Print Page | Close Window

Qibla

Printed From: IslamiCity.org
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Interfaith Dialogue
Forum Discription: It is for Interfaith dialogue, where Muslims discuss with non-Muslims. We encourge that dialogue takes place in a cordial atmosphere on various topics including religious tolerance.
URL: http://www.readverse.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31944
Printed Date: 26 October 2021 at 11:29am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 8.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Qibla
Posted By: Caringheart
Subject: Qibla
Date Posted: 11 October 2014 at 8:10pm
direction of prayer...
I am confused...
are muslims meant to face east when they pray?

Doesn't common sense dictate that it would depend on where you live, which direction you face when you pray... the direction of the Ka'aba?

Shukran and salaam for guidance,
Caringheart


-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis



Replies:
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 11 October 2014 at 8:29pm
Originally posted by Caringheart

direction of prayer...
I am confused...
are muslims meant to face east when they pray?

Doesn't common sense dictate that it would depend on where you live, which direction you face when you pray... the direction of the Ka'aba?

Shukran and salaam for guidance,
Caringheart


Muslims face the direction of Mecca, which would of course depend on where you live.  Someone living in Iraq would not face east.  Some living in Egypt would.  


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 11 October 2014 at 9:19pm
Originally posted by islamispeace

Originally posted by Caringheart

direction of prayer...
I am confused...
are muslims meant to face east when they pray?

Doesn't common sense dictate that it would depend on where you live, which direction you face when you pray... the direction of the Ka'aba?

Shukran and salaam for guidance,
Caringheart

Muslims face the direction of Mecca, which would of course depend on where you live.  Someone living in Iraq would not face east.  Some living in Egypt would.  

Greetings islamispeace,

Thank you for your reply.

Am I correct though that I have heard muslims say they should pray toward the east?  Or is this a misconception?

Or maybe I am remembering from the qur'an because for Muhammad to pray to the Ka'aba was to pray to the east?

asalaam,
CH

Edit:
Ok, I've been doing some researching and now have more questions....

I see that Mecca was not east of Medina, but rather south from Medina(Yathrib).

and I have found this in the qur'an which speaks of qibla:

2:142 The foolish of the people will say: What hath turned them from the qiblah which they formerly observed ? Say: Unto Allah belong the East and the West. He guideth whom He will unto a straight path.

2:143 Thus We have appointed you a middle nation, that ye may be witnesses against mankind, and that the messenger may be a witness against you. And We appointed the qiblah which ye formerly observed only that We might know him who followeth the messenger, from him who turneth on his heels. In truth it was a hard (test) save for those whom Allah guided. But it was not Allah's purpose that your faith should be in vain, for Allah is Full of Pity, Merciful toward mankind.

2:144 We have seen the turning of thy face to heaven (for guidance, O Muhammad). And now verily We shall make thee turn (in prayer) toward a qiblah which is dear to thee. So turn thy face toward the Inviolable Place of Worship, and ye (O Muslims), wheresoever ye may be, turn your faces (when ye pray) toward it. Lo! Those who have received the Scripture know that (this revelation) is the Truth from their Lord. And Allah is not unaware of what they do.

2:149 And whencesoever thou comest forth (for prayer, O Muhammad) turn thy face toward the Inviolable Place of Worship. Lo! it is the Truth from thy Lord. Allah is not unaware of what ye do.


So... 'turn thy face toward the inviolable place of worship'... but no mention of the Ka'aba?

Why the mention of the east and west?

in 2:144 it just seems to me that Muhammad decided that what he originally proclaimed was not working so he decided to make a change - keeping the Ka'aba, since it was the place accustomed to by the people, and the place that attracted people on pilgrimage, which was important to them for trade.

as far as 'those who have received the Scripture know'... the Scripture which I know is clear that the place of God is in Jerusalem and so that would be the 'inviolable place of worship'... the place where the Ark of God once rested.
If this is not true then why do muslims fight with the Jews over the control of Jerusalem, and why did they build the Dome of the Rock there?


from the prophecy, the warning given to Ezekiel:

15 Then said he unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations than these.

16 And he brought me into the inner court of the Lord's house, and, behold, at the door of the temple of the Lord, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of the Lord, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east.

So it was an abomination to the Lord that the Jews would be turning their backs to the temple in Jerusalem and praying to the sun in the east.
Jerusalem is the inviolable place of worship.


