sura 2: many qiblas?

SURA 2: MANY QIBLAS? The Qibla in the Koran, Abu Lahab, and the Birth of Islam

A. J. Deus

Copyright: author A.J. Deus, August 30, 2016. [email protected]

All rights reserved. No part, concept, or discovery of this paper may be used or reproduced by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or by any information storage retrieval system without the written permission of the author except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

Copyright 2016: A.J. Deus ─ SURA 2: MANY QIBLAS? The Qibla in the Koran, Abu Lahab, and the Birth of Islam

This research paper is in honor to the kindness of my father-in-law Mhmd Safdari September 9, 1945 – July 9, 2016. His religious curiosity inspired me to search for answers in places where nobody else has gone before.

Page | 2


Page | 3

Introduction Sura 2 in the Koran introduces a ritual change that came to be one of the elements that defines the religious culture of Muslims across the world, the change that indicates to worshipers a direction of prayers (qibla). The worshipping toward Mecca is perhaps the very symbol of the birth of Islam. While this change should manifest itself in the archaeological evidence of early mosques, it is widely accepted that this is a matter of broad interpretation. However, the questions that derive from the Koranic passages might find their answers if the focus of rotating places of worship was based on a system – any system. Older mosques have typically been erected with different geographical orientations. Multiple variations in building rotations can often be found inside any given city or even within a single mosque. Since the data is confusing, modern research tends to ignore this question. The current understanding is that Muslim builders should have been able to determine the orientation of a building within a few degrees but that they were satisfied when a place of worship pointed into the ‘general’ direction of Mecca within the inter-cardinal quadrants. However, a fourteenth century table with almost three thousand entries is extant that are mostly correct to the nearest minute. According to David A. King, the errors are so small that it is still a mystery how it was computed.1 If Muslims were capable of such calculations, how long before did they have this knowledge? This paper sets out to investigate the relevant passages in the Koran and to ask whether there might be a reason as to why orientations changed inside a city’s walls or with additions to mosques. Could it be possible that the mathematical knowledge to orient buildings with precision had been there all along but kept secret? Even though the here presented results are preliminary and could still contain errors (in particular in respect to demolitions and reconstructions), the discoveries in this paper have fundamental consequences for the approach to the history of the beginnings of Islam, the Koran, and beyond. Some of the discoveries are as following: 1) The Koran speaks of two qibla changes. 2) The Koran neither commands a change from Jerusalem, nor to Mecca, but instead to Al-Haram in present day Israel (as confirmed with orientations from various mosques). 3) Babylonian Pharisee qiblas show a consistent prayer orientation to the location of the Exilarch (not to the Temple in Jerusalem). 4) The pattern of directing places of worship toward the Exilarch continues through all three mosques of Medina and beyond. 5) For the first time, the Ethiopian kernel of the early Muslim story can be confirmed with archaeology. There may indeed have been two ‘Muslim’ stations in that country: With surprising accuracy and with conversion points from multiple directions,

1

David A. King, The Orientation of Medieval Islamic Religious Architecture and Cities (Journal for the History of Astronomy, 1995) 261.


Page | 4

– the Quba Mosque in Medina is precisely oriented toward Aksum, in Ethiopia – the Mosque of the Prophet is precisely oriented toward the Imam Mesgid in Negash in Ethiopia. 6) Levite-Sadducee qiblas show a consistent prayer orientation to the location of the Nasi (also not to the Temple Mount). 7) There are many qibla changes that can be attributed to ‘Muslim’ structures. The pattern follows the dynastic paraclete leadership from which follows that each town can reveal its individual story about dynastic expansions and contractions through the archaeology of the mosques. Similar to changes in dynastic territories, the stories told through mosques in multiple towns are interlinked and overlap. 8) Since none of the early structures point to Mecca, the Muslims have arrived there much later than is assumed in the traditional accounts. Even after the first appearance in the historical record, the practice of orienting places of worship toward the dynastic leadership would persist for centuries. 9) Jacob of Edessa’s comment that the Jews were praying toward Jerusalem implies that the Exilarch or the Nasi was occupying the Temple Mount at that time. 10) The Al-Askari Shrine and mosque in Samarra was built by Seljuks over one and a half century after the disappearance of the Mahdi. The complex would be receive additions by Ismailis after the Seljuks. The premise that a building points to a common location (Mecca, for example) when it only sort of lies in the general direction is here dismissed in favor of a broader search for geographical patterns. The old approach has prevented the here shared discoveries to surface decades ago. Instead, the reliance is on accuracy with the help of modern tools. In this paper, re-measured orientations of important places are documented with satellite imagery. This is an exact but tedious exercise. In addition, the margin of error within which builders could orient their structures toward a distant location is defined. While this is a catch-twenty-two (we do not know where the target location was), it should at least be possible to narrow this down to less than an inter-cardinal quadrant. A first part investigates the related passages in sura 2, a second part establishes what they should have been able to achieve according to modern understanding, and a third part shows how good the ancients really were. Before assessing sura 2 and orientations of various structures, a brief reflection is opportune. Following the just made statements, it is perhaps fair to say that we know very little about ‘Judaism’ before the seventh century and this religion’s pre-Temple history and rituals. But the little that we do know allows for vastly diverse kinds of ‘Judaisms’ to grow out of the Biblical narrative. Thus, when we examine the relationship between Judaism and Islam (or Christianity), one can easily get confused over the origin – if there even is one origin and not several. Not only do we know nothing about their sectarian differences in beliefs and rituals, but the historic evidence tells us that they entered the historic record fighting with each other. They continued their bloody struggle through to the emergence of Islam and beyond. A similar statement could perhaps be made about the emergence of the various Christian


Page | 5

competitors, let alone the Zoroastrian or Manichean religions. Thus, when any question about early Islam is investigated, researchers face a weak foundation that may be misleading at times. The facts here presented are precise. The challenge lies in understanding why it should have been acceptable that the orientations of mosques could be as much as 10° or more off when a simple verification of the exact direction of any mosque should have brought forth potential target locations and provided answers to the meaning of key passages in the Koran. For verification of the data by researchers, the measurements of the structures of worship are placed into a separate document Orientation of Structures in Early Islam2 together with methodological instructions.

Sura 2: Two Qibla Changes The orientation of prayer rituals is only addressed in Sura 2 of the Koran. It is generally understood as changing the qibla from Jerusalem to Mecca. If anything, the respective passages are vague and difficult to understand. The foolish ones will say, “What hath turned them from the kebla which they used?” SAY: The East and the West are God's. He guideth whom he will into the right path. Thus have we made you a central people, that ye may be witnesses in regard to mankind, and that the apostle may be a witness in regard to you. We appointed the kebla which thou formerly hadst, only that we might know him who followeth the apostle, from him who turneth on his heels: The change is a difficulty, but not to those whom God hath guided. But God will not let your faith be fruitless; for unto man is God Merciful, Gracious. We have seen thee turning thy face towards every part of Heaven; but we will have thee turn to a kebla which shall please thee. Turn then thy face towards the sacred Mosque, and wherever ye be, turn your faces towards that part. They, verily, to whom “the Book” hath been given, know this to be the truth from their Lord: and God is not regardless of what ye do. Even though thou shouldest bring every kind of sign to those who have received the Scriptures, yet thy kebla they will not adopt; nor shalt thou adopt their kebla; nor will one part of them adopt the kebla of the other. And if, after the knowledge which hath come to thee, thou follow their wishes, verily then wilt thou become of the unrighteous.7

With this, tradition identifies the break-through moment of Islam where the external rituals became distinct from those before. This change is marked by the Mosque of the Two Qiblas that is said to having been completed by Prophet Muhammad in 623 AD. Tradition suggests that qiblas were oriented toward Jerusalem for the Jews, east for the Christians and Zoroastrians, and now toward Mecca for the Muslims. There are several issues with this text that would need to be resolved in order to understand it fully:

2

7

A.J. Deus, Orientation of Structures in Early Islam (2016), download Powerpoint file at https://www.academia.edu/28103240/Orientation_of_Structures_in_Early_Islam Koran 2:142-2:146 (Rodwell Koran 2:136-140).


Page | 6

1) Even though it is assumed to be Prophet Muhammad, the verses do not explicitly say who the speaker was. 2) It does not specify the actual location to orient the qibla toward other than an unspecified ‘sacred Mosque’ or ‘the sacred Mosque.’ 3) It does not reveal from which qibla the change would be other than that there was a qibla before. 4) Even though the Mosque of the Two Qiblas suggests such a change, no mosques would be recognized as being oriented toward Mecca for a good century after Prophet Muhammad of the traditions. There are two main positions in the academic research, those that claim (without evidence) that the Kaaba in Mecca did not exist in any significant way before the advent of Islam and the others that believe that the Kaaba had existed as a pre-Islamic structure. In some of my papers, I have made the case that the Kaaba had a pre-Islamic history that may have reached one hundred and fifty years back to the fifth century. The archaeological evidence speaks such a clear language that proponents of both theories may have to reset completely. Indeed, it is widely accepted that the city does not appear in the historical record as a Muslim center of worship until the first decade of the eighth century by Jacob of Edessa who died in ca. 708 AD.8 In his Letter to John the Stylite, he distinguished between Jews and Muslims but said that from (northern) Egypt, both were praying to the ‘east,’ the former to Jerusalem and the latter toward the Kaaba. However, he never disclosed a location other than ‘south’ of Jerusalem. From Babylon to Basrah, both were praying to the west and from Syria to the south. Evidently, the writer was aware of the four cardinal directions, and he would perhaps not have attributed a location to one quadrant when it belonged to another. Thus, when his instructions are plotted on a map, a fairly small area forms the common denominator, which brings forth a surprise: Mecca lies outside of the target area. One could thus make a geographical case that there must have been another Kaaba somewhere in the general direction ‘east’ that late in the Islamic evolution when an orientation of prayers had already been apparent to non-Muslims. However, the writer was Syrian, and he did not intend

8

Jacob of Edessa, Letter to John the Stylite (ca. 705 AD) no. 14, fol. 124a, summarized by Wright, Catalogue, 2.604, and translated by Crone and Cook, Hagarism, 173 n. 30: Your question is vain […] for it is not to the south that the Jews pray, nor either do the Muslims [mhaggraye/Syriac hagraye]. The Jews who live in Egypt, and also the Muslims there, as I saw with my own eyes and will now set out for you, prayed to the east, and still do, both peoples—the Jews toward Jerusalem and the Muslims toward the Ka’ba. And those Jews who are to the south of Jerusalem pray to the north; and those in the land of Babel, in Hira and in Basra, pray to the west. And also the Muslims who are there pray to the west, toward the Ka’ba; and those who are to the south of the Ka’ba pray to the north, toward that place. So from all this that has been said, it is clear that it is not to the south that the Jews and Muslims here in the regions of Syria pray, but toward Jerusalem or the Ka’ba, the patriarchal places of their races.


Page | 7

to provide directions with astronomical precision. Granted, the point of view from Babylon to Basrah is well outside the target, but it misses it barely from Egypt. Thus, other than the absence of evidence, research has little to offer. In particular since the Koran is typically ordered with the Mecca suras first and the Medina suras second, to uproot these traditions would require extraordinary evidence. Having said this, it cannot be overlooked that Medina, Petra, and Hail of the Tayyi are well inside the common denominator. But there is another issue in the verses: they speak of two changes to the qibla that concern the target audience of the Koran. The first change was made for the reason to identify the followers of ‘the apostle,’ and the second one is questioned by the ‘foolish ones.’ Moreover, the latter already had their own prayer orientation, and the sura is explicit about them to not adopt the qibla of yet another party either. Thus, there are not only two changes but also at least three different (sectarian) qibla orientations. The verses do not actually command the change in prayer orientation but recount that the change had already occurred. This is enforced with the next verse: They to whom we have given the Scriptures know him – the apostle – even as they know their own children: but truly a part of them do conceal the truth, though acquainted with it.9

It appears as if a part of the community had broken off and now concealed ‘the truth.’ More precisely, the verse claims that ‘the apostle’ was known by those who had been ‘given the Scriptures.’ It does not refer to the Koran but to the previous scriptures, presumably either the Torah, the Hebrew Bible, the Gospels, (perhaps another,) or a combination of (parts of) these that may have been complemented with additional ‘scriptures’ that have not been identified as being part thereof. It thus seems to convey that the priesthood of parts of one religious group concealed ‘the truth’ (supposedly the Koran). This group was one from the five core sects that are mentioned in Koran 22:17, namely ‘Jews’, Nestorian, Sabian (Melkite), Zoroastrian, and the yet unidentified Ashraku (yahūdu, naṣārā, ṣābiūna, majūsa, ashrakū). The text specifically emphasises that this break-off group had been ‘acquainted’ with this truth, meaning that they were using this ‘scripture’ with familiarity. In other words, the orientation had been changed before sura 2 was even completed. This is such a logical pit that the Pandora Box seems evident: the search for answers triggers more questions. It appears that the reason for this chasm is the total lack of even a single solid anchor to work from. These few verses heave out just about every confusion that finds its origin in the traditions of early Islam. Immediately before the above quoted passage that deals with the qibla change, the Koran qualifies that the breakoff group were the ‘Jews’ and the Nasara: Will ye say, ‘Verily Abraham, and Ismael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, were Jews [kanu hudan] or Nasara?’ Say: Who knoweth best, ye, or God? And who is more in fault than he who concealeth the witness which he hath from God? But God is not regardless of what ye do. That people have now passed away: they have the reward of their deeds, and for you is the meed of

9

Koran 2:147 (Rodwell Koran 2:141).


Page | 8

yours; but of their doings ye shall not be questioned. The foolish ones will say, ‘What hath turned them from the kebla which they used?’ Say: The East and the West are God’s. He guideth whom he will into the right path. Thus have we made you a central people, that ye may be witnesses in regard to mankind, and that the apostle may be a witness in regard to you.10

It is here not necessary to enter the debate about the Jews or the Nasara. However, as remarked earlier, what ‘Jews’ or ‘Judaism’ meant in the seventh century may be self-evident to some but is uncertain in the archaeological and historical record. This paper thus attempts to distinguish between the Babylonian Pharisees, the Levite-Korahite (Quraiza/Quraysh) linage, and the other three parties. Here, the Koran appears to address part of the latter ‘Jews’ and part of the Nasara as its enemies. This is an ‘after-the-fact’ understanding of the evidence that is hereafter presented and is thus later addressed. The sura appears to say that they all had come together under a single umbrella, presumably Prophet Muhammad, but then the religious unity broke apart. Somewhat later in the relevant passages, another verse clarifies that everybody else had ‘a quarter of the Heavens’, referring to the inter-cardinal directions, but they would all be united one day. All have a quarter of the Heavens to which they turn them: but wherever ye be, hasten emulously after good: God will one day bring you all together; verily, God is all-powerful.11

This is an interesting thing to say, because it does not attest to a specific location that the ‘others’ prayed to other than north, east, south, and west. The question of the orientation perhaps merits a separate investigation into its deep history. For example, it is not clear that the Jews had prayed toward Jerusalem before the eight century. In fact, the archaeological evidence here presented shows otherwise. The next verse in the sura appears to bring the message of the change in orientation to a community that needed instruction how exactly praying to a specific location should work. And from whatever place thou comest forth, turn thy face toward the sacred Mosque [al masjd al haram]; for this is the truth from thy Lord; and God is not inattentive to your doings. And from whatever place thou comest forth, turn thy face toward the sacred Mosque [al masjd al haram]; and wherever ye be, to that part turn your faces, lest men have cause of dispute against you: but as for the impious among them, fear them not; but fear me, that I may perfect my favours on you, and that ye may be guided aright.12

Tradition seems to be in unison that the orientation of the prayer had before been toward Jerusalem. But that is not what the text says. Since the sura never mentions Mecca (which occurs only once in the entire Koran13), it is not even clear whether the sacred Mosque [al masjd al haram] is a specific mosque, or any, or several. Even though this paper does include a solution to this debate, the recommended approach is to let go of preconceptions. The archaeological evidence speaks for itself and provides for solid anchors to work from. It will trigger a chain reaction of discoveries to bring forth the necessary knowledge. 10 11 12 13

Koran 2:140-2:143 (Rodwell Koran 2:134-137). Koran 2:149 (Rodwell Koran 2:143). Koran 2:150-2:151 (Rodwell Koran 2:144-145). Koran 48:24 (Rodwell).


