselves, Abdul Muttalib discovered the Zamzam well just 30 to 40 years before Muhammad’s birth.

Book: Al-Raheeq al-Makhtum, Page 709 (link):

Excavation of the Zamzam Well: In short, Abdul Muttalib saw in a dream that he was commanded to dig the Zamzam well and was shown its location. Upon waking, he started digging, and gradually objects buried by the Jurhum tribe began to appear — swords, armor, and two golden deer. Abdul Muttalib made the Kaaba’s door from the swords. The two golden deer were also fixed into the door, and he arranged for pilgrims to be served Zamzam. When the well appeared, the Quraysh disputed with him and demanded a share. Abdul Muttalib refused, saying he was divinely chosen for the task. The matter was referred to a soothsayer woman of Banu Saad, but during the journey, divine signs made them realize the task was truly meant for Abdul Muttalib. It was at that point he vowed that if Allah gave him ten sons, he would sacrifice one at the Kaaba...

But lies have no legs. Several reasons raised questions about this story.

• The first question was: if the Zamzam well was truly 2600 years old, then why is it not mentioned in the books of ancient historians? Zamzam would have been the only well in the entire area where thousands of Arabs would drink water during Hajj each year, and Bedouins would water their animals there all year long.
• The second question was: how did the Jurhum tribe manage to hide the well? The Khuza’a tribe knew about Zamzam, thousands of pilgrims drank from it each year, and Bedouins watered their animals there throughout the year. So, it is impossible that such a well could have been hidden.

Muslims have no answer to these two questions. Yet, dishonestly, they invented an excuse of their own: "Perhaps the Khuza’a tribe and pilgrims and nomads from across Arabia forgot about the well." But this excuse is unacceptable because:

• This excuse was fabricated by Muslims themselves. What value can such baseless assumptions have?
• If the Jurhum tribe were pious people close to God, maybe one could say others were punished and made to forget Zamzam. But here, the Jurhum tribe were unjust people. So why would God punish the rest of the Arab pilgrims and deprive them of Zamzam’s blessing to support those oppressors?
• If the well was sealed 400 years before Muhammad, then from that point to Abraham is 2200 years. Why, in all that time, do ancient historians make no mention of Zamzam or Mecca?

So the stories of Zamzam became a noose around the necks of Muslims. New tales were invented to cover each lie, but the lies still couldn’t be hidden. The standard of Muslim arguments fell so low that they had to rely on speculative excuses, which still failed to answer the real questions.

Muslims demand that verifiable facts be buried and, instead, their weak and baseless assumptions be accepted.

Furthermore, Muslims claim that Zamzam is a miracle because its water has been flowing since the time of Ishmael. The response is that, according to their own history, the Zamzam well was once closed, and Abdul Muttalib reopened it. Secondly, the reason there is water in Zamzam is because the Kaaba is at the lowest point in that valley, so all rainwater from the surrounding mountains collects underground there (link). That means Zamzam sits on an underground aquifer. This is why the Saudi government has set a specific limit on how much water can be drawn from it. If there’s no rainfall, Zamzam will dry up completely. Across the world, there are countless aquifers that have produced water for thousands of years—so much water that rivers and springs flow, not just wells (link). Compared to those, Zamzam has far less water. It’s just a well and never became a spring.

And although Muslims claim that Zamzam heals every disease and one doesn’t need food if drinking only Zamzam (Sahih Muslim, Hadith 2473), the reality is that venomous creatures like snakes lived inside it.

Sunan Abu Dawood, Book of Salam (link):

Abbas ibn Abdul Muttalib said: We told the Messenger of Allah that we want to clean the area around Zamzam because there are snakes there. So the Prophet ordered that the snakes be killed.

This also raises the question: why didn’t the disbelievers of Mecca kill those poisonous snakes in Zamzam before the Prophet's orders?

The reason was that the pagans of Mecca considered snakes as deities (just like in Hinduism). Imam Tabari writes in his history that the Quraysh used to worship the serpent living in Zamzam and gave it offerings (Tarikh al-Tabari, Vol. 1, p. 525).

And Abdul Muttalib, who dug the well, was himself a polytheist and a devotee of divination. He even tried to sacrifice his son Abdullah to please the idols. Here you can read the details of Abdul Muttalib’s intense idol worship with evidence. Link.

Credit:

This article is inspired by the groundbreaking research presented by Dr. Riffat Amari on rrimedia.org and historyofmecca.com.