-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 11 October 2014 at 10:17pm
I am also confused by this:

Yusuf Ali 96:

The first House (of worship) appointed for men was that at Bakka: Full of blessing and of guidance for all kinds of beings:

Shakir 96:

Most surely the first house appointed for men is the one at Bekka, blessed and a guidance for the nations.

Pickthal 96:

Lo! the first Sanctuary appointed for mankind was that at Becca, a blessed place, a guidance to the peoples;

only does M. Khan add in parenthesis the word Makkah.  Is this a changing of the word of allah?  to make it suitable to the narrative... the making of the Ka'aba as the place of worship?

M. Khan 96:

Verily, the first House (of worship) appointed for mankind was that at Bakkah (Makkah), full of blessing, and a guidance for Al-Alameen (the mankind and jinns).



-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 12 October 2014 at 10:30am
You confuse yourself with your own Christian bias.  We can see that by how you clearly want to establish that the "inviolable place of worship" is in Jerusalem and not in Mecca.  But those who have actually read the Quran and are not blinded by their own preconceived ideas know that the "inviolable place of worship" is the Kaaba in Mecca.  The meaning of the phrase refers to the prohibition of fighting and hunting within the confines of Mecca, as made clear by the following verse:

"O ye who believe! Kill not game while in the sacred precincts or in pilgrim garb. If any of you doth so intentionally, the compensation is an offering, brought to the Ka'ba, of a domestic animal equivalent to the one he killed, as adjudged by two just men among you; or by way of atonement, the feeding of the indigent; or its equivalent in fasts: that he may taste of the penalty of his deed. Allah forgives what is past: for repetition Allah will exact from him the penalty. For Allah is Exalted, and Lord of Retribution." (Surah Al-Maeda, 5:3).

Your reference to Ezekiel is laughable because Muslims do not "pray to the sun in the east".  In fact, Muslims are forbidden to pray when the sun is rising and when it is setting, so how can that "prophecy" be applied to Islam?  Once again, we see your deception and ignorance at work.  LOL


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 12 October 2014 at 10:38am
Originally posted by Caringheart

I am also confused by this:

Yusuf Ali 96:

The first House (of worship) appointed for men was that at Bakka: Full of blessing and of guidance for all kinds of beings:

Shakir 96:

Most surely the first house appointed for men is the one at Bekka, blessed and a guidance for the nations.

Pickthal 96:

Lo! the first Sanctuary appointed for mankind was that at Becca, a blessed place, a guidance to the peoples;

only does M. Khan add in parenthesis the word Makkah.  Is this a changing of the word of allah?  to make it suitable to the narrative... the making of the Ka'aba as the place of worship?

M. Khan 96:

Verily, the first House (of worship) appointed for mankind was that at Bakkah (Makkah), full of blessing, and a guidance for Al-Alameen (the mankind and jinns).



Bakkah/Becca was another name for Makkah/Mecca.  If you had bothered to read the verse in context, your self-inflicted "confusion" would dissipate:

"The first House (of worship) appointed for men was that at Bakka: Full of blessing and of guidance for all kinds of beings: In it are Signs Manifest; (for example), the Station of Abraham; whoever enters it attains security; Pilgrimage thereto is a duty men owe to Allah,- those who can afford the journey; but if any deny faith, Allah stands not in need of any of His creatures."


What is the "Station of Abraham"?  In Arabic, it is known as "Maqam Ibrahim".  This is the place that the prophet Abraham (peace be upon him) stood when he was building the Kaaba with Ishmael (peace be upon him). 


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 12 October 2014 at 3:50pm
Originally posted by islamispeace

You confuse yourself with your own Christian bias.  We can see that by how you clearly want to establish that the "inviolable place of worship" is in Jerusalem and not in Mecca.  But those who have actually read the Quran and are not blinded by their own preconceived ideas know that the "inviolable place of worship" is the Kaaba in Mecca.  The meaning of the phrase refers to the prohibition of fighting and hunting within the confines of Mecca, as made clear by the following verse:

"O ye who believe! Kill not game while in the sacred precincts or in pilgrim garb. If any of you doth so intentionally, the compensation is an offering, brought to the Ka'ba, of a domestic animal equivalent to the one he killed, as adjudged by two just men among you; or by way of atonement, the feeding of the indigent; or its equivalent in fasts: that he may taste of the penalty of his deed. Allah forgives what is past: for repetition Allah will exact from him the penalty. For Allah is Exalted, and Lord of Retribution." (Surah Al-Maeda, 5:3).