Page | 9

A little further, the sura introduces the pilgrimage ‘to the temple’ and the Hajj practice. Since these latter rituals are quite mobile, this paper is being reduced to the hard evidence of the qibla orientation. But it is not clear either whether temple and pilgrimage (Hajj) indicate the same location(s) of the sacred Mosque(s) or another. It seems quite apparent that a sacred mosque and a temple may not be the same. Perhaps one of the more troubling issues is the absence of any protests and bloody conflicts that would have been triggered by these changes of the qibla. Were they perhaps used to change the qibla every once in a while for a reason that we are unaware of? What does the orientation of a mosque actually mean? Do we even know what a mosque is and how it sets itself apart from temples, synagogues, or churches in the seventh century? If the qibla is supposed to be the defining element, then we have a fundamental problem that seeks for a definite answer by the academic community. If the Koran did not change the qibla to Mecca, then it would have to be determined with the Hadith. Thus, it is opportune to review what the Sunni Islamic scholar Bukhari14 had to say about it, and I thank my research colleague Ercan Celik for raising the importance of the traditions in this respect. Since the latter are quite concerned about how a person needs to be orientated for ablution or how the Prophet would have scraped spit of a mosque’s wall, this can become a bewildering undertaking. Quite a few traditions that refer to the qibla focus on prayers for rain, which reminds of Pagan customs. Two concealed hadiths invoke Jerusalem: Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar: People say, “Whenever you sit for answering the call of nature, you should not face the Qibla or Bait-ulMaqdis (Jerusalem).” I told them. “Once I went up the roof of our house and I saw Allah's Apostle answering the call of nature while sitting on two bricks facing Bait-ulMaqdis (Jerusalem) (but there was a screen covering him).” (FatehAl-Bari, Page 258, Vol. 1).15

However, Bait-ul-Maqdis means the holy house, which is not a designation that typically belongs to Jerusalem. Of particular interest is a single tradition that has the Prophet facing east to pray, but then he would ‘dismount’ from his ‘Mount’: Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: The Prophet used to pray (the Nawafil) on his Mount facing east and whenever he wanted to offer the compulsory prayer, he used to dismount and face the Qibla.16

With some goodwill, this could be understood as the Prophet having prayed on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, and then he had to leave (dismount) and then face ‘the Qibla’, as if this was a distant but undisclosed location. On the Mount, Prophet Muhammad faced east. Bukhari states further that the Prophet came to Medina without relating whence he arrived. Narrated Anas: The Prophet came to Medina and ordered a mosque to be built and said, “O Bani Najjar! Suggest to me the price (of your land).” They said, “We do not want its price except from Allah” (i.e. they wished for a reward from Allah for giving up their land freely). So, the Prophet ordered the graves of the pagans to be dug out and the land to be levelled, and the date-palm trees to be cut down. The cut

14 15 16

Muhammad ibn Ismail al-Bukhari 810-870 AD. Bukhari, 1:4:147, ca. 864-870 AD, (CMJE and the University of Southern California, 2007-2009). Ibid., 2:20:203.


Page | 10

date-palms were fixed in the direction of the Qibla of the mosque.17

In essence, the Hadith says that the Banu Najjar (the ‘maternal’ linage of Muhammad) donated land to the Prophet in order to build (a first) mosque in that city, supposedly the Mosque of the Prophet. It suggests that the land of the first mosque was owned by the Nasi, the religious leader of the LeviteQuraysh. While none of the traditions in Bukhari actually mentions Mecca in a context of the prayer direction, only one cites the ‘Kaaba’: Narrated Al-Bara': When Allah's Apostle arrived at Medina, he prayed facing Jerusalem for sixteen or seventeen months but he wished that he would be ordered to face the Ka'ba. So Allah revealed: -'Verily! We have seen the turning of your face towards the heaven; surely we shall turn you to a prayer direction (Qibla) that shall please you.' (2.144) Thus he was directed towards the Ka'ba. A man prayed the 'Asr prayer with the Prophet and then went out, and passing by some people from the Ansar, he said, "I testify that I have prayed with the Prophet and he (the Prophet) has prayed facing the Ka'ba." Thereupon they, who were bowing in the 'Asr prayer, turned towards the Ka'ba.18

This tradition suggests a change of the qibla from ‘the heaven’ – meaning north, east, south, and west – to the Kaaba after almost two years in Medina. It is noteworthy that the Prophet did not actually provide instructions but led the prayer direction by example. What may have been his motive to choose the (or a) Kaaba? If it were changed from Jerusalem, one of the three arch-mosques should thus be oriented toward the Holy City. However, this is not so. Even though it is widely understood that this can only be the Kaaba in Mecca, it simply does not say so, and – despite widely held beliefs – none of the three mosques in Medina are oriented to the holiest site of Islam. It needs to be stressed that the traditions are fabrications of the eighth and ninth century. Other than for supporting purposes, they are inadmissible as direct evidence. Because there is no certainty that either the Koran or Bukhari actually speak about the Kaaba in Mecca or of a change from Jerusalem and because of the involvement of the ‘Jewish’ priesthood, this paper takes a broader view. Since Islam is of the Abrahamic/Judaic family of religions, the starting point is Babylon and the whereabouts of the Babylonian Exilarch. The search for answers to the meaning of sura 2 leads through the orientation of places of worship. But first, the accuracy that the ancients could have achieved needs to be discussed.

17 18

Ibid., 3:30:92. Ibid., 9:91:358.


Page | 11

Accuracy of Structural Orientations Before accuracy can be addressed, the common sense needs to be taken into account that demolishing a perfectly suitable building and erecting a new one was a prohibitively expensive undertaking. It is believed that the ancients were masters of recycling, they would not only rededicate existing structures, but – if they took a building down – they re-used the stone work. But then they were also militant, sometimes burning a competing place of worship down while barricading the doors to hinder the praying community from escaping tragedy. The result should often show in structural mosaics that ‘borrowed’ the layer of destruction upon which a new one would be propped. Entirely new buildings, instead, would often display distinct orientations – such as toward Mecca – which, in many cases, could be as simple as astral. For example, Belmonte, Gonzales, and Polcaro found that several monuments in Petra were oriented according to astral elements.19 They were so precise that a statue inside a building could be lit at a specific hour of a desired date. How awesome would that be for a superstitious audience? The power of prophesy would frighten the spectators to their bones. Of course, the merry astral pranks with the public would also have an essential practical application in determining the cycles of agriculture. Despite these findings, it needs to be pointed out that it would not have been necessary for the ancients to orient an entire building in a certain direction just for the show of one day. Such miracles could easily be achieved inside structures of any rotation. Thus, there were different primary reasons why the builders focused on layouts that were looking toward a specific direction. The obsession with orientation is perceived as being particularly strong in Islam. However, mosques, as they are claimed to be, were initially not faced toward Mecca. This does not rest on some complex theory but on the simple fact that the Koran itself talks about changes in prayer orientation in Sura 2 as just laid out. It is merely logical that early mosques could be oriented toward the Kaaba only after this decree (or rather a decree) would have been disseminated and universally understood. This is made more complicated by the fact that most of the locations of the first ‘mosques’ that are mentioned in the traditions cannot be identified today. So far, academia has been unable to come forth with a sensible date when the decree for the change in prayer direction would have been written. At the least, following consensus, this should have been during Muhammad’s lifetime of the traditions, i.e. before 632 AD. But, just how precise were the ancients able to determine the orientation of a structure?

19

Juan Antonio Belmonte, A. César González-García, Andrea Polcaro, Light and Shadows over Petra: astronomy and landscape in Nabataean lands, Nexus Network Journal 15 (2013), 487-501.


Page | 12

Two decades ago, David A. King claimed that ‘even the most capable medieval scientists could not have derived the modern, ‘accurate’ qiblas.’ He went as far as to

declare that ‘modern qibla-values are irrelevant to any discussion of the orientation of medieval architecture’ and that ‘the qibla was determined by completely different techniques of a non-mathematical nature.’20 The same would apply to cemeteries, where the dead face the qibla for the Day of Resurrection. As a respected expert, King made up his mind. But how did he know what the ancients were and were not capable to achieve? It appears that moderns tend to belittle the competencies of masters from times past in particular when they do not understand what they did and why. As monumental projects with stones that are far too heavy and too precise illustrate, countless feats were supposed to be impossible, yet, in the end, it is us that are unable to figure out how they brought about their extraordinary accomplishments anyway. It was not the ancients’ fault that King could not imagine that they simply used a different pattern from the one that he had in his mind. Even though King thought that Medieval Muslims should have been able to determine the direction to Mecca within a few minutes of arc, he backed off from this, because it defies the realities on the ground where qiblas are oriented differently within the confines of one city. King observed that the city of Mecca was not the target but, more precisely, the Kaaba itself was, which is a paradox of precision. He thought that early mosques were copying the astral orientation of the Kaaba or mimicking Muhammad’s prayer orientation due south. ‘The qiblas were defined in terms of the Pole Star, and the risings and settings of Canopus, Altair, Vega, the Pleiades, and the stars of the Great Bear.’21

When taking (inadmissible) legal tradition into account, the following remark by King stands out: The legal scholars were equal to the task of confronting these palettes of different directions for each region: they pronounced that whilst facing the actual direction (‘ayn) of the Kaaba was optimal, it was legally acceptable to use as qibla any direction (jiha) within the limits of one’s vision, that is, about a quadrant of the horizon centered on the ‘actual direction.’ In other words, if for example the qibla is somewhere in the south-east, it is permissible to pray due east or due south.22

Elementary school geometry should tell the attentive student that buildings of any direction would be legally acceptable. In other words, legal tradition merely explains away the reasons for different orientations. With this approach, any direction or focal point – for example Petra – would always lead to a result that is ‘true.’ Early orientations are thus left to accident. However, it is obvious that the builders had defied pre-existing city layouts in their determination of rotating a structure to a very specific direction. Why would the ancients have gone to such great length to ‘accurately’ position their places of

20 21 22

David A. King, The Orientation of Medieval Islamic Religious Architecture and Cities (Journal for the History of Astronomy, 1995) 253. Ibid. Ibid., 258.


Page | 13

worship when the orientation turned out to not matter at all? Why would they do so differently for a number of mosques inside the same city walls or for additions to the same mosque? This paper tries to identify the actual target locations of selected mosques. If a structure is not directed exactly to Mecca within the Muslim’s margin of error, the attempt is made to figure out where else it could have pointed in a broad view in all four cardinal directions facing a wall and also along it. While it is easy today to measure the angle between two known buildings, it is not so clear how exact a building’s orientation can be measured from satellite images. This author has re-measured every early mosque to his knowledge. The below image with inserted enlargements shows that differences of as little as 0.25° can clearly be recognized as inaccurate.

As evidenced by the satellite image from the Great Mosque of Samarra below, which is believed to point to Mecca, a deviation of 1.31° is obvious even on a small picture. As long as the features are well defined, the orientation can be taken with an accuracy of +/- 0.13 degrees or better when rounded to the nearest 0.25°. When features are geometrical and very sharp, an accuracy of +/- 0.05° can be achieved when rounded to the nearest 0.1°. Even if features are difficult to make out, the accuracy that can be achieved is still well within +/- 0.25°. Greater differences are obvious on a big screen as was used for the purpose of this research.


Page | 14

A central question is whether worshipers would orient themselves for prayer facing or along a wall. This would define the intended direction of a structure, in particular where irregular shapes are featured. Since rectangular structures will always bring forth correct results, irregular buildings will need to be verified for a prayer direction facing or along a wall. The irregular structures are a function of additions. Thus, it is not possible to know if a wall from a previously intended direction may have been taken down for the enlargement of the mosque. To highlight the consequences for an approach with accuracy, the actual orientation from the Mosque of the Prophet Yunus to the Erbil Compound is used as an example. It is 100.94°, which includes an ‘error’ of measurement of 0.06° from a value that had been rounded to the nearest 0.25°. To make this clear, it is the measurement that is not precise enough, not the orientation of the structure. That the error is so small is an indication that the ancients may have been able to measure to the nearest one hundredth of a degree or 0.01°. It also means that the error would amount to merely 75 m between two locations 82 km distant. This short path could be ran in less than ten seconds by a person that is averagely well in shape. The error is so small that it is not possible to mistaken one target building for another. This degree of error grows with distance. For example, the exact angle between the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus is 343.06° from the Mosque of the Prophet in Medina, over 1000 km distant. An error of 0.06° amounts to 750 meters. A retiree could walk the few blocks in less than ten minutes. This is a very narrow margin of error, in particular where it concerns buildings of significance, such as palaces, fortresses, or places of worship that typically encroach on large spaces. In other words, the potential for error still remains remarkably small.


Page | 15

Those that will try to duplicate the results will be surprised. The experience may be different in densely populated areas like Europe or the Levant, but for targets in the Middle East, the Near East, the Arab Peninsula, or Africa, chances are that just one or very few towns ever come into the focus inside a search corridor. This fortunate circumstance is helpful in discovering which mosque was erected to target a specific location at a place that could be far, far away. In addition, since the margin of error is so small, it is usually fairly straight forward to eliminate competing targets. What this defiant approach of precision reveals is astonishing: They should not have been able to accurately orient a building, but they did it anyway – and they did it far more precisely than moderns could imagine.


Page | 16

The Exilarch, the Nasi, and the Location of the Shekhinah According to twelfth century evidence by Benjamin of Tudela, the Zaddok leaders of Abbasid Islam were viewed as sort of divinities, perhaps paracletes if not outright gods (similar to emperors and other ruling divinities). The Exilarch was sort of a subordinate minister of defense, holding the iron rod of David. We will return to his account after looking at some archaeological evidence. The Talmud makes it clear that the location of the Exilarch was also the location of the Shekhinah, the Holy Spirit, respectively, the Spirit of God.23 Thus, when we look for the orientation of structures, the whereabouts of the Exilarch is paramount, and following the Talmud, that should alternate between Nehardea and Mahuza. Babylon Babylon is an ancient Mesopotamian city that reaches back to the Semitic Akkadian Empire in the twenty third century BC. It perhaps represents the embodiment of Pharisee Jewry. Around the eighteenth century BC, Babylon was the largest city in the world and became the Holy City under the Amorite King Hammurabi, who created the first Babylonian Empire. The city grew again to be the largest on the planet and became capital of the Neo-Babylonian Empire (Chaldean) in the sixth century. It was a center of learning, in particular astronomy and mathematics. At this time, complete maps of constellations were created. Perhaps parallel with the evolution of God El, Babylon was understood at that time to mean ‘Gateway of God’. In Genesis, the city is called Babel for ‘confusion’.25 Alexander the Great died in the city’s palace of Nebuchadnezzar in 323 BC. The ruins of Babylon point exactly to Nineveh. Because of the overgrowth, the measurements are rather difficult to take, but the trail is here followed.

