Discussion about this post

User's avatar
James Knight's avatar

The article is broadly right in its main direction. Islam did not appear in Arabia as a pure, self-contained revelation untouched by its surroundings. The Kaaba, pilgrimage, circumambulation, sacrifice, sacred months, Safa and Marwa, Arafat and related practices clearly belong to an older Arabian religious world that Islam retained, purified, renamed and reinterpreted.

But we should be careful not to treat this as a problem unique to Islam. All so-called Abrahamic religions need to be placed back into history. Judaism developed over time as a legal, moral and social framework for a particular people, with monotheism emerging as an endpoint rather than as the obvious starting position. Christianity grew out of Jewish apocalyptic expectation, then built a theology around Jesus after that expectation failed to arrive in the form anticipated. Islam came later, absorbed Jewish and Christian narrative structures, retained Arabian ritual practice, and declared itself the final correction of both.

The Abraham issue is central. There is no independent historical evidence that Abraham existed as described. He appears as a later foundational figure used to create ancestry, covenant, continuity and authority. Islam’s claim that Abraham built or was connected to the Kaaba is therefore not historical recovery. It is a theological retrofit, taking an already mythic foundation figure and relocating him into Mecca to legitimise an Arabian shrine.

Of course, one can always say there may have been some distant memory behind the Abraham story. But that is not evidence; it is a permission slip for speculation. By that standard, Abraham may as well have been Abracadabra, a wandering Bronze Age magician whose camel had strong theological opinions.

So yes, the article gives a reasonable explanation of Islam’s pagan inheritance. But the wider point is larger: religions regularly turn later stories into sacred history. Islam did this with Mecca and Abraham, Christianity did it with Jesus, and Judaism did it with its ancestral narratives. The difference is not that one tradition is historical and the others are fiction. The difference is how each tradition constructed authority, identity and continuity from the materials available to it.

Alexander Lucie-Smith's avatar

This is very interesting esp the bit about the black stone.

9 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?