Your reference to Ezekiel is laughable because Muslims do not "pray to the sun in the east".  In fact, Muslims are forbidden to pray when the sun is rising and when it is setting, so how can that "prophecy" be applied to Islam?  Once again, we see your deception and ignorance at work.  LOL

Greetings islamispeace,

I wasn't saying that the prophesy of Ezekiel was applicable to islam, per se.  I was sharing it though, because the Lord was clear, in letting Ezekiel know to tell the people, that it is an offense to Him when they do not pray towards the temple in Jerusalem.

You didn't answer my other questions though;
Am I correct that I have heard muslims say they should pray toward the east?  Or is this a misconception?

The qur'an is not really clear on this 'place of inviolable worship'... only to mention that it has been changed... but it does not say from what or to where... those extrapolations come, I can only presume, from the further teachings of Muhammad recorded in the hadith.

asalaam,
CH


-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 12 October 2014 at 4:00pm
Originally posted by islamispeace

Originally posted by Caringheart

I am also confused by this:

Yusuf Ali 96:

The first House (of worship) appointed for men was that at Bakka: Full of blessing and of guidance for all kinds of beings:

Shakir 96:

Most surely the first house appointed for men is the one at Bekka, blessed and a guidance for the nations.

Pickthal 96:

Lo! the first Sanctuary appointed for mankind was that at Becca, a blessed place, a guidance to the peoples;

only does M. Khan add in parenthesis the word Makkah.  Is this a changing of the word of allah?  to make it suitable to the narrative... the making of the Ka'aba as the place of worship?

M. Khan 96:

Verily, the first House (of worship) appointed for mankind was that at Bakkah (Makkah), full of blessing, and a guidance for Al-Alameen (the mankind and jinns).


Bakkah/Becca was another name for Makkah/Mecca.  If you had bothered to read the verse in context, your self-inflicted "confusion" would dissipate:

"The first House (of worship) appointed for men was that at Bakka: Full of blessing and of guidance for all kinds of beings: In it are Signs Manifest; (for example), the Station of Abraham; whoever enters it attains security; Pilgrimage thereto is a duty men owe to Allah,- those who can afford the journey; but if any deny faith, Allah stands not in need of any of His creatures."


What is the "Station of Abraham"?  In Arabic, it is known as "Maqam Ibrahim".  This is the place that the prophet Abraham (peace be upon him) stood when he was building the Kaaba with Ishmael (peace be upon him). 

Greetings islamispeace,

For these things which you say....
Who says so?
Only because it fits the narrative?
Why would the qur'an not have clearly stated Mecca, just as the Torah clearly stated Jerusalem?
or the Ka'aba if it had actually been built by Abraham.
(just as a side note, I was reading that there was more than one Ka'aba... that the original was rectangular, and when it was rebuilt it became a cube ? ... sort of mirrors the twice building stories of the Temple in Jerusalem)

The earlier scriptures were always very clear, unchanging, about the Temple in Jerusalem being the house of worship to God... home of the Ark... the mercy seat of God.
Why would the qur'an be less clear?

asalaam,
CH


-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 12 October 2014 at 4:49pm
Originally posted by Caringheart

Originally posted by islamispeace

You confuse yourself with your own Christian bias.  We can see that by how you clearly want to establish that the "inviolable place of worship" is in Jerusalem and not in Mecca.  But those who have actually read the Quran and are not blinded by their own preconceived ideas know that the "inviolable place of worship" is the Kaaba in Mecca.  The meaning of the phrase refers to the prohibition of fighting and hunting within the confines of Mecca, as made clear by the following verse:

"O ye who believe! Kill not game while in the sacred precincts or in pilgrim garb. If any of you doth so intentionally, the compensation is an offering, brought to the Ka'ba, of a domestic animal equivalent to the one he killed, as adjudged by two just men among you; or by way of atonement, the feeding of the indigent; or its equivalent in fasts: that he may taste of the penalty of his deed. Allah forgives what is past: for repetition Allah will exact from him the penalty. For Allah is Exalted, and Lord of Retribution." (Surah Al-Maeda, 5:3).

Your reference to Ezekiel is laughable because Muslims do not "pray to the sun in the east".  In fact, Muslims are forbidden to pray when the sun is rising and when it is setting, so how can that "prophecy" be applied to Islam?  Once again, we see your deception and ignorance at work.  LOL

Greetings islamispeace,

I wasn't saying that the prophesy of Ezekiel was applicable to islam, per se.  I was sharing it though, because the Lord was clear, in letting Ezekiel know to tell the people, that it is an offense to Him when they do not pray towards the temple in Jerusalem.