2323

25

Talmud – Mas. Megilah 29a: It has been taught: R. Simon b. Yohai said: Come and see how beloved are Israel in the sight of God, in that to every place to which they were exiled the Shechinah went with them. They were exiled to Egypt and the Shechinah was with them, as it says, Did I reveal myself unto the house of thy father when they were in Egypt. They were exiled to Babylon, and the Shechinah was with them, as it says, for your sake I was sent to Babylon. And when they will be redeemed in the future, the Shechinah will be with them, as it says, Then the Lord thy God will return [with] thy captivity. It does not say here we-heshib [and he shall bring back] but we-shab [and he shall return]. This teaches us that the Holy One, blessed be He, will return with them from the places of exile. Where [is the Shechinah] in Babylon?-Abaye said: In the synagogue of Huzal [Mahuza] and in the synagogue of Shaf-weyathib in Nehardea. Do not, however, imagine that it is in both places, but it is sometimes in one and sometimes in the other. Said Abaye: May I be rewarded because whenever I am within a parasang I go in and pray there. Genesis 11:9.


Page | 17

Nineveh Once also the largest city in the world, Nineveh, was the capital of the Neo-Assyrian Empire and as early as 3000 BC, it was the center of Ishtar worship. Other than the latter goddess, temples would be erected in this city to the gods Ashur, Nabiu, Nergal, Ninurta, Nisroch, Shamash, Sîn, and Tammuz. According to Genesis,26 Nineveh was founded by Ashur or, in the case that Ashur means Assyria, by Nimrod, which is an important personality in the Koran. Nineveh is also the subject of the book of Jonah wherein the wicked city was spared of destruction due to the citizens’ repentance. It is through Jonah that Nineveh received its association with the fish.

The central complex seems to have been built at various times with an array of different orientations. The middle structure points to the Tomb of Daniel in the Kirkuk Citadel. The latter forms the core of the ancient city of Arrapha, herself capital of a small Neo-Assyrian kingdom between the second century BC and the third century AD, Beth Garmai, and also the last stronghold of the NeoAssyrian Empire. The eastern addition to the central third of the complex points to Ahvaz, which name means the ‘Huz-I people,’27 referring to the indigenous people of Khuzestan. Huz is an Old Persian form of the Elamite name Suz (Susa-Susiana), which was Prophet Daniel’s headquarter. Indeed, Ahvaz replaced Susa as the capital of Khuzestan. The city hosted one of the three Sasanian centers of learning, which moved there from Nisibis and Edessa. 26 27

Genesis 10:11. Hasan Bar Bahlul, Bar Bahlul Dictionary.


Page | 18

The orientation of the eastern-most portion of the complex is unclear. The ‘nose’ that had been added to the south contains three orientations. The one to the east points to either Iranshar (perhaps the Naseri Fortress) or Borujerd. The religious significance for early Islam of these two towns is not yet clear to this researcher. The wall to the west is oriented toward Jahrom and with a difference of merely 0.04°, alternatively to Amasya in Anatolia. The latter city appears to have been popular among the ancient intelligentsia. As the capital of the Roman Province Helenopontus, the city was the Metropolitan Archbishopric in pre-Islamic times. The smaller western part of the complex is oriented in the same way as the adjacent structure immediately to the west. The buildings are precisely directed toward the Throne of Salomon in Shiraz, also known as Ghasre Abu-Nasr (the palace of Abu Nasr). The fortress was built under the Parthian Empire, and it became an important strategic outpost under the Sasanians. Coins attest to the fort’s use by the Achaemenids, Seleucids, Parthians, and Sassanids. The northern structure that is orientated due south meets with Al Marawiâh in Yemen as well as with two other towns, Fahrshah and Al Debeah. The addition to the south meets with Al Bukayriyah in Saudi Arabia. The one to the west is oriented toward the Bijar Mosque in Kurdistan, Iran. Multiple mosques point to this latter location. Before continuing, a word of caution is necessary: from satellite images alone, it is not possible to recognize demolitions or outright rebuilds. If new walls have been erected, rather than old ones renovated, chances are that the result will turn out to be erroneous. Yet, it is perhaps the beauty of the exercise NOT to find much about the construction history of most of the mosques. This removes potential issues with bias. Such ‘errors’ will show up, and the way to eliminate them is to accumulate a large number of mosques from many towns in order to carve out the sectarian developments. The final solution will be found in the aggregate view of multiple locations that are evaluated on the ground. This will take time. Mosque of the Prophet Yunus, Nineveh The Mosque of the Prophet Yunus (Jonah, son of Amittai) was believed to be the resting place of the prophet with the same name. The building lies just south at the walls to Nineveh. The Neo-Assyrian King Asarhaddon (r. 681 – 669 BC) had here built his palace, and an Assyrian Church stood here before the site would be turned into a mosque. It was in modern time destroyed by ISIS. The structures show two visible layers of construction, which are roughly 6° offset to each other and a northern overbuild with multiple structures that feature different orientations. The measurements are difficult to take, but seven orientations can be retrieved with some confidence from satellite imagery. A) The axis of the church building as well as the southern wall of the main platform are oriented toward the Jameh Mosque in Ferdows, which is believed to be an eleventh century building, but it could well originate in a seventh century place of worship. B) The north-eastern wall of the main platform faces the Erbuni Fortress in the capital city of Armenia, Yerevan.


Page | 19

C) Facing the north-eastern wall of the overbuilt area is oriented toward Hajrah. Tradition suggests that this is the place where the followers of Prophet Muhammad gathered before heading for Mecca. D) The north-western wall of the overbuilt area points to Al Debeah. This city is situated northeast of Al Rass in Saudi Arabia. It features a prominent temple ruin.

E) The north-western layer of the main platform points exactly to Aksum in Ethiopia when facing the wall. This city happens to claim to be host to Moses’ tablets with the Ark of the Covenant containing the Ten Commandments. Aksum is part of the earliest Muslim story of the traditions wherein companions of the Prophet Muhammad had fled to Ethiopia. Along the north-western wall leads toward a religious building that lies just north-east of the Erbil Citadel. This target building appears to look back at The Mosque of the Prophet Yunus. The answer to the building’s rotation comes in the form of a surprise: facing the southern wall, the Erbil Compound points precisely to Negash in Ethiopia. One may wonder what the orientation of the Imam Mesgid (perhaps the Bait-ul-Maqdis of the traditions) might bring forth. We will return to this mosque, since it might indeed confirm the early presence of Muslims in Ethiopia and the related stories – it is not the only such building looking to this very location.


Page | 20

F) Extending along the eastern wall of the main platform of the Prophet Yunus Mosque reaches a river compound in Hail, Saudi Arabia. It is the town Jabal Aja of the Tayyi. The same compound is also pointed to by a mosque in Ar Rass. G) The western wall points to Tarsus in Anatolia. It is the burial place of the Abbasid Caliph AlMa’mun (+ 833 AD). Nehardea According to Talmudic tradition, the Sanhedrin moved several times. It was located in Usha during the 140s AD. Then it moved to Shefaram (Shfaram, Shafa-Amar) between 150 and 163 AD. Thereafter, the Sanhedrin moved to Beit-Shearim under the leadership of Rabbi Judah the Prince (Yehudah HaNasi/Hannasi). He completed the Mishna in 189 AD and moved the Sanhedrin in 200 AD to Sepphoris (Deocaesarea). Continuing along the traditions, his burial place was in Beit-Shearim. At Hannasi’s death, the Talmud refers to eighteen synagogues having been built, of which only one has been found. The synagogue that was unearthed was probably built in the fifth century with its Bimah oriented to the west rather than to Jerusalem. It also features an elaborate mosaic with Sol Invictus at its center. There is little or no archaeological evidence that has been brought forth to this order of events. A Jewish rebellion there was put down in 351 AD. It is not known when the Sanhedrin moved to Tiberias, but it must have been sometime after 200 AD. The city features hot springs that had been named after the Roman Emperor Tiberius. According to tradition, the Sanhedrin remained in Tiberias until their displacement in around 470 AD. Unfortunately, the satellite imagery of the archaeological sites and synagogues is not clear enough to make any observations of value. When the Jewish Academies in Nisibis, Nehardea and Pumbedita as well as Mahuza (Ctesiphon) and Sura (Al-Hira) had been built is also not known with certainty. With the exception of Nehardea, there do not seem to exist archaeological finds of value for the purpose of this paper. The main axis of the central fortified quarters in Nehardea points to the winter sunset. No buildings are oriented toward Jerusalem. The alignment with the winter sunset is also believed to be a feature of Muslim mosques in Iran and Iraq. But since the Kaaba of the Levite Quraysh is oriented toward the summer solstice – and sects tend to display opposite behaviours of one another – it immediately raises a question: is Nehardea Shi’ite heritage? Nevertheless, the residents of Nehardea were Babylonian Pharisees.


Page | 21

The axis toward the north-west points directly at Nisibis. The lower quarter that lies in the south and is rotated within the walls that brings forth a surprise: it is directed to the Imam Mesgid in Negash of Ethiopia. While the dating may not be simple, the Ethiopian kernel is solidifying with a precise geographical convergence point from the compound in Erbil and from Nehardea. We know from the Talmud that Nehardea was the home town of Anilai and Asinai. The brothers established a Jewish ‘robber state’. The moral of a long story is that Babylonia was governed by the Pharisee Asinai,28 following a deal that was accepted by Artabanus III (established by Queen Helena of Adiabene’s son Izates29). The Jews from Nehardea were not content with ruling Babylonia but attempted further expansions30 into the territory of the Promised Land. After the conquests failed, a holocaust was unleashed upon them, and the Babylonian Pharisees left for Mahuza.31 According to Biblical tradition, Nehardea was the seat of the Babylonian Exilarch since King Jehoiachin. Thus, the brothers had likely been under the Exilarch’s protection. Nehardea was represented by the Talmudic opinions of Hillel, while Shemaiah and Abtalion supported the Herodian/Idumean position in Jerusalem/Tiberias. Josephus claimed that ‘Nehardea and Nisibis were the treasuries of the Eastern Jews, for the Temple taxes were kept there until the stated days for forwarding them to Jerusalem.’32 From these places, the treasures would be transported under cover of pilgrimages to the Holy Temple.33 Nisibis, Nehardea, and Pumbedita as well as later Mahuza (Ctesiphon) were built by Hasmonean Pharisees who claimed linage with Hyrcanus and were subject to the Babylonian Exilarch. Sura (Al-Hira) was probably also Pharisee or mixed, while Tiberias and Ceasarea were their opponents. The latter two were subject to the Nasi. Back in the first century BC, Herod the Great, the King of the Jews, had married Mariamne, daughter of Hyrcanus. The latter enjoyed an extraordinary standing in the Hasmonean community since the Exilarch in Nehardea had also wished to wed one of his daughters. Josephus presented a contentious position that Hyrcanus’s linage owned exclusivity over wearing the garments of the high-priest. In addition, the Exilarch must have been king of a country beyond the Euphrates River. Nehardea was destroyed in 259 AD by Odenathus, the ruler of Palmyra. He initiated the conquests that led to the Palmyrene Empire under his ‘Jewish’ widow Zenobia and her son. The seat of 28

29 30

31

32 33

Josephus, Antiquities (93 AD) XIX:9:4: I [Artabanus] commit to thee [Asinai/Asineus] the country of Babylonia in trust, that it may, by thy care, be preserved free from robbers, and from other mischiefs. Izates bar Monobaz, ca. 1-55 AD. Josephus, Antiquities (93 AD) XIX:9:6: So Anileus took the government upon himself alone, and led his army against the villages of Mithridates, who was a man of principal authority in Parthia, and had married king Artabanus's daughter; he also plundered them, and among that prey was found much money, and many slaves, as also a great number of sheep, and many other things, which, when gained, make men's condition happy. Josephus, Antiquities (93 AD) XIX:9:8: The Babylonians were now freed from Anileus's heavy incursions, which had been a great restraint to the effects of that hatred they bore to the Jews; for they were almost always at variance, by reason of the contrariety of their laws; and which party soever grew boldest before the other, they assaulted the other: and at this time in particular it was, that upon the ruin of Anileus's party, the Babylonians attacked the Jews, which made those Jews so, vehemently to resent the injuries they received from the Babylonians, that being neither able to fight them, nor bearing to live with them, they went to Seleucia, the principal city of those parts, which was built by Seleucus Nicator. Josephus, Antiquities xviii. 9, § 1. Josephus, Antiquities (93 AD) XIX:8.9: There was a city of Babylonia called Neerda; not only a very populous one, but one that had a good and a large territory about it, and, besides its other advantages, full of men also. It was, besides, not easily to be assaulted by enemies, from the river Euphrates encompassing it all round, and from the wails that were built about it. There was also the city Nisibis, situate on the same current of the river. For which reason the Jews, depending on the natural strength of these places, deposited in them that half shekel which every one, by the custom of our country, offers unto God, as well as they did other things devoted to him; for they made use of these cities as a treasury, whence, at a proper time, they were transmitted to Jerusalem; and many ten thousand men undertook the carriage of those donations, out of fear of the ravages of the Parthians, to whom the Babylonians were then subject.


Page | 22

the Exilarch was thus moved to Pumbedita, which is perhaps also the latter’s founding date. Odenathus proclaimed himself ‘King of the Jews and the Samaritans’ and would be called Ben Netzer. The word netzer means branch and refers to the House of Jesse, King David’s father. Ben Netzer would represent the messianic branch of the House of David (Jesse), and his followers would be the Notzrim, hence the Nazarenes, Nestorians, and Nasara.34 Following the logic of Qumran, he represented the Messiah of the House of David who was responsible for warfare. In other words, he was (or pretended to be) the Exilarch of the Babylonian Pharisees. Rome must have vastly underestimated the strength and zealotry of its Judaic enemies. Having said that, this statement needs to be put into a modern context. Today’s militant Jihadists of ISIS and a string of despotic states demonstrate that only a small minority is needed to subvert and finally overthrow a peaceful population. It is a basic human instinct of survival to do nothing in the face of evil. If this is mixed with the religious glorification of intellectual and economic mass poverty, it turns into an explosive cocktail that makes Salvation or Paradise lock appealing. It creates recruiting grounds for narrow minded extremists. In consequence, armed and well trained men that represent perhaps less than 10% or even 2% of a population can easily oppress a majority. The leaders of the fundamentalist few had and have no issue to destroy everything in their wake for the sake of enforcing a truth upon those that dare to think differently. This scorched earth tactic stops for nothing. ISIS and the Taliban are cases in point, devastating the cultural heritage of non-Orthodox Muslim, Mesopotamian, Zoroastrian, and Buddhist origin. As history makes abundantly clear: the Truth is flexible in recruiting more martyrs – peaceful majorities had and have little or no part in shaping the trajectory of their histories. Toward the end of the third century, the arguably ‘Jewish’ Palmyrene Empire under Queen Zenobia briefly sacked the western portions of the Promised Land with Jerusalem and also Egypt. With over three dozen different orientations, Palmyra and Palmyra Castle merit a study on their own that would exceed the scope of this paper. The archaeology has an interesting history to unveil. Palmyra was only a precursor of the formation of a string of ‘Jewish’ buffer states that would be situated along the length of the north-south border between the two world powers, Rome and Persia, including the Arab Peninsula and perhaps Ethiopia in one sectarian form or another. The Palmyran descendants of Ben Netzer ended up in Edessa.

