The Huma al-Numur Inscription
When Was the Masjid al-Haram Really Built?
Opening Hook:
Islamic tradition claims Mecca has been the epicenter of monotheism since the days of Abraham—even Adam, according to some. But what if a rock inscription from the 7th century quietly undermines that entire narrative? Welcome to the Huma al-Numur inscription: the stone that tells a radically different story.
Introduction:
Mecca is foundational to Islam’s theological and historical claims. The Qur'an, the hadiths, and Islamic historiography insist that it was the site of the first house built for the worship of Allah (Qur'an 3:96), where Abraham and Ishmael raised the Kaaba (Qur'an 2:125-127), and the destination of Muhammad's night journey (Qur'an 17:1). Yet, mounting archaeological evidence is challenging these assertions. One particularly damaging piece of evidence is an Arabic rock inscription found at Huma al-Numur, located northwest of Ta'if.
Section 1: The Inscription in Context
The site of Huma al-Numur lies roughly 50 miles northwest of Mecca, along the western Arabian Plateau—a historically significant area for trade routes studied extensively by scholars like Patricia Crone. The rock inscription in question is written in early Arabic without diacritical marks or vowelization, typical of the late 7th century.
This inscription is particularly important because it offers a precise date: the 78th year after the Hijra (AH), which corresponds to 697-698 CE.
Section 2: What the Inscription Actually Says
Islamic Awareness, a popular apologetic website, presents this inscription as proof of the "rebuilding" of the Masjid al-Haram. But this is a distortion. The original Arabic text on the stone uses the word "buniya" (بُنيَ), which means "was built" — not "was rebuilt" (which would be something like "ʻuīda al-binā'” أُعيدَ البِناء).
Even Islamic Awareness's own translation concedes the text reads "was built." Yet, their apologetic framing continues to interpret it as evidence of a reconstruction, contradicting the very content they present.
Section 3: The Implications
If this inscription refers to the Masjid al-Haram in Mecca and it was built in 697-698 CE, then several problems arise:
No material evidence exists of the Masjid before the late 7th century.
The Qur'anic references to the Masjid in Surah 17:1 and 2:144-150 become anachronistic.
The claim that Abraham or even Muhammad interacted with this mosque collapses under historical scrutiny.
This fits seamlessly with revisionist theories proposed by scholars like Yehuda Nevo, Patricia Crone, and Dan Gibson, who argue that early Islam originated in the northern regions of Arabia (such as Petra) and only later migrated southward to Mecca.
Section 4: Political Context and Religious Engineering
During the late 7th century, the Umayyad caliph Abd al-Malik (r. 685–705 CE) was in a power struggle with Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr, who had taken refuge in Mecca after rebelling from Petra. According to Gibson's research, the Kaaba in Petra may have been destroyed during these conflicts, and the Black Stone possibly moved to the south.
This necessitated the construction of a new religious center in Mecca to replace the destroyed Petra sanctuary. The Huma al-Numur inscription coincides precisely with this timeline, indicating that Mecca was elevated to religious significance decades after Muhammad's death, not before.
Section 5: Inscriptions Don’t Lie
Unlike oral traditions or centuries-later written sources, rock inscriptions are contemporary, immutable, and date-stamped. They do not bend to theological agendas. This particular inscription is black-and-white evidence that a mosque—likely the Masjid al-Haram—was built, not rebuilt, in 697-698 CE.
To insist otherwise is to deny the literal reading of primary source material. No amount of apologetic re-interpretation can alter the etymology of "buniya."
Conclusion:
Islamic Awareness has unwittingly provided hard evidence that challenges core Islamic claims. The Huma al-Numur inscription doesn’t just raise questions—it shreds the historical narrative that Mecca and its mosque date back to Abraham or even to Muhammad’s time. The burden is now on traditional Islamic scholarship to reconcile this stark contradiction. And if they can't, it may be time to admit the obvious: Mecca’s sacred history may be a 7th-century fabrication.
References:
Crone, P., & Cook, M. (1977). Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World.
Nevo, Y., & Koren, J. (2003). Crossroads to Islam.
Gibson, D. (2011). Qibla: Archaeological Evidence.
Islamic Awareness Website: https://www.islamic-awareness.org (Accessed version showing the inscription and translation)
Qur'an 2:125-127, 3:96, 17:1, 2:144-150.
Call to Action: Think critically. Demand evidence. And never assume a tradition is true just because it's old. Sometimes, the rocks tell a truer story than the books ever could.
No comments:
Post a Comment