You didn't answer my other questions though;
Am I correct that I have heard muslims say they should pray toward the east?  Or is this a misconception?

The qur'an is not really clear on this 'place of inviolable worship'... only to mention that it has been changed... but it does not say from what or to where... those extrapolations come, I can only presume, from the further teachings of Muhammad recorded in the hadith.

asalaam,
CH


I already answered your question in the first post.  If you don't know how to read, I can't help you.  Maybe you should get that "Hooked on Phonics" program. Wink

I already showed that the "inviolable place" is Mecca.  The Arabs, even before Islam, considered it forbidden to fight there.   


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 12 October 2014 at 4:59pm
Originally posted by Caringheart

Originally posted by islamispeace

Originally posted by Caringheart

I am also confused by this:

Yusuf Ali 96:

The first House (of worship) appointed for men was that at Bakka: Full of blessing and of guidance for all kinds of beings:

Shakir 96:

Most surely the first house appointed for men is the one at Bekka, blessed and a guidance for the nations.

Pickthal 96:

Lo! the first Sanctuary appointed for mankind was that at Becca, a blessed place, a guidance to the peoples;

only does M. Khan add in parenthesis the word Makkah.  Is this a changing of the word of allah?  to make it suitable to the narrative... the making of the Ka'aba as the place of worship?

M. Khan 96:

Verily, the first House (of worship) appointed for mankind was that at Bakkah (Makkah), full of blessing, and a guidance for Al-Alameen (the mankind and jinns).


Bakkah/Becca was another name for Makkah/Mecca.  If you had bothered to read the verse in context, your self-inflicted "confusion" would dissipate:

"The first House (of worship) appointed for men was that at Bakka: Full of blessing and of guidance for all kinds of beings: In it are Signs Manifest; (for example), the Station of Abraham; whoever enters it attains security; Pilgrimage thereto is a duty men owe to Allah,- those who can afford the journey; but if any deny faith, Allah stands not in need of any of His creatures."


What is the "Station of Abraham"?  In Arabic, it is known as "Maqam Ibrahim".  This is the place that the prophet Abraham (peace be upon him) stood when he was building the Kaaba with Ishmael (peace be upon him). 

Greetings islamispeace,

For these things which you say....
Who says so?
Only because it fits the narrative?
Why would the qur'an not have clearly stated Mecca, just as the Torah clearly stated Jerusalem?
or the Ka'aba if it had actually been built by Abraham.
(just as a side note, I was reading that there was more than one Ka'aba... that the original was rectangular, and when it was rebuilt it became a cube ? ... sort of mirrors the twice building stories of the Temple in Jerusalem)

The earlier scriptures were always very clear, unchanging, about the Temple in Jerusalem being the house of worship to God... home of the Ark... the mercy seat of God.
Why would the qur'an be less clear?

asalaam,
CH


As I already, your the one who is confused.  The Quran is actually very clear in differentiating between Jerusalem and Mecca.  When referring to the Isra of the Prophet from Mecca to Jerusalem, the Quran stated:

"Glory to (Allah) Who did take His servant for a Journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the farthest Mosque, whose precincts We did bless,- in order that We might show him some of Our Signs: for He is the One Who heareth and seeth (all things)."

The "Sacred Mosque" (Al-Masjid Al-Haram) is in Mecca, while the "farthest Mosque" (Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa) is in Jerusalem.  Whenever the "Sacred Mosque" is mentioned, the context always shows that it is referring to the Kaaba in Mecca.  For example, in reference to a peace treaty the Muslims had made with the pagans of Arabia, the Quran states:

"How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous."


How much more clearer can it be?  What sane person would claim that the Quran was referring to Jerusalem in this case, especially since the Muslims had not yet been in Jerusalem yet and would not be until the reign of Umar Ibn Al-Khattab when he captured the city from the Byzantines?


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 12 October 2014 at 7:50pm
Originally posted by islamispeace

Originally posted by Caringheart


Am I correct that I have heard muslims say they should pray toward the east?  Or is this a misconception?

The qur'an is not really clear on this 'place of inviolable worship'... only to mention that it has been changed... but it does not say from what or to where... those extrapolations come, I can only presume, from the further teachings of Muhammad recorded in the hadith.

asalaam,
CH

I already answered your question in the first post.

So you are saying that it is a misconception I have, that muslims believe they are supposed to face east when they pray?