34

See A.J. Deus, The Nasara in the Koran (2016) available for free at https://www.academia.edu/19640981/The_Nasara_in_The_Koran.


Page | 23

Nisibis, Edessa, and Mahoze Nisibis came to prominence in the mid-fourth century after the establishment of the School of Nisibis. This location is recognized as the world’s first ‘university’, teaching theology, philosophy, and medicine. The school was then moved to Edessa after the conquest by the Persians in 363 AD. This trail can be confirmed with the south-western corner of the Academy of Nisibis that is indeed oriented toward the Mosque Damat Suleyman Pasha Camii in Edessa. The latter city, in turn, emerged with the story of Prophet Muhammad as the location from where the ‘Jews’ (the descendants of Ben Netzer) relocated to the Ishmaelites. Edessa was also a center of Miaphysitism (divinity and humanity of Jesus are united), and Nisibis would become a Nestorian center (where the Word of God would be separate of Jesus’ humanity). The latter would come to represent the Nasara in the Koran.35 Edessa was host of the Holy Mandylion by Ananias,36 an image of Jesus’ likeness that had miraculously been imprinted on a piece of cloth. Apparently, the icon helped the city’s defense against Persian invasions, and it was important enough to being moved to Constantinople in the tenth century. According to Talmudic tradition, the school of Edessa was moved back to Nisibis. This move is attested in one of the central orientations of the Mosque Damat Suleyman Pasha Camii, which points back to Nisibis. It indicates that the religious leadership indeed resided in Nisibis. The Academy of Nisibis reveals one more direction. It points to the far away Bijar Mosque in the Iranian Kurdistan Province. Since there does not seem to be any significance attributed to Bijar, this could have easily been overlooked. However, this mosque has other places of worship looking toward it. The Mosque Damat Suleyman Pasha Camii in Edessa (modern day Şanlıurfa) is divided into two main compounds: The upper portion appears to having been built around a large main hall, while the lower portion is an assembly of many smaller sections.

35 36

A.J. Deus, The Nasara in the Koran (2016), available for free on Academia.edu. Steven Runciman, "Some Remarks on the Image of Edessa", Cambridge Historical Journal 3.3 (1931:238-252), p. 240.


Page | 24

Upper compound: Like a section of the Academy of Nisibis, the northern wall meets with Bijar. Its southern-most addition points to the port city of Jeddah in Saudi Arabia. More precisely, it targets a mosque with multiple additions that are differently oriented. According to tradition, Caliph Uthman moved Mecca’s main port from Al Shoaiba to Jeddah around 647 AD. The Kingdom of Aksum briefly occupied the city in 703 AD. Lower compound: The diagonal section in the lower compound points to Daraa in Syria. In Roman times, the Ebionite hub Daraa was part of the Province Arabia Petraea. Tradition has it that the Jewish Banu Nadir and al-Waqidi settled here after they had been driven out of Medina by Muhammad. There are different traditions that put Caliph Umar into this city, which was also a center of Jewish learning during the seventh century. As the orientations of the Mosque Damat Suleyman Pasha Camii reveal, its foundation is PreIslam and Babylonian Pharisee, but the Daraa addition that looks toward Umar originated likely with the Levite Quraysh Nasi, opponent of the Babylonian Pharisee Exilarch. Ercan Celik was so kind to call the imam of the Damat Suleyman Pasha Mosque, asking about its history. He was told that the original wooden Ottoman mosque was demolished in 1964 and replaced with a concrete building. The mosque is said to have been built in the seventeenth century by an Ottoman


Page | 25

general named Suleyman Pasha (of Georgian descent) from the Syrian city of Ar-Raqqa. Adjacent to the mosque is the old historic bazar Millet Han (Millet=Nation; Han=Inn or Caravanserai). Indeed, the Bazaar itself as well as an addition to the south west of the main hall are oriented toward the western suburbs of Ar-Raqqa (not the shrines related to Ali’s followers). Unfortunately, at this point, no building can be identified as being relevant. The Sadducee Jews anointed the “Lapis Perfusus” rock on the Temple Mount in 362 AD but were soon thereafter driven out again. The refugees took shelter in the Arab Peninsula, giving rise to the Jewish Himyarite Kingdom toward the end of the fourth century under King Tubba Abu Karib (a Tobiad and Sadducee loyalist).37 This rise may have been accelerated by the conversion of the Ethiopian population to Christianity. The fourth century saw intensifying swoops and successful plundering by the Saracens, naturalized Arabs who became known as Saracens, Ishmaelites, or Arabs. The name Saracens denotes that they did not descend from Sarah, wife of the biblical Abraham. Two distinct Saracen groups emerged: those of Abraham’s maidservant and second wife, Hagar, the mother of Ishmael, who are recognized either as Ishmaelites, as Persian Saracens, or as Lakhmids, and those of the third wife of Abraham, Keturah, who were branded Syrian Saracens, or Ghassanids (they originate with John the Baptist and are the Sabians of the Koran). Under the influence of Persia, the Lakhmids became Nasara/Nestorians, while the Ghassanids were allied with the Byzantines and converted to ‘Melkite Christianity’, both turning out to become anti-Chalcedon from the fifth century. However, under Xosrov II at the beginning of the seventh century, the Ghassandis ruled the Lakhmids, thus bringing forward the confusion of Saracens calling themselves Ishmaelites and vice versa after the appearance of Prophet Muhammad. Both groups were called ‘Arabs’ in the seventh century. The creation of (Jewish) vassals established competing royal dynasties and territorial aspirations. It cannot have escaped the attention of the periphery that they gained exceptional powers by simply switching allegiance to the highest bidder for privileges, in particular where they would have acted as buffer states between the super-powers. The Palestinian Patriarch38 ─ the Levite Nasi ─ was deposed by the emperors of the Western39 and the Eastern40 Roman Empire at the beginning of the fifth century. Fitting

37 38 39 40

Himyarite King tubba Abu Karib As'ad Kamil, 385-420 CE. Rabbi Gamaliel VI was the last Nasi heading the Palestinian Patriarchate 400-415 AD. Honorius (Flavius Honorius Augustus) was Western Roman Emperor 395-423 AD. Theodosius II (Flavius Theodosius Junior Augustus) was Eastern Roman Emperor 408-450 AD.


Page | 26

together, during the first two decades of the fifth century, Queen Shushandukht, the Jewish consort of Yazdegerd I, settled a colony of its kindred in faith in Yahudiyyeh (Yahudiya/Jubarreh/Joubareh), the Iranian city that became Esfahan. One might like to speculate whether the Nasi went along to ‘Isfahan’ with them or perhaps to another place. Indeed, the Jameh Mosque of Isfahan is looking to Wereta in Ethiopia (image on previous page), and a mosque there is oriented toward Badr. Wereta happens to be the center of Amharic Semitic people that are believed to having fled from the Hymiarite Empire. In all likelihood, the Jameh Mosque of Isfahan belongs to the Nasi and is therefore Levite Quraysh. There is another mosque in Isfahan (‫دیس ﻣﺴ ﺠﺪ‬/Mahale-ye-Now) with multiple orientations, one of which points to Sana’a and another to Hajrah. The latter is a gathering place of Muhammad, according to tradition. In other words, there are at least two different archaeological trails that can be separated in order to document the emergence of Islam. Eudokia, wife of Theodosius II, is said to have issued another permit to rebuild the Temple in 443 AD. It is possible that the Jews moved back into Jerusalem shortly thereafter. The Talmud declares among a number of opinions in regard to the beginning of the Messiahnic era: “In it is stated that four thousand, two hundred and thirty-one years after the creation the world will be orphaned.”41 This turns out to be the year 470 AD. The world being orphaned means that they had lost the Temple (again). Thus, the Nasi of the Levite-Quraysh may have ended up in the Arab Peninsula in the wake of the Temple loss in 470 AD. It seems that the Levite-Quraysh had left a number of synagogues that would be rediscovered over a thousand years later.42 After the time of their temporary stay in Jerusalem, the Beit Alfa Synagogue was under construction and abandoned within a short period under Justin I.43 It distinguishes itself through its central theme for the floor mosaic: a Chaldean Zodiac Wheel. Sol Invictus44 sits at its center, driving a four-horse chariot out of the night sky. The wheel is flanked by the story of Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son Isaac. It seems that those that built this synagogue were not Pharisee Jews (of the Exilarch) but Levite-Quraysh (of the Nasi), and it would explain the latter’s reputation as star worshippers. In return, the Rabbinic Jews would declare ‘worshippers of stars and constellations’ as Pagan in order to

41 42

43

44

Talmud - Mas. Sanhedrin 97b. The Beit Alfa, the Tzippori and the Naaran synagogues, all three built here, the Hammath Tiberias Synagogue, built 286 to 337 AD, the Ein Gedi Synagogue, destroyed by Justinian, the Susya Synagogue from the fourth century was used until the seventh, and lastly the Usifiyya Synagogue with little known history. Coins found belong to Justin I (r. 518-527 AD). It is probably during his time that the synagogue had to be abandoned. An inscription confirms that the mosaic was made under the same emperor. An adoption of the Greek Sun God Helios.


Page | 27

set themselves apart. Seven synagogues share the iconography of the Chaldean Zodiac Wheel. One of them, the Hammath Tiberias Synagogue, dates back to the end of the third century.45 The Persian kings Peroz I and Kavadh I attempted to exterminate the Babylonian Pharisee Exilarchate. At that time, Pharisee Judaism’s most important sectarian center was the city of Mahoze, which had become not only the seat of the Exilarch but in tandem also of the Nestorian/Nasara patriarchate. This city was situated near the royal center Seleucia-Ctesiphon and was the place where the Exilarch Mar Zutra II was crucified in 502 or 520 AD, punishing an initially successful rebellion against Persia from 495 AD. It appears that the Exilarch may have resided in Mahoze itself for a short period only. This research has so far identified only one incoming orientation from Hail, Saudi Arabia. Following the disaster, the daughter of the Exilarch Huna V fled to Yathrib (Medina) with her entourage. While the Levite Korahites (Nasi) had been in Yemen and Medina earlier, the holy family of the Pharisee Exilarch now also resided in Medina. Since the two hated each other, conflict and warfare was all but certain. Khaybar The Arab Peninsula was penetrated by four main refugee groups, and they all seem to have concentrated in Medina: the family of the Exilarch, ‘Jews’, Melchite Christians (Ghassanid/Sabians), and the Levite Quraysh (Quraiza/Nasi). This was an explosive mix that would need some relief. Sure enough, the Ghassanid Christian king Al-Harith ibn Jabalah invaded the oasis of Khaybar in 567 AD to expel its Jewish inhabitants. The citizens returned later to continue making a good living with date cultivation and commerce. The fact that each of the families in the oasis fortified their homes and stables speaks volumes about the security in the sectarian neighborhood. One of those Jewish family tribes, the Banū Naḍīr of Medina, claimed descent from Moses’ brother Aaron. The name ‘Nadir’ indicates that this tribe represented the Nasi. The Fortress A look at the Khaybar Fortress, in which the ‘Jews’ supposedly held their last stand during the emergence of Islam, is thus merited. According to Muslim tradition, the Jews of Khaybar were expelled by Caliph Umar and resettled in Syria as discussed earlier. There is no apparent structural order in the fortress. However, in its center is a court in the shape of a quarter of a circle (perhaps a quarter of the heavens). Even though it is difficult to measure, its north-eastern axis is rotated between 25-26°. It points to Nehardea. It indicates that the central structure was 45

The city of Tiberias is called Tabariyyah in Arabic. Josephus called it Emmaus.


Page | 28

oriented to the location of the Exilarch in Nehardea. Khaybar can in consequence be confirmed as a Babylonian Pharisee fortress. The Town The fortified hill provides only for part of the puzzle. The keys lay in the town below. While the fortress contains the just described, distinct quarter of a circle that roughly represents a north-western quadrant (from W to N), there is another such feature in the town below that lies approximately in the north-eastern quadrant (from N to E). In other words, these two are closely related, even though the different orientations of the quarter circles hint at an uneasy competition. The town’s quarter of a circle is joined to a compound that is obviously interested in orientation. Better yet, it contains at least eight or more sequential layers that should tell a story. This is presently merely confined through the lack of information about the site and the extent of the compound, which looks like its occupants were deliberately changing the structural orientation from time to time. If they had settled for one target, why would they keep on changing the directions of their structures as they progressed if not for a change of mind? This looks like a ‘reference’ building that can provide for a sequence – almost like an archaeological calendar in brick and mortar.

A (255.52°): Inside the quarter circle lies a structure in the style of a temple. Its N-W and S-E walls are oriented toward Elephantine near Aswan in Egypt. A new temple was built there under Ptolemy VI (180–145 BC). It appears thus that the wall might be pre-Herodian. A mummified ram, symbol of God Khnum, which dates back to the twenty-seventh and the twenty-sixth century BC, has been recovered from Elephantine. Even further back, the first Temple of Satet was built on this island around


Page | 29

3000 BC. Fifteenth to fourteenth century BC temples to Thutmose III and Amenhotep III once also stood here. Following the Elephantine Papyri, there was a Jewish community (from YEB[U] or YHW) on the island as early as the sixth century BC. They probably arrived here at the dawn of the NeoBabylonian Empire and built a temple to Anat-Yahu, the god/consort combination that was also found on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. B (159.9°): The southern-most wall of the upper part of the compound meets directly with the city of Al Bahah, in between Mecca and Sana’a. It is home to the Zahran tribe, which is connected to the exodus from Jerusalem in the first century AD after the execution of John the Baptist but also to an even earlier migration before the Temple construction by Herod. They had first moved to Sheba (Saba) only to migrate north. These are claimed to be of the oldest ‘Arab’ tribes and also the founders of the Ethiopian capital city of Aksum. There are two compounds with multiple orientations that could be identified as potential targets. C (336.13°): Along the wall points to Hamat Tiberias, the location of the Sanhedrin from about the last half of the fourth century. This is part of a rectangular section of the complex. Thus, the orientation is likely according to the adjacent eastern wall. D (155.04°): Facing the wall, the fourth last layer points to the Great Mosque of Sana’a. However, it also points north to the old city of Beit She’an, which is the place where Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab, according to tradition, defeated the Byzantines. This marks the Islamic ‘day of Baysan’, an important day of Muslim victories, believed to have occurred in 634 AD. The Kyrie Maria Monastery and an unidentified complex just east of Beit She’an meet the Sana’a line with an accuracy of 0.04°. The latter complex appears to be directed back to Khaybar. However, with the blurred satellite imagery over Israel, this is difficult to confirm. E (336.64°): Facing the wall north, the third last layer points to the White Synagogue in Capernaum. This synagogue does not look toward Jerusalem, as it is claimed. Instead, its eastern wall either points to Nippar or the Tomb of Ezekiel in Kafel. The measurements from the other directions cannot be taken accurately enough to come forth with a reliable target destination. F (328.19°): The second last layer points to the Seleucid Tel Qatra Fortress in Gedera. This fortress was still in use in the seventh century. G (74.51°): The furthest eastern layer of the upper compound meets with the Persian city of Jahrom, in Fars. It hits a mosque with multiple orientations that is also looked at from Nineveh. In addition the mosque in Jahrom features a layer that is oriented back toward Nineveh. H (56.99°): The furthest north-eastern layer points south of Basrah in Iraq and west of Khorramshahr, Khuzestan, Iran. It meets with a temple platform on the west side of the latter city, across the river. This platform points to Edessa. The area where the temple sits stands out as an encampment by Caliph Umar that was established at around 636 AD. According to tradition, Umar established the city of Basrah from here. J (330.64°): Facing the wall, the last layer points to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. This section was likely erected after 632 AD.