-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 12 October 2014 at 8:40pm
Originally posted by islamispeace


As I already, your the one who is confused.  The Quran is actually very clear in differentiating between Jerusalem and Mecca.  When referring to the Isra of the Prophet from Mecca to Jerusalem, the Quran stated:

"Glory to (Allah) Who did take His servant for a Journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the farthest Mosque, whose precincts We did bless,- in order that We might show him some of Our Signs: for He is the One Who heareth and seeth (all things)."

The "Sacred Mosque" (Al-Masjid Al-Haram) is in Mecca, while the "farthest Mosque" (Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa) is in Jerusalem.  Whenever the "Sacred Mosque" is mentioned, the context always shows that it is referring to the Kaaba in Mecca.  For example, in reference to a peace treaty the Muslims had made with the pagans of Arabia, the Quran states:

"How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous."


How much more clearer can it be?  What sane person would claim that the Quran was referring to Jerusalem in this case, especially since the Muslims had not yet been in Jerusalem yet and would not be until the reign of Umar Ibn Al-Khattab when he captured the city from the Byzantines?

Greetings islamispeace,

So, your statements were curious to me for several reasons, so I wanted to look up the surah's you quoted to see what time period they came from, and I found this very interesting article.

As I stated, I only originally found it quite odd that the qur'an never says Mecca but referred to a place called Becca.
This article I found explains a lot in that regard, but that is not how I found it.
I was looking for 'qur'an pre-Meccan' when I found the article.

What I found curious about the reply I have quoted above is the reference, purportedly by the qur'an, to a 'sacred mosque' and a 'farthest mosque', and I couldn't help thinking,
How can the qur'an be referring to mosques when no mosques were even built before Muhammad introduced his religion?
so I wanted to know what time period the surah's were revealed, and they were all (17:1, 9:7, 48:24) prior to the year 620 a.d. of Yshwe.  Two of them as early as Medina.


So here is some of what I found in the article:  http://www.academia.edu/1776803/The_Mecca_Question

The reference in the qur'an is to a 'valley of bekkah' meaning 'valley of the one who weeps much'... or as I tend to think of it, because I think I have heard it from muslims before... the valley of weeping, or tears.

Mecca is only mentioned in surah 48... and the fact that it is mentioned as Mecca, not becca, I think would distinguish the fact that it is referring to a separate place... or a change has been made.

Also, apparently Muhammad first had his followers praying in the direction of Syria, and all the evidence supports the first holy place for muslims as Petra.

from the article:
"Surprising as it may seem, not one map before 900 AD even mentions Mecca.
It is also commonly accepted that Mecca was not just a major city, but it was the focus of pilgrimages in Arabia long before the rise of Islam. While there is little evidence of an early shrine at Mecca, Gibson points out that every historian of Arabia knows that pilgrimages were always made to the Nabataean city of Petra, which was known as the original haram or forbidden area of Ara-bia where killing was not allowed."

I quoted this last part because it supports a thing you have told to me...
the place where killing is not allowed.

9:7  "How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous."

asalaam,
CH


-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 13 October 2014 at 7:37am
Originally posted by Caringheart

Originally posted by islamispeace

Originally posted by Caringheart


Am I correct that I have heard muslims say they should pray toward the east?  Or is this a misconception?

The qur'an is not really clear on this 'place of inviolable worship'... only to mention that it has been changed... but it does not say from what or to where... those extrapolations come, I can only presume, from the further teachings of Muhammad recorded in the hadith.

asalaam,
CH

I already answered your question in the first post.

So you are saying that it is a misconception I have, that muslims believe they are supposed to face east when they pray?


As I already said, Muslims face toward Mecca, so depending on where they live, they could face north, south, east or west. 


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 13 October 2014 at 8:06am
Originally posted by Caringheart

Originally posted by islamispeace


As I already, your the one who is confused.  The Quran is actually very clear in differentiating between Jerusalem and Mecca.  When referring to the Isra of the Prophet from Mecca to Jerusalem, the Quran stated:

"Glory to (Allah) Who did take His servant for a Journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the farthest Mosque, whose precincts We did bless,- in order that We might show him some of Our Signs: for He is the One Who heareth and seeth (all things)."

The "Sacred Mosque" (Al-Masjid Al-Haram) is in Mecca, while the "farthest Mosque" (Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa) is in Jerusalem.  Whenever the "Sacred Mosque" is mentioned, the context always shows that it is referring to the Kaaba in Mecca.  For example, in reference to a peace treaty the Muslims had made with the pagans of Arabia, the Quran states:

"How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous."