Page | 30

From all these orientations, one stands out as missing: Mecca. Hence, unless a wall was missed here that points to the Kaaba, the notion that it had existed before becoming the center of Islam needs to be re-evaluated. Also missing seems to be the (Pharisee) Ethiopian layer. Compared to other buildings that are clearly attributable to Babylonian Pharisee Jewry, this complex is of Levite-Sadducee provenance. It is remarkable that Jerusalem is only a point of interest in the very last layer. Subject to on-site verification of the precise orientations and extent of the construction layers, the compound in the Khaybar town seems to provide for a patchy path that is approximately as following: starting in Elephantine, there seems to have been a move of the spiritual leadership to Al Bahah in the Arab Peninsula. From there, the leaders seem to have moved to Tiberias and then back south to Sana’a. What happened next is not entirely clear, but the layers indicate that they headed again north. It looks almost like a military campaign through Capernaum and Tel Qatara. The initiative seems to have failed, leading to the Nasi to move to Jahrom and then Khorramshahr. Finally, they arrive on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, likely after a stay in Edessa. There are two walls that potentially point to this city, but both are too difficult to measure. One is just below the ‘temple’ that looks toward Elephantine and the other in the ‘nose’ just next to the Jerusalem wall. Khaybar ties into Muslim tradition insofar that it was destroyed at the Battle of Khaybar in 628 AD. The story relates that the Jewish Banu Nadir had moved here after they had been driven from Medina. With the construction layers in Khaybar town, a different story arises, one where both, the Banu Nadir and the Levite Quraysh had been in the area for a long time, but Exilarch and Nasi were off site. If the Khaybar story is correct, then the Levite-Sadducee leadership must have been in Jerusalem sometime before 628 AD, potentially connecting with the alliance between Tiberias and Nehemiah ben Hushiel. The latter had attempted to re-dedicate the Temple in Jerusalem between 614 and 617 AD.


Page | 31

The Exilarch 600 Years Later The first gaon of Sura (Al-Hira) was Mar Rab Mar as of 609 AD. The geonim is the era that ties directly into the Abbasid rule of Islam. There, the geonim (together with the Exilarch) can be identified as the spiritual and military leaders in a dual form of Abbasid governance. Its origin lies in a partnership between the Talmudic Academies of Sura and Pumbedita/Nehardea. The geonim were the heads of the academies, and they were the highest authorities in Babylonian Pharisee law. Their original title was Rosh Yeshivah Ge'on Ya'akov, meaning ‘the head of the academy, pride of Jacob.’ Benjamin of Tudela’s account is from six hundred years after Mar Rab Mar. However, the wheels of religion turn slowly, and in light of the absence of observations in between, Benjamin’s story may remain relevant. He called the believers in Baghdad “Mohammedans” and almost glorified the city, starting with an explanation of the religion of the caliphate: Thence it is two days to Bagdad, the great city and the royal residence of the Caliph Emir al Muminin al Abbasi of the family of Mohammed. He is at the head of the Mohammedan religion, and all the kings of Islam obey him; he occupies a similar position to that held by the Pope over the Christians […] There the great king, Al Abbasi the Caliph holds his court, and he is kind unto Israel, and many belonging to the people of Israel are his attendants; he knows all languages, and is well versed in the law of Israel. He reads and writes the holy language [Hebrew] […] He is truthful and trusty, speaking peace to all men. The men of Islam see him but once in the year. The pilgrims that come from distant lands to go unto Mecca which is in the land El-Yemen, are anxious to see his face, and they assemble before the palace exclaiming “Our Lord, light of Islam and glory of our Law, show us the effulgence of thy countenance,” but he pays no regard to their words. Then the princes who minister unto him say to him, “Our Lord, spread forth thy peace unto the men that have come from distant lands, who crave to abide under the shadow of thy graciousness,” and thereupon he arises and lets down the hem of his robe from the window, and the pilgrims come and kiss it, and a prince says unto them “Go forth in peace, for our Master the Lord of Islam granteth peace to you.” He is regarded by them as Mohammed and they go to their houses rejoicing at the salutation which the prince has vouchsafed unto them, and glad at heart that they have kissed his robe. Each of his brothers and the members of his family has an adobe in his palace, but they are all fettered in chains of iron, and guards are placed over each of their houses so that they may not rise against the great Caliph […] He is accompanied by all the nobles of Islam dressed in fine garments and riding on horses, the princes of Arabia, the princes of Togarma and Daylam and the princes of Persia, Media and Ghuzz, and the princes of the land of Tibet, which is three months’ journey distant, and westward of which lies the land of Samarkand. He proceeds from his palace to the great mosque of Islam which is by the Basrah Gate […] He does not return the way he came; and the road which he takes along the river-side is watched all the year through, so that no man shall tread in his footsteps. He does not leave the palace again for a whole year. He is a benevolent man.46

A number of critical pieces of information is contained in these passages. First, the Abbasid caliph claimed spiritual leadership similar to the pope’s claim over the Catholic Church. Various Islam nations adhered to him. However, Benjamin did not put Egypt, North Africa, Spain, and the Arab Peninsula onto

46

The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela (1171) 54-58.


Page | 32

his list of subordinate nations, in particular the territories of the Shi’ites and the Saracen Arabs. Second, the caliph befriended the Jews and even spoke Hebrew. How many state leaders speak and write Hebrew without being Jewish? Apparently, the Levite Quraysh were the spiritual leaders, and the Abbasid family seemed to have treasured its Jewish roots — in jail. Thirdly, the leader came to the great mosque once a year. This can be compared with what the first century Josephus had to say about his high-priest: However, the high priest did not wear these garments at other times, but a more plain habit; he only did it when he went into the most sacred part of the temple, which he did but once in a year, on that day when our custom is for all of us to keep a fast to God.47

Unfortunately, Benjamin did not provide a crucial piece of information: what did they believe in? Were their rituals for him so obvious that he did not think it necessary to comment on them? Instead, he described a pilgrimage to Mecca and the worshipping of a religious leader that had reached absurdity. The caliph had turned into Muhammad and worse, into sort of a godlike figure. This was a concept that would cry out for anathema in today’s Islam. Abbasid Baghdad commanded over ten academies, all of them headed by Jews, of whom there were about 40,000 in the capital city alone, living in “security, prosperity and honor under the great Caliph.”48 There were 28 Jewish synagogues in Baghdad. One of the Jewish leaders was Daniel, who was styled “Our Lord the Head of the Captivity of all Israel.” He possesses a book of pedigrees going back as far as David, King of Israel. The Jews call him “Our Lord, Head of the Captivity,” and the Mohammedans call him “Saidna ben Daoud,” and he has been invested with authority over all the congregations of Israel at the hands of the Emir al Muminin, the Lord of Islam. For thus Mohammed commanded concerning him and his descendants; and he granted him a seal of office over all the congregations that dwell under his rule, and ordered that every one, whether Mohammedan or Jew, or belonging to any other nation in his dominion, should rise up before him [the head of the exiles] and salute him, and that anyone who should refuse to rise up should receive one hundred stripes.49

The Jews could probably not rise to much more honor, and the difference between a caliph and a Jewish leader did not seem all that big at this point in time. There is more in Benjamin’s account: And every fifth day when he goes to pay a visit to the great Caliph, horsemen, Gentiles as well as Jews, escort him, and heralds proclaim in advance, “Make way before our Lord, the son of David, as is due unto him, […] Then he appears before the Caliph and kisses his hand, and the Caliph rises and places him on a throne which Mohammed had ordered to be made for him, and all the Mohammedan princes who attend the court of the Caliph rise up before him. And the Head of the Captivity is seated on his throne opposite to the Caliph, in compliance with the command of Mohammed to give effect to what is written in the law — ‘The scepter shall not depart from Judah nor a law-giver from between his feet, until he come to Shiloh: and to him shall the gathering of the people be.’”50

47 48 49 50

Josephus, Wars (93 AD) V:5:7. Ibid., 60. Ibid., 61. Ibid., 62.


Page | 33

Benjamin clearly communicated that the foundation of the caliphate was ‘Jewish’. The caliph was the Levite Nasi and the ‘Head of the Captivity’ was the Babylonian Pharisee Exilarch. The latter held the iron rod of David. As in Qumran, these are two ‘messiahs’, one Sadducee and the other Davidic. There can be only little doubt that the caliphate was in Jewish hands ─ until they would be overthrown.

Yathrib/Medina – The City of the Koran? Medina used to be the furthest southern city of the Nabateans. Medina should provide for important answers for the relationship between the sectarians that were residing in Khaybar. According to the Jewish Encyclopidia, three important Jewish tribes were present in Medina between the fourth and the seventh century: Banu Qaynuqa (probably from khanuká, symbolizing the temple servants), Banu Qurayza (Levite Korahites/Quraysh), and Banu Nadir (Nasi). The Quba Mosque is said to be the oldest in the world with Muhammad having laid the foundation stone in 610 AD, immediately after arriving in Medina. In its southern orientation, it meets with Aksum in Ethiopia. According to Muslim tradition,51 Prophet Muhammad had sent a detachment to Aksum for protection by the Aksumite emperor Sahama. The group included Uthman ibn Affan and his wife, Muhammad’s daughter Ruqayya. But the real surprise comes with the Prophet’s Mosque, the second mosque that was supposedly built by Muhammad and is also regarded as his burial place: it points to the Imam Mesgid in Negash, the same building that was targeted in Nehardea and the compound in Erbil. While a geographical convergence point from Erbil and Nehardea could be doubted, with a third location pointing to the

51

ibn Hisham, The Life of the Prophet.


Page | 34

same target, we have elementary geometrical certainty that the archaeology provides for a message with no wiggle room. The orientation of the Mosque of the Prophet could have easily been overlooked because it points almost due south – almost. Following tradition, Caliph Uthman and his entourage had settled in Negash in the Tigray region of Ethiopia. In short: Uthman was the Babylonian Pharisee Exilarch. The pattern that emerges provides for archaeological evidence that these structures were oriented with the specific intent to pray toward their paraclete or semi-divinity. We now know that the story of early Islam was compounded with the history of the Babylonian Pharisees (and more). The complexities that arise with this discovery is that the Rightly Guided Caliph Uthman, who is otherwise missing in the historical record, thus comes to life as a real figure, however in unexpected ways: he was not only the Babylonian Pharisee Exilarch but possibly also an apostle in the Koran. It is little wonder that he was buried in the ‘Jewish’ graveyard of the Al Baqi’ Cemetery next to the Mosque of the Prophet in Medina. In addition, it becomes a possibility that the sacred Mosque in the Koran may refer to a string of mosques that are sacred because the apostle-Exilarch resided in them. Since paraclete apostles and exilarchs distinguish themselves from Allah through their eventual expiry, the Koran must not necessarily refer to one and the same apostle. They were accustomed to change the direction of the prayers. This is why they did not end up killing each other over the highly visual ritual adaptations. The primary question is thus no longer when they turned to Mecca but when they stopped orienting themselves toward the Exilarch. The most pressing question of our present era of terrorism that surfaces is whether this new approach of precision could potentially lead to the resolution of the core Muslim dispute between Shi’ites and Sunnis. Were the Rightly Guided Imams the legitimate successors of Prophet Muhammad? The answer can be twisted and turned – it will not be welcomed with jubilees – but these findings constitute a change in paradigm from speculation to knowledge. The third place of worship to be built by Prophet Muhammad was the Quiblatain Mosque, which is attributed by tradition to the change of the direction of prayer to Mecca. But the orientation of this mosque misses the Kaaba in Mecca by 1.59°. In other words, this mosque does not represent the prayer direction to Mecca but to somewhere else. The Quiblatain Mosque in Medina is oriented toward Edessa. Sebeos said about the emergence of early Islam that there was an assembly of all the tribes of the Jews at the city of Edessa. From there, they went through the desert to Tachkastan (Tayyi’) to the Ishmaelites. If the Jews assembled with all the tribes of Israel, then we can assume that either the Exilarch or the Nasi of the time was there. The question is whether he had taken residence in the city or whether he came to visit for the assembly. Archaeology answers this question with accuracy: he resided in Edessa.


Page | 35

In order to highlight the precision that they were able to calculate the correct orientation, the angle between the Mosque Damat Suleyman Pasha Camii in Edessa and the Quiblatain Mosque is exactly 357.14°. The direct line that is inserted to the west of the upper cupola shows just how exact this is. Together with the platform east of Khorramshar, which is a target in Levite Khaybar, it confirms that the Exilarch and perhaps also the Nasi had indeed been in Edessa before 632 AD.

Two of the three mosques that were supposedly initiated by Prophet Muhammad were actually built by Babylonian Pharisees, and they were consistently oriented toward the whereabouts of the Exilarch. With the Rightly Guided Caliph Uthman in the equation, the Quba Mosque that is oriented toward Axum was second and the Prophet’s Mosque was last, pointing to the Imam Mesgid in Negash. Under this premise, these two structures could thus not have been built before 644 AD. However, it would not come as a surprise if those dates had been propped upon existing structures to form a story. The construction of the Quiblatain Mosque lies before the exodus of the Jews from Edessa and thus before the first appearance of Muhammad in the historical record. The Exilarch, the Nasi, or both resided there. Medina provides for an instructive example why mosques would be oriented differently in a single city. The sectarians erected their structures looking toward their religious leaders.


Page | 36

The Ethiopian Trail Having a trail of the apostle-Exilarch through Ethiopia opens the exiting prospect of being able to trace his route and potentially come up with a sensible timeline. Aksum, Ethiopia The religious compound in Aksum, Ethiopia, readily reveals some of its secrets. To the east, this building in Aksum points to Taizz, which is a city in the Yemeni Highlands with a Jewish quarter that was established around 130 AD. While this paper does not identify the target building in Taizz, the Cairo Fortress lies within 0.11° of the measurements from satellite imagery. The building is likely of twelveth century Ayyubid origin. The Chapel of the Tablet is a twentieth century building, but it would not be surprising to find the original ruins nearby. For example, the platform just north to the building appears to be oriented toward Nineveh. The chapel itself is oriented precisely toward the temple ruins at Babylon. This latter rotation constitutes a warning to researchers that builders of places of worship may have incorporated sentimental orientations even a thousand years later.


Page | 37

Negash The Imam Mesgid in Negash is a complex compound with multiple additions that are oriented differently. Technically, together with Edessa and a few other destinations, this could also be a candidate for the ‘furthest mosque’. A (287.15°): The oldest section of the compound appears to form the north-west quarter of the buildings. The most northern corner wall is precisely oriented to Aksum. B (292.51°): Facing the outside wall in the north-west meets with a mosque on an island in the Nile River near Wad Hamid in Sudan. This mosque features several adjacent buildings that appear interested in orientations. Facing the wall also passes by Adwa, which was an important trading post along the route to Adulis at the Red Sea. C (101.04°): The eastern wall of the oldest complex is directed toward the Sira Fortress in Aden, Yemen. It appears that Aden may have been an entry point into Yemen before the Ethiopian forces would continue toward Sana’a.

D (24.6°): The orientation facing the middle wall and the main building with the cupola points to a water fort in the middle of nowhere, about 160 km north-west of Riyahd. This mosque in Ad Dakhilah features multiple orientations, one of which targets Tarmin in Yemen, one of the most religious places on earth. This latter small city features the highest concentration of Sayyids in the domain of Islam. It is notable that the Sayyids’ town features over fifty mosques of which a single one points to Medina and


Page | 38

only two are oriented to Mecca. The three lay at the outskirts of the city and are thus very late additions. This location has a story to tell, but this is not part of this paper. There are other possible targets for this wall, for example Bishah (featuring a mosque with multiple orientations) or the town An Namas half way in between Mecca and Sana’a. The area of An Namas is of particular interest because several towns here form a cycle of recreating Old Jerusalem and Israel. E (0.06°): The mosque just north of the compound is exactly oriented toward the Mosque of the Prophet. Since it is not part of the main compound, it manifests itself as the last structure that was built in Negash. F (350.95°): The long pathway that points from the compound toward the north seems to also have a rectangular platform attached to it. It points to Daraa. The same location is also targeted from the Mosque Damat Suleyman Pasha Camii in Edessa, where its significance has before been described. G (11.83°): The short north-western wall in the center is rotated toward Nehardea. As already laid out, the latter also looks back at Negash. H (26°): Facing the back to the lowest S-W wall meets with a series of Persian towns within a narrow margin of error. It is thus not yet conclusive what the target might have been. 26.01°: Just north of Kashan is the city Aran va Bidgol, over 2500 km distant from Negash. It hosts the Holy shrine of Imamzadeh Hilal/Helal ibn Ali, a grandson of Prophet Muhammad and ‘son’ of Ali. This successor appears to have participated in the Battle of Karbala, which is his only activity reported in the traditions. This shrine stands out with its sheer size that encompasses an entire quarter in a small city. 26.03°: Kashan in the Isfahan province of Iran is reportedly the origin of the three magi that followed the Star of Bethlehem to the crib of Jesus Christ. It is also the town that sheltered AbuLu’lu’ah/Pirouz Nahāvandi, the man who murdered Caliph Umar al-Khattab in 643/4 inside Medina’s Mosque of the Prophet. Shi’ites honor him to this day for the killing and celebrate Umar’s death and consider him as one of theirs. The assassin also carried the epithet al-Majusi, rendering him a Zoroastrian.52 According to tradition, a miracle brought him to town, and he was here protected by Ali ibn Abi Talib himself. With little doubt, the overlap is with the Babylonian Pharisees who opposed the emerging ‘Muslim’ rulers. Because the significance of the the Tomb of Abu-Lu’lu’ah may not be self-evident, it merits a short reflection.

52

M. Mazid Bahaa-eddin, Hate Speak in Contemporary Arabic Discourse (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2012) 122.


Page | 39

Sura 111 and Abu Lahab In the paper Muhammad and the Umayyad Dynasty’s Conversion to Islam,53 it was noted that a) Prophet Muhammad did not appear in the historical record before the 630s AD and that b) that Amr/Umar has slipped into the role of Muhammad in the account of the Chronicler of Khuzistan. The paper MHMT/MHMD, And A Seed Of The Koran,54 lays out that c) the Jerusalem Talmud Berakhoth is a seventh century work that parallels the story of Prophet Muhammad and the beginnings of Islam. With the findings of these papers and the new archaeological evidence, there is little doubt that the disintegration of the Sasanian Empire occurs in tandem with an attempt to exterminate the Babylonian Pharisee exilarchy. It seems also clear that academics need to shift from believing that the Koran revealed in a segmental/tribal society to realizing that it rests on very well organized Judaic foundations. Murdering Umar in the Mosque of the Prophet appears to be the most atrocious crime imaginable, in particular if he was Muhammad himself. Surely, one might think, this would have merited a Fatwa in the style of sura 111. Yet, if the Pharisee exilarchy was to be wiped out, then an eye for an eye response may have been appropriate. But a lingering question sits deeper: is Abu-Lu’lu’ah somehow connected with Abu Lahab of the Koran? LET the hands of ABU LAHAB perish, and let himself perish! His wealth and his gains shall avail him not. Burned shall he be at the fiery flame, And his wife laden with fire wood, ─ On her neck a rope of palm fibre.55

The name Abu Lahab presents an obvious word play with the fiery flame, which is compared to a ruby. It appears that the target is a religious leader in charge of the flame – literally the father of the flame – perhaps an allusion to the Reform-Zoroastrian/Mazdaean fire rituals. On the other hand, it could allude to the book of Psalms where the servants of God are the flames of fire.56 Could it be that the Babylonian Pharisees were the leaders of (Reform) Zoroastrians? This can positively be answered not only with the orientation from Negash to the tomb of Abu-Lu’lu’ah but also with numismatics where the House of David was part of the Sasanian dynastic alliance since Peroz I. The Jewish Bismillah that appears on Zoroastrian coins indicates that the Babylonian Pharisees had overthrown parts of the Sasanian Empire rather than a ‘Muslim’ invasion. The Jerusalem Talmud Berakhoth contains a passage that is related to sura 111 where Rabbi Abin (numerical value for the Mahdi) turned his back on the king. When he was supposed to be killed, ‘two bands of fire accompanied him’. Thus, they let him go.57 On the IQSA blog, David Kiltz made a proposal in regards to the paper Abu’l-Ahab in Biblical Literature by Ercan Celik for the understanding of the role of Abu Lahab’s wife. He suggested that the rope around her neck could refer to the offspring of a den of

53

54

55 56 57

A.J. Deus, Muhammad and the Umayyad Dynasty’s Conversion to Islam, Putting Muslim Traditions into the Historical Context (2015), available for free at https://www.academia.edu/11958043/Muhammad_and_the_Umayyad_Conversion_to_Islam. A.J. Deus, MHMT/MHMD, And A Seed Of The Koran (2015), available for free at https://www.academia.edu/19717676/MHMT_MHMD_And_A_Seed_Of_The_Koran. Koran 111. Psalm 104:4: He makes winds his messengers, flames of fire his servants. Jerusalem Talmud – Berakhoth: R. Abin, returning from an audience with the king, turned his back upon him. The courtiers wished to kill him; but as they saw that two bands of fire accompanied him, they let him go …


Page | 40

lions’. Contrary to Kiltz’s interpretation that has her killed by lions, Abu Lahab and his wife are in the Davidic Hasmonean linage of the exilarchs, which is symbolized by lions. They are the lions of the House of David. The archaeological evidence supports a case that Abu Lahab was the Babylonian Pharisee Exilarch at one time. Inadmissible tradition contains a story wherein Abu Lahab cursed the Prophet to perish. In return, the Divine Inspiration for the fatwa was produced.58 This tradition mirrors the passage in the Jerusalem Talmud more closely, suggesting two separate events. The first was the cursing of the Prophet (Umar) by Abu Lahab, respectively the turning his back on the king (Amr/Umar). The second was the killing of Umar. Sura 111 refers to the first stage with the fatwa, before the assassination. There is a similar tradition with a twist where Prophet Muhammad was ‘under the effect of magic’ and one Lubaid bin Asam from Bani Zuraiq had put a spell on him that was related to a ‘well of Dharwan.’ The Bani Zuraiq are therein made ‘an ally of the Jews,’59 as if the text intended to distinguish between the Babylonian Pharisees and the ‘Jews’ of Levite Quraysh origin, and the reference to magic quite obviously implies Zoroastrianism. It is part of the same story, and Abu-Lu’lu’ah/Pirouz Nahāvandi is likely represented in the corrupted names of Rabbi Abin (the Mahdi) and Abu Lahab. The archaeology of his mosque’s orientation appears to fill part of the twenty-four year void that is offered by tradition in Ali ibn Abi Talib’s life, thus rendering ‘Ali’ the institution of the Exilarch rather than a real person. Sebeos reported that the Ishmaelites fell into four parts after the winter of 654 AD. Two of them, Tachik (Tayyi’ with Basrah) and Egypt united and ended up killing their king, perhaps Amr Al-‘As (Umar), enthroning another, possibly Abu Lahab (Babylon) or ‘Abdallah (Egypt).60 Mirroring Muslim tradition, Mu’awiah – second in line after the Levite-Quraysh Umar – then disposed of the new king and became the leader of all while the Tayyi’ were destroyed and Egypt defected to Constantinople.61 Those that came to tell their stories to Sebeos were imprisoned there, in Xuzhastan Tachkastan, perhaps describing the

58

59

60

61

Bukhari, 2:23:477: Narrated Ibn Abbas.: Abu Lahab, may Allah curse him, once said to the Prophet (p.b.u.h), "Perish you all the day." Then the Divine Inspiration came: "Perish the hands of Abi Lahab! And perish he!" (111.1). Bukhari, 8:73:89: Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet continued for such-and-such period imagining that he has slept (had sexual relations) with his wives, and in fact he did not. One day he said, to me, "O 'Aisha! Allah has instructed me regarding a matter about which I had asked Him. There came to me two men, one of them sat near my feet and the other near my head. The one near my feet, asked the one near my head (pointing at me), 'What is wrong with this man? The latter replied, 'He is under the effect of magic.' The first one asked, 'Who had worked magic on him?' The other replied, 'Lubaid bin Asam.' The first one asked, 'What material (did he use)?' The other replied, 'The skin of the pollen of a male date tree with a comb and the hair stuck to it, kept under a stone in the well of Dharwan."' Then the Prophet went to that well and said, "This is the same well which was shown to me in the dream. The tops of its date-palm trees look like the heads of the devils, and its water looks like the Henna infusion." Then the Prophet ordered that those things be taken out. I said, "O Allah's Apostle! Won't you disclose (the magic object)?" The Prophet said, "Allah has cured me and I hate to circulate the evil among the people." 'Aisha added, "(The magician) Lubaid bin Asam was a man from Bani Zuraiq, an ally of the Jews." Sebeos, 38: Then God sent discord into the army of the sons of Ishmael. Their unity dissolved, they clashed with each other and divided into four parts. One part was in the Indian area [the Arab Peninsula since Sebeos calls its inhabitants Indians]. Another was that army which held Asorestan [Assyria, Babylon] and the northern areas. Another was the one in Egypt and in the T'etal region [from Xak’an, king of the Tetalats’ik’, north of Armenia or perhaps the Levant]. Another was in the Tachik [Tayyi’] area and at the place called Askarawn [Basrah]. They began fighting with each other and destroyed each other with endless killings. Now the troops who were in Egypt united with those in the Tachik area and they killed their king and took the multitude of treasures as loot. They enthroned another king and returned to their places. Sebeos, 38: Now when their prince Mu'awiya, who was in Asorestan and was second to their king, saw what had happened, he united his troops and he too went to the desert. He killed the king whom they enthroned, battling with and severely destroying the troops in the Tachik area. He then returned to Asorestan in triumph. Now the army which was in Egypt united with the Byzantine emperor, made peace and was incorporated. The multitude of the troops, some 15,000 people, believed in Christ and were baptized. But the bloodshed of countless multitudes increased and intensified among the Ishmaelite armies. They engaged in frantic battles and killed each other. Nor were they able to stop even somewhat from wielding swords, taking captives and intense battles on land and sea, until Mu'awiya grew strong and conquered all of them. He subdued them, ruled as king over the property of the sons of Ishmael and made peace with everyone.


Page | 41

united territories of the Banu Khuza’ah (near Mecca) and the Tayyi’. That ‘new king’ of Tayyi’ and Egypt was short lived, and it would be him having killed Caliph Umar in 654 AD (rather than 644 AD). Umar and Mu’awiah are in the linage of the Nasi. But as Abu Lahab, Mu’awiah opposed the emergent ‘Muslim alliance’ between the two. The possibility that a sura relates to Caliph Umar rips the chronology and timing of the Koran wide open. It elevates sura 111 to historical evidence that belongs to the years 654 to 655 AD. In addition, the fact that tradition presents both, Umar and Uthman, as rightly guided caliphs indicates that several histories have been compounded into one of relative unity, and Umar’s life may have been short-changed by a decade. Meanwhile, the archaeology of the mosques speaks a clear language of systemic division. They were not successors but contemporary arch-enemies. It seems to support the traditions wherein Abu Lahab ended up in a quarrel with Caliph Umar over the leadership of the Judaic ‘Muslim’ alliance. This is the Shi’a / Sunni split after which Abu Turab (alias Ali) emerged as the Shi’ite leader. These events re-established a chasm that had existed for centuries before and continues to exist today. Adulis Adulis on the coast of the Red Sea was the port of the Kingdom of Aksum. The lowest archaeological layers at this site date as far back as the fourteenth century BC. The orientation of the main complex in the northern sector is exactly toward the Great Mosque of Sana’a. According to tradition, this mosque in Sana’a was built by Caliph Uthman with materials taken from the Ghumdan Palace. This is also the city where the Sana’a Koran manuscripts have been found. Since this feels like a ‘Jewish’ invasion from Ethiopia, and the Ghumdan Palace happened to having been the seat of the Jewish Himyarite Kingdom a closer look is warranted. According to Al-Hamdāni, the palace contained a water clock as its most notable feature.62 If that were true, the Himyarites had been able to accurately measure time and thus perhaps put the appearance of stars in relationship to locations. Unfortunately, the available satellite imagery is unclear. High-resolution images should reveal the orientation of the original structure and thus the origin of its builders.

62

Al-Ḥasan ibn Aḥmad Al-Hamdāni, The Antiquities of South Arabia - The Eighth Book of Al-Iklīl (Oxford, 1938) 15.


Page | 42

However, the Great Mosque of Sana’a itself reveals quite a bit. The eastern wall, which is possibly also aligned with the former Ghumdan Palace, points to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem at a distance of over two thousand kilometers. Since this is along the wall, other walls had been attached to it in a 90° angle. If the pattern applies, then the Exilarch must have moved to Jerusalem. While this was the case during the reigns of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman, the eastern and western orientations could be older. At an angle of 334.39°, the western wall looks to the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, a Levite Quraysh destination. This latter structure rests on a Herodian foundation, and it does not give away its intent. The Ethiopian Traditions In order to understand the archaeology, a look at Bukhari’s inadmissible traditions is offered. The story suggests that the earliest ‘Muslims’ had been driven to Ethiopia where they found shelter under Arma, the Christian king of Aksum. However, this led to sectarian differences. Then the king seems to have died, leading to a breakdown of the alliance. Narrated Abu Musa: We got the news of the migration of the Prophet while we were in Yemen, so we set out migrating to him. We were, I and my two brothers, I being the youngest, and one of my brothers was Abu Burda and the other was Abu Ruhm. We were over fifty (or fifty-three or fifty two) men from our people. We got on board a ship which took us to An-Najashi in Ethiopia [King Arma], and there we found Ja'far bin Abu Talib [brother of Ali] and his companions with An-Najaishi. Ja'far said (to us), "Allah's Apostle has sent us here and ordered us to stay here, so you too, stay with us." We stayed with him till we all left (Ethiopia) and met the Prophet at the time when he had conquered Khaibar. He gave us a share from its booty (or gave us from its booty). He gave only to those who had taken part in the Ghazwa with him. But he did not give any share to any person who had not participated in Khaibar's conquest except the people of our ship, besides Ja'far and his companions, whom he gave a share as he did them (i.e. the people of the ship).63

The archaeology seems to agree that Babylonian Pharisees went to Aksum. Perhaps after King Arma’s death, they moved to Adulis from where they entered Yemen at the southern-most tip in Aden. The alleged genealogy in Yemen, Oman, and Somalia that runs through his brother Aqeel ibn Abi Talib suggests that an elaborate invasion could have been staged from the coast along the southern Red Sea and across the Gulf of Aden out of multiple locations along the northern seashore of Somalia. From there, they conquered Sana’a and then moved north to Ad Dakhilah, only to 63

Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 364.