How much more clearer can it be?  What sane person would claim that the Quran was referring to Jerusalem in this case, especially since the Muslims had not yet been in Jerusalem yet and would not be until the reign of Umar Ibn Al-Khattab when he captured the city from the Byzantines?

Greetings islamispeace,

So, your statements were curious to me for several reasons, so I wanted to look up the surah's you quoted to see what time period they came from, and I found this very interesting article.

As I stated, I only originally found it quite odd that the qur'an never says Mecca but referred to a place called Becca.
This article I found explains a lot in that regard, but that is not how I found it.
I was looking for 'qur'an pre-Meccan' when I found the article.

What I found curious about the reply I have quoted above is the reference, purportedly by the qur'an, to a 'sacred mosque' and a 'farthest mosque', and I couldn't help thinking,
How can the qur'an be referring to mosques when no mosques were even built before Muhammad introduced his religion?
so I wanted to know what time period the surah's were revealed, and they were all (17:1, 9:7, 48:24) prior to the year 620 a.d. of Yshwe.  Two of them as early as Medina.


So here is some of what I found in the article:  http://www.academia.edu/1776803/The_Mecca_Question

The reference in the qur'an is to a 'valley of bekkah' meaning 'valley of the one who weeps much'... or as I tend to think of it, because I think I have heard it from muslims before... the valley of weeping, or tears.

Mecca is only mentioned in surah 48... and the fact that it is mentioned as Mecca, not becca, I think would distinguish the fact that it is referring to a separate place... or a change has been made.

Also, apparently Muhammad first had his followers praying in the direction of Syria, and all the evidence supports the first holy place for muslims as Petra.

from the article:
"Surprising as it may seem, not one map before 900 AD even mentions Mecca.
It is also commonly accepted that Mecca was not just a major city, but it was the focus of pilgrimages in Arabia long before the rise of Islam. While there is little evidence of an early shrine at Mecca, Gibson points out that every historian of Arabia knows that pilgrimages were always made to the Nabataean city of Petra, which was known as the original haram or forbidden area of Ara-bia where killing was not allowed."

I quoted this last part because it supports a thing you have told to me...
the place where killing is not allowed.

9:7  "How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous."

asalaam,
CH


LOL So, we can see how you find random articles online during your Google searches and then use them to suggest ridiculous theories.  Since the issues you raised have already been dealt with in detail by other Muslims, I am not going to waste time repeating them.  Instead, I suggest you read the following articles to help clear up your self-inflicted confusion:

1.  On the issue of "mosques" - http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/aqsa.html - http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/aqsa.html

2.  On the issue of the Kaaba as a place of pilgrimage - http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/kaaba.html - http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/kaaba.html

3.  On the issue of early mosques having supposedly not facing Mecca - http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Dome_Of_The_Rock/qibla.html - http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Dome_Of_The_Rock/qibla.html

It should also be pointed out that the article you quoted makes the following claim but does not elaborate further:

"Gibson points out that every historian of Arabia knows that pilgrimages were always made to the Nabataean city of Petra, which was known as the original haram or forbidden area of Ara-bia where killing was not allowed."


Which historians state this?  The article does not specify.  Hmmm....

 


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 13 October 2014 at 10:16am
Originally posted by islamispeace

Originally posted by Caringheart

Originally posted by islamispeace


As I already, your the one who is confused.  The Quran is actually very clear in differentiating between Jerusalem and Mecca.  When referring to the Isra of the Prophet from Mecca to Jerusalem, the Quran stated:

"Glory to (Allah) Who did take His servant for a Journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the farthest Mosque, whose precincts We did bless,- in order that We might show him some of Our Signs: for He is the One Who heareth and seeth (all things)."

The "Sacred Mosque" (Al-Masjid Al-Haram) is in Mecca, while the "farthest Mosque" (Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa) is in Jerusalem.  Whenever the "Sacred Mosque" is mentioned, the context always shows that it is referring to the Kaaba in Mecca.  For example, in reference to a peace treaty the Muslims had made with the pagans of Arabia, the Quran states:

"How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous."


How much more clearer can it be?  What sane person would claim that the Quran was referring to Jerusalem in this case, especially since the Muslims had not yet been in Jerusalem yet and would not be until the reign of Umar Ibn Al-Khattab when he captured the city from the Byzantines?

Greetings islamispeace,

So, your statements were curious