Page | 43

arrive in Medina after having destroyed the Levite-Quraysh town below the Fortress of Khaybar. Given that ‘Ali’ was the Exilarch of the Babylonian Pharisees, it is significant that his brother, Ja’far, was ‘found’ with the King Arma. It appears that Abu Talib’s holy family had entered an alliance with Ethiopia, perhaps with a promise of royal expansion. Archaeology disagrees with the idea that some subaltern family member went there. The facts on the ground are clear that the apostle-Exilarch himself sailed to Aksum. This notion is further strengthened by several Hadiths that command the ‘believers’ to obey an Ethiopian leader. Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet said to Abu-Dhar, "Listen and obey (your chief) even if he is an Ethiopian with a head like a raisin."64

Since the Prophet in this tradition is active, it means that they should obey an Ethiopian military leader. The spiritual leadership and the supreme command remained doubtless in the hands of the Prophet. But then something went wrong, and the unholy alliance between Christian Ethiopians and Babylonian Pharisees led to sectarian differences. Narrated 'Aisha: When the Prophet became ill, some of his wives talked about a church which they had seen in Ethiopia and it was called Mariya. Um Salma and Um Habiba had been to Ethiopia, and both of them narrated its (the Church's) beauty and the pictures it contained. The Prophet raised his head and said, "Those are the people who, whenever a pious man dies amongst them, make a place of worship at his grave and then they make those pictures in it. Those are the worst creatures in the Sight of Allah."65

From this can be taken that the purpose of the alliance was not mutually understood in the same way. The Babylonian Pharisees had no intention to give way to Ethiopian Christianity (this may be mistaken with a Levite-Quraysh foundation that accepted Jesus as the Messiah). The extent of the problem becomes obvious since ‘wives’ of the Prophet were involved. He became concerned that the Ethiopians would demolish the (not yet built) Kaaba. Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "Dhus-Suwaiqa-tain (literally: One with two lean legs) from Ethiopia will demolish the Ka'ba."66

Thus, the Prophet lost the appetite to partner with Ethiopia, and this spelled the end of either of the two parties. However, it needs to be noted that the expression of one with ‘two lean legs’ or ‘short legs’ was a concealed name for the religious leader. The tradition hints at the circumstance that early Islam tried to bring several sectarians under one religious umbrella, in particular the Babylonian Pharisees and the Levite-Quraysh. The experiment was destined to fail. Narrated 'Abdullah: We used to greet the Prophet while he was praying and he used to answer our greetings. When we returned from AnNajashi (the ruler of Ethiopia), we greeted him, but he did not answer us (during the prayer) and (after finishing the prayer) he said, "In the prayer one is occupied (with a more serious matter)."67

This can be understood in at least two ways: Either the Prophet broke the alliance, or King Arma had been ordered killed by the Prophet (which now brings forth the prospect that Arma and Umar might have been one and the same person). The first possibility means that a third party enemy was advancing 64 65 66 67

Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 11, Number 664. Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23, Number 425. Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 26, Number 661. Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 22, Number 290.


Page | 44

against Ethiopia and the second hints at a successful Pharisee insurgency that provided them with the manpower to advance into Saudi Arabia. Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: The Prophet said, "Today a pious man from Ethiopia (i.e. An Najashi) has expired, come on to offer the funeral prayer." (Jabir said): We lined up in rows and after that the Prophet led the prayer and we were in rows. Jabir added, I was in the second row."68

Tradition is holding the secrets close to its chest. The pieces can now be put together more reliably.

68

Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23, Number 406.


Page | 45

Many Qiblas Ar Rass The here made discovery puts academia in a position to answer the question why there were different qiblas in a single city. In order to demonstrate the consequences, the city of Ar Rass in the Arab Peninsula is taken as an example. The reason for selecting this city is its ‘central’ location in respect to Negash, Edessa, and Sana’a. It is also in the literal middle of nowhere, surrounded by empty space for hundreds of kilometers, thus providing for an unobstructed ‘view.’ A reference place in heavily populated areas could easily lead to confusion. Ar Rass is also host to over two dozen mosques – too many for this god forsaken place. Seven of these stand out as not pointing toward Mecca. Another seven are about 1° ‘off Mecca.’ All others are precisely oriented to Mecca with a deviation 0.00°. Moreover, perhaps like most researchers, this author neither even heard of Ar Rass before nor has he found anything about its history. In other words, Ar Rass is a perfect place for testing a new methodology free of any bias toward preconceived expectations. What is suggested by archaeology about Ar Rass might feel for some like a lightning strike out of a blue sky. Even the most progressive researchers will find many facts on the ground surprising.

While some mosques point to Al Jumum and Hajr in the Arab Peninsula, the orientation of others is quite puzzling: Tiberias, Umayyad palaces of Al-Walid I, Hisham, and Sulayman. The observations that arise from Ar Rass are as following:


Page | 46

a) Since the first mention of Mecca in the historical record appeared in 745 AD, it can be taken from the archaeological evidence that the direction of the prayers toward Mecca was indeed established between 743 and 745 AD. However, in some places, mosques would not be oriented toward Mecca hundreds of years out. Mecca must thus have originated as a sectarian location rather than a universal focal point. b) The targets involved indicate that this is a ‘Muslim’ town under Levite-Quraysh leadership without the presence of Babylonian Pharisee divisions. c) Tiberias builds a bridge to the Levite-Sadducees and hence to the Quraiza that were present in the Arab Peninsula; it might implicate Benjamin of Tiberias as the Nasi. d) The missing Jerusalem layer suggests that the Levite-Quarysh may have already disagreed with the leadership of the Exilarch Nehemiah ben Hushiel; they did not take part in the capture of the Holy City by the ‘Saracens’ (the Sadducee layers in Khaybar contain Jerusalem, and such a layer might have been overlooked in Ar Rass). e) The targets suggest a period of retreat along the Red Sea deep into the Arab Peninsula but not to Mecca. f) The target to Al Haram is the sacred Mosque [al masjd al haram] of the Koran. It was in present day Israel at the time of writing the verses about the prayer orientation in sura 2. From this follows that the pilgrimage ‘to the temple’ and the Hajj practice in the Koran refer to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Multiple mosques from other cities also point to Al Haram. g) The missing early Umayyad mosques support theories that the heads of this dynasty up to Al Malik were not part of early Islam or even opposed the new religion (perhaps as a break-away group). The paper The Umayyad Dynasty's Conversion to Islam works through the respective evidence.96 h) The late ‘Umayyad’ locations indicate that the ‘Umayyads’ were ‘Muslims’ under LeviteQuraysh leadership since Walid and not from the same origin as the early Umayyads. i) The conquest of Syria through Palmyra under Khalid ibn Walid according to tradition appears to be confused with the actual advances by Caliph Walid I against Umayyad Damascus. j) The missing late and interregnum Umayyad leaders indicate that the Levite-Quraysh leadership (under the guise of the Umayyad Dynasty) kept on advancing toward Damascus in a stretched out expansion of the caliphate. With compound data form multiple locations, it will be possible to establish proper time sequences and dates.

96

A.J. Deus, The Umayyad Dynasty's Conversion to Islam - From the Low Point Until ca. 692 AD (2013) https://www.academia.edu/4811730/The_Umayyad_Dynastys_Converstion_to_Islam_-_From_the_Low_Point_Until_ca._692_AD.


Page | 47

The last few points about the Umayyad discrepancies can be demonstrated with a map. The few dates that can be taken from the ‘Umayyad’ locations demonstrate an assault on Damascus rather than a friendly family relationship of the Umayyads. It appears that advances were made under Caliph Walid I (compounded with the military leader Khalid ibn al-Walid), establishing bridgeheads in Qasr Kharana and in Anjar. From there, they pushed north through the Levant and south toward Damascus. From the geographical distribution of the remaining locations, a case can be made that Walid’s eastern front moved through Palmyra to Anjar with the help of the Tayyi. The western front headed north along the Red Sea toward Qasr Kharana. Under Suleyman, they divided into two fronts that were directed toward Damascus. One division went through Ramla and along the coast up north, the other through Busra. Damascus was encircled. Walid’s and Suleyman’s strategy becomes even more obvious on an enlarged view. In the geographic distribution, the strategic importance of Qasr Kharana can be witnessed. From there, Ramla


Page | 48

would fall next, whence the move north would continue. After the fall of Amman, Suleyman’s forces would move through Busra Al-Harir toward Damascus. The eastern front seems to have moved through Palmyra only to build a bridgehead in Anjar under Walid. From there, Suleyman’s troops could eventually move south only to arrive at the gates of Damascus from three sides. The difference to the traditions is in the all-important timing: Walid and Suleyman must already have been members of the Abbasid family. The early Umayyads must have been part of an Ethiopian dynastic influx (most ‘Umayyad’ family members fled to Ethiopia upon the Abbasid revolt). Either way, with the sword is how Islam came to be state religion. Samarra As a second example, a study of all the mosques in Samarra is here presented. This city was chosen for this paper because of its former importance as a capital of the Abbasid Caliphate with its grandiose, planned layout but also for one of the holiest sites for Shi’ite Muslims. The al-Askari Shrine is said to contain the tombs of Ali al-Hadi (+868 AD, age 38) and Hasan al-Askari (+874 AD, age 27), the tenth and eleventh Shi ite Imams. The former fell victim to the Abbasid Caliph Al-Mu'tazz and the latter to AlMu'tamid. According to Twelver Shia Islam, the ‘Hidden Imam’, Muhammad al-Mahdi, went into Occultation here. The Mahdi is expected to return with Jesus Christ in order to establish Islam as the only religion in the world and to eradicate falsehood (all other religions). In contrast to Ar Rass, the history of Samarra and the al-Askari Shrine are believed to be well established with Muhammad al-Mahdi having been born in this city on 19 July 869 AD and disappeared from here the day his father Hasan al-Askari died. Contrary to its traditions, Samarra reveals many surprises, but a word of caution needs to be repeated: not all walls are still extant or can be measured accurately enough. Surveys on the ground will bring about final clarity. Perhaps the most important discovery is that the Great Mosque of Samarra that was completed by the Abbasid Caliph Al-Mutawakkil in 851 AD is not oriented toward Mecca. Instead, it points to Kirkuk. This mosque hosts the spiralling Malwiya Tower, a model that can also be found in the Abu Dulaf Mosque further north that was built by Caliph Al-Mutawakkil (r. 847–861). However, the prototype of such a spiral minaret can be found next to a Zoroastrian fire temple right in the center of the Sasanian circle city of Firuzabad in the Fars Province. The city is host to some forty mosques of which many feature multiple orientations. Only two of these mosques point to Medina (E and F), and only a single one is directed toward Mecca (T). Intriguingly, this latter mosque is a complex structure with multiple orientations that are not easily extracted, except for Aksum and Negash.


Page | 49

Almost half of all the mosques in Samarra (16) look toward either Aksum, or Negash, or both. The importance of Ethiopia has been sufficiently treated in the previous chapters. It is particularly striking that these mosques concentrate in the east of Samarra, in parts that one could easily take for suburbia. It almost looks as if the Abbasid building operation served to keep the sectarians of the ‘Ethiopian’ mosques away from accessing the water of the Tigris River.

Even though the Aksum directions of the Samarra mosques also always meet up with Ta’if in the Arab Peninsula, it can be taken from the context that the latter is not likely a destination. Part of the mechanism over time seems to be that former ruling dynasties would eventually be pushed into the outskirts. This is particularly evident in the Seljuk, Ismaili, and Safavid mosques that concentrate in the south of the city (D, C, G, S). This will come to full light after reviewing the al-Askari Shrine and mosque. Five mosques with multiple orientations stand out for re-telling the eastern part of the assault story found in Ar Rass (H, O, Q, Y, and mosque IV). Their targets are: -

Aksum

-

Negash

-

Al Jumum

-

Hajr (Hagar)

-

Kashan (Abu-Lu’lu’ah), Zabol (Peroz III), Esfahan


-

Palmyra

-

Qasr al-Hayr al-Sharoi

Page | 50

Unfortunately, the little mosque that points to Kashan (H) does not give away any hints about the building sequence. But what the archaeological evidence appears to tell is that there was an alliance (against the Umayyads in Damascus) that fell apart with Abu-Lu’lu’ah. It seems to have gone as far as past Palmyra along the northern route only to end after Qasr al-Hayr al-Sharoi. Since this is decades earlier than Anjar, they would never amass in the Anjar Fortress.

Mosque IV tells a similar story as mosque H, and it features more directions that can, unfortunately, not be extracted from satellite imagery. Yet, its sequence is -

Aksum

-

Negash

-

Adulis

-

Palmyra

-

Qasr al-Hayr al-Sharoi

Thus, these five mosques together as well as individually repeat the story of Ar Rass that documents an assault on Umayyad Damascus, and the other mosques enforce the early adherence to Aksum and Negash.


Page | 51

Mosque II and III sit just west of the Al-Askari Shrine and mosque. Both are patchwork assemblies of many orientations, and they tell their part of the story. It appears that mosque III has been fused into one from two individual mosques, spreading in all directions. Again, not all orientations can be extracted from satellite imagery. Here, the western advance that had been documented in Ar Rass can be repeated, including Al-Haram. It also contains a layer that shows the eastern advance through Basrah, Kufa, and Kashan (Abu-Lu’lu’ah). It appears to be intermixed with a few later Saljuk and Saffarid elements.

There is a decisively Seljuk sector in the northern portion of mosque II as shown in the picture on the next page. This layer’s final destination ends up in Cairo. Similar to mosque III, it appears to have been fused from two original structures that spread out in all directions. It also features two Al-Haram orientations, one to Tiberias (as in Ar Rass), and one to Kufa.


Page | 52


Page | 53

The perhaps most interesting layers of mosque II are several Baghdad orientations that indicate that this was the original location of the Abbasid mosque. The orientations of the Al-Askari Shrine and mosque (mosque I) perhaps contain the biggest surprises, putting in question the Shi’ite traditions of the Twelver Imams being located here. a) The two square buildings to the south are Zoroastrian structures. b) Everything else is either Seljuk or even later, Ismaili. In other words, with the exception of the Zoroastrian cubes, the Al-Askari Shrine and mosque was not built until over one and a half century after the disappearance of the Mahdi. Given that the Seljuks were a Sunni Muslim dynasty, it appears to be at hand that the Twelver traditions of Samarra might be Ismaili inventions, at the earliest. This perhaps manifests itself also in the tombs of Caliph Ali himself. Ali’s non-existence in the historical record is explained away by having kept his burial site secret, until it was revealed by the sixth Imam, Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq (+765 AD). There are no less than three burial places of this leader. The Imam Ali Mosque in Najaf was not built until 977 AD, a full three hundred years after the fact and a full two centuries after the secret had been in the open. Ali’s other burial place in Afghanistan, the Blue Mosque in Mazar-E-Sharif, is just as splendid, but it was not built until the twelfth or even the fifteenth century. Then there is the obscure town in Uzbekistan by the name of Shakhimardan. It sits over 500 km north-east of the Blue Mosque and is yet another legendary burial place of Caliph Ali. There is cause to doubt the Twelver story about their contribution and leadership in Islam, and the archaeology is not friendly with these traditions. Once these Ali mosques will be mapped out, even later dates might surface. It appears that the Shi’ites (the original Babylonian Pharisees) may have been allies of an emerging Islam until they broke off under the leadership of Abu-Lu’lu’ah. Then they turned into fierce opponents, just as the Umayyads had long been. Dynastic Qiblas If researchers were to approach the archaeology of the mosques in any location, the expectation is to find the individual histories of these towns through these places of worship. Because of demolitions and additions, the individual view may be incomplete. However, the aggregate view of multiple towns will bring forth an accurate chronology of towns and dynasties as they progressed through the ages. There is something strikingly bothersome in the way these mosques were erected. In some cases, they built additions that reflected a new prayer direction. But for the rest, instead of applying common sense and reuse perfectly suitable buildings, they seem to have chosen the economically self-destructing route of erecting prohibitively expensive mosques – almost every time a new generation of the spiritual leadership of any dynasty would take charge. They went as far as building a new one whenever the same leader had to change location. This is a truly ruinous policy that could only have been implemented with extreme tax extortion from a fundamentalist religious community. It is no surprise that this practice eventually needed to be abandoned. But it is a gift of God that they left such a pile of evidence behind. The question of the meaning in Sura 2 of the Koran can now be answered precisely. It does neither direct a change in prayer direction from Jerusalem nor a change to Mecca. With multiple mosques


Page | 54

from different cities pointing to this location, it refers to Al Haram in present day Israel. It instructs the worshipers to orient themselves in the traditional way toward their religious leader, which changes with every new generation. For this modification to refer to Mecca, the relevant passages in this sura would have needed to be added as late as in the 730s or 740s. To make such a case, early copies would have to be absent of these verses.


Page | 55

The Path to Discovery It may be unusual to put a personal experience of discovery into a research paper. However, I would like to hand some encouragement to upcoming researchers who might try to understand the beginnings of the three main Judaic religions. Even though the principles of the here made discoveries are so intriguingly straight forward, they did not just fall out of the sky. It took nearly two decades of relentless studying and trying to figure out how the pieces of religious history fit together. Without this, the dots on the geographical checkered board would have been meaningless. Looking back at my first attempt to lay down a path in 2011, I have to say that my two voluminous books were primitive, at best. For this, I had mapped out every Umayyad mosque and many others – dozens – to no avail. I pointed out that after all the confusions about the orientation of places of worship, Samarra featured a newer mosque that was oriented ‘erroneously.’ Samarra provides its own puzzle: While the al-Askari Mosque is not oriented toward Mecca — it is arbitrarily oriented in a southwestern direction — the hundred-years-older Great Mosque of Samarra is. It had been built by the Ghassanid Sunnis approximately with a six-degree offset to Mecca. When I asked Professor Northedge about the imprecision, he responded that the orientation was difficult to calculate and that many ancient mosques were not very accurately oriented. These mosques are at such a short distance from each other that the prayer call from one minaret could probably be heard on the other. As they must have been aware of the error of the older mosque, why fix the rotation incorrectly? Hence, the difference in the newer mosque’s rotation cannot possibly rest on a miscalculation. Instead, even this late in the tenth century, Twelver Shi’ite Islam seems to have still relied on the standardized version of the Koran, save the last book, the Cow. The latter was revealed by the Levites, containing the instructions for the direction of prayers toward Mecca. This confirms the suspicions that were raised in context with the traveler Mas’udi and the Shi’ite Carmatians who had refuted the pilgrimage.97

If this sounds grand, it is not. Attentive readers may have noted the passages ‘arbitrarily oriented’ and ‘the Koran, save the last book, the Cow.’ Also, the Great Mosque is over a degree off from targeting Mecca. The truth is that almost all of my previous papers and my books have just become obsolete, at least partly, and I fear that most academics in the field from the earliest ‘Judaism’ through to Islam will join a state of oblivion. With the evidence at hand, religious history can now be written more accurately, and the understanding of the Koran has just begun. This will take time. Professor Northedge had responded to me with magnetic compass measurements of the ‘correct’ qibla being 193° and the al-Askari Mosque sitting at 198.9° (!), adding that the ancients had difficulty to calculate. His accuracy threw me off for the time being. The question should have been whether or not Twelver Shi’a had used the Koran at all and if so, which parts thereof. In the paper The Koran as Primary Evidence,98 I laid out that the balance of Sidjin and Illiyoun in sura 83 suggests two scriptural foundations, two ‘registers’ of Oral Law. The authors of the Koran were true to the Illiyoun, the Jerusalem Talmud, and at least some of their opponents to the Sidjin of the Babylonian Pharisees. I stated that the Djin refers to the Beyth Diyn in Babylon. Where 97 98

Deus 2011, 456. A.J. Deus, The Koran as Primary Evidence, Sidjin and Djin, December 16, 2015, available at academia.edu.


Page | 56

exactly is the point of departure from representing Babylonian Pharisees to Shi’ites? What about the leadership of Islam, over which Sunnis and Shi’ites are killing each other, still today? Facing these questions, a warning to researchers seems opportune: The collection of Suras is potentially from more than one source that has been assembled into one compound work that fosters confusion. This needs to be sorted out carefully and will be presented in an upcoming work. But credit to whom credit belongs: it was a work by Dan Gibson, which brought forth a claim that Petra was a focal point of the Umayyads that caught my attention. I was puzzled that all my sweat did not bring forth such a spectacular result – indeed, no result at all. Petra never showed up on my maps as an important Judaic focal point other than for the Sadducee leadership having resided there immediately before the construction of Herod’s Temple until after the destruction of Jerusalem under Hadrian. But it was not Gibson’s quality of research that triggered my curiosity. Instead, I was perplexed that he could have come to any conclusion with his methodology short of wanting it to be Petra. What struck me is that his system – save for arguments that I was unable to logically follow – would validate any target location, even if it were in Hawaii. The final trigger was my hasty exposure in the IQSA research community with a statement that Gibson’s findings could not be validated, combined with a promise to review his work. I doubt that anybody cared other than my word, but without this, I would perhaps have been satisfied with challenging Gibons’s methodology. Thus, I set out to revisit my collection of research into mosque orientations, in particular how accurate the ancients could have performed this task. The frustrating result confirmed the consensus: any orientation was fine even though the early Muslims could theoretically calculate to the nearest degree. Armed with what I had learned from my recent discovery that the Jerusalem Talmud Berakoth had been written in full during the seventh century,99 I decided to systematically approach the problem and relentlessly pursue a solution. I had an idea for a new approach: instead of looking at the early ‘Muslim Umayyad’ mosques all over again, I decided to look elsewhere, right in the heart of cities wherein the problem of mosques with different orientations manifested itself. In the process, I wanted to go as far back as Babylon in order to figure out whether there might have been an ancient system that would have rotated buildings within a reasonable margin of error to a specific location. In revisiting my previous notes on orientations, no possibility of direction was left out, including to pray facing or along the walls. Because the Muslims eventually conquered Spain and Pakistan, the perspective was extended to almost the entire Old World. Partly because of my awareness of Judaic tribes as far away as in the west coast of Africa, I decided to take measurements from any source location across the three old continents. The answers started to materialize with convergence points of multiple mosques one laid on top of another. Once I noticed that building layers pointed to different targets, a connection to the religious leadership became obvious. The here disclosed findings are only a tiny fraction of structures across civilizations that have been visited in the pursuit of finding a pattern. During the work for this paper, this researcher went through an evolution from thinking that the accuracy of measurements from satellite imagery was less 99

A.J. Deus, MHMT/MHMD and a Seed of the Koran, A Historical Context in the Jerusalem Talmud? (December 18, 2015) available at academia.edu.


Page | 57

important than what the ancients could achieve to realizing that the images from the sky were not good enough. That Babylon pointed to Nineveh was quick to find, and I thought it surprising that this was not common knowledge. I included the Mosque of Jonah because of its connection to the fish in Nineveh. This turned into a pot of gold. I have never taken the Muslim trail to Ethiopia seriously and – probably like most scholars – dismissed this story as fanciful. But after Negash and Aksum showed up so many miles distant, I thought that this could not be by mere accident. Finally, the discovery that two mosques in Medina pointed to these towns was mind boggling – my wonderful wife still does not understand how I could have been so out of my calm demeanor. This is not only true discovery – it is also as simple and accurate as math. All it took was taking the blindfold off. The here made discoveries are going to shape the future careers of many academics and authors alike. My message to the next generation of researchers in the field is to never stop questioning traditions if anything is not logical or does not find footing in hard facts. Archaeology, numismatics, blind genetics, and contemporary literary evidence must always take precedence over traditions, and the facts need to be taken at face value rather than being embedded in a wishful environment of traditions. Carbon dating helps, but as the case of the Koran shows, its precision is by no means bullet proof. This critical attitude includes the pride of one self. It embraces a willingness to publish ‘experimental’ findings at the risk of being inaccurate and to dismiss not only long held expertly opinions but also one’s own prior theories and beliefs.


Page | 58

Conclusion – Reverse Logic What does this all mean? It is perhaps fair to say that mankind has been fooled. The evidence here presented is a forceful case for Muslim traditions being a product of elaborate engineering. From the same evidence arises that Jewish and Christian traditions likely fall under the same class of innovations. It appears that multiple layers of histories have been compounded into one that feigns unity where there was ongoing strive and division – those same divisions that fuel the bloodshed all across the Middle East today. The here made discoveries are a testament to the strength of religious beliefs and their traditions. They have been able to blind the science of religion and humanity into the twentyfirst century, so much so that nobody seems to ever have measured the exact geographic orientation of these buildings and looked which distant place they may have pointed to. Provided that the related passages were not inserted into the Koran at a much later date – as much as a century after Prophet Muhammad – the conclusion for the meaning of Sura 2 has far reaching ramifications: if the passages were not added later, the Koran does neither command a change in prayer direction from Jerusalem to Mecca nor from somewhere else to Mecca. Instead, it urges its community to continue to orient the worshiping rituals toward its religious leader, whoever this might be. In sura 2, it specifically refers to Al Haram in present day Israel. The orientation change to Mecca is an innovation that found its entry into the historical record in 745 AD. The change has not long before this first mention been implemented. Following the archaeological evidence, the prayer orientation was likely established between 743 and 745 AD. Followup research will bring forth a precise date. However, since Abbasid, Seljuk, and Ismaili mosques in Samarra do not point to Mecca deep into the twelfth century or even later, it is yet unclear who may have been responsible for the change. Abu Lahab in sura 111 comes to life as the Babylonian Exilarch Abu-Lu’lu’ah/Pirouz Nahāvandi. He may have ended up in a quarrel with Caliph Umar over the leadership of the Judaic ‘Muslim’ alliance. It appears to confirm the Shi’a / Sunni split, which re-establishes a chasm that had existed for centuries before. Researchers need to reevaluate their perspective and investigate the role that Ethiopia may have played in the beginnings of Islam and the conquest of the Arab Peninsula. It appears that Ethiopia provided the necessary manpower to subdue the Arab Peninsula and to sustain a decades’ long war against the Umayyads in Damascus. While jumping to conclusions might not be prudent, the archaeological evidence shows in abundance that mosques were deliberately oriented toward a place of religious authority and that the ancients were able to do so within a margin of error of less than 0.05°, perhaps even to the one hundredth of a degree. Religious authority and dynastic leadership seems to have been identical for centuries after the birth of Islam.


Page | 59

At least three strains of orientations can be found, Babylonian Pharisee, Levite-Quraysh, and the alliance thereof (i.e. Islam), toward the Exilarch, the Nasi, or the Muhammad. This led to many qibla changes. Each town can reveal its individual story about dynastic expansions and contractions through the archaeology of their mosques. Similar to changes in dynastic territories, the stories told through mosques in multiple towns are interlinked and they overlap. Neither the Shi’ites nor the Sunnis own the right to the leadership of Islam. The Iranian (Shi’ite/Pharisee) mosques display a different pattern than the ones from the Levant (Sunni). One might be able to make a case that the demarcation line between the Babylonian Pharisees and the western Sadducee Jews is largely intact today. It also appears to be a similar line of division that had existed between Byzantine Christianity and Arianism. This blows the most pressing question about modern terrorism to the surface: whose fight are Sunnies and Shi’ites carrying on? The traditions of Twelver Shia Islam are at this stage in the research particularly exposed to the suspicion of fabrication. Much of their history belongs into the realm of wishful fables. Their link to the Babylonian Pharisees and beyond to reform-Zoroastrianism unmasks them as religious pretenders in pursuit of royal authority that empowers them to exploit a suffering people. The mainstream traditions of Abbasid and ‘Umayyad’ Islam are not much better. The real Islam according to the archaeological evidence constitutes an alliance between the Levite-Quraysh and the Babylonian Pharisees. That does not provide much solace either. On the other hand, the Ethiopian kernel is apparent throughout this study. It appears that the Judaic traces had been eradicated there almost entirely. These findings will revolutionize the understanding of the history of Ethiopia, its Judaic foundation, and this country’s contribution to the emergence of Islam. Moreover, the persistent absence of Jerusalem layers indicates that Jews have not prayed to the Temple Mount until after the Muslim conquest. It is an invention that followed the abolishment of the practice to pray toward their religious leader who had god-like standing in all three strains. The timing of this change will likely surface with the change in prayer orientation of the Muslims toward Mecca. In a ruinous religious obsession, additions or entirely new mosques were erected every time the location of the religious head changed – even if it concerned the same leader. My hope is that this discovery will inject at least some level of rationalism into the faith laden discourse about the beginnings of Islam. While many answers will be surprising, they also come with the clear-cut evidence of archaeology. There remain a few ambivalent cases with more than one option, but in principle there is no room to take an orientation for another or discuss away the hard facts from the ground. Academia is now in a position to write real history that will either confirm or refute some, most, or all of the traditional belief systems that has had a grip of the Islamic, Christian, or Jewish branches of faith based teaching for so long. The most astonishing part of this discovery is that the evidence has been in plain sight – bold, big, and unsubtle – staring with a straight face into the eyes of researchers across the world.


Page | 60

It is no longer acceptable that any building, which sort of looks in the direction of a desired destination be taken as evidence for its orientation. The practice in doing so seems to have included many buildings that are as far off as 10° and more or even 30°. The ancients knew what they were doing. We can no longer pretend that they did not. What this all means is that the same ideas have been ransacking the entire earth over differences in leadership under one Judaic religion or another. We now know, when they were driven out from one place, they moved to another and directed their powerful networks of faith from a distant place. Finally, archaeology tells us a history that is so unambiguous that nobody can escape to realize what danger organized religion constitutes to mankind when it goes rogue. It is akin to having terrorist sleeper cells in foreign lands – only at a much bigger scale. If a greater war were to escalate against Muslim nations, for example, there is no question that the religious communities could and would pillage the entire West at a moment’s notice with an unending onslaught of homegrown terrorism. Muslims are already in the west in large numbers, and a significant percentage approves of violence in the name of their religion. All it takes is a simple call by their supreme leaders for their followers to move to a location of religious amassments in order to overthrow an entire state in America or a nation in Europe – through the democratic process – without firing a single bullet. Unlike political movements, they are here to stay and to plot and plan under the guise of religious freedom. Humanity needs to find a way out of this bind that fuels an eternal cycle of violence. From a western point of view, the paradoxical worst case would be Shi’ites and Sunnis finding peace in unity against their Jewish and Christian enemies – the real Islam. Their goal? The reconquest of the Promised Land in the name of a New Jerusalem. The forces toward this End of Days are at work today in Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Luckily for civilization, they cannot agree for long when they will form a new alliance to achieve their goal once more. This researcher hopes that this paper is an eyeopener that inseminates a path to rational dialogue in peace. But the answers will not come with easy preconceptions. Authority has created a mess – only time will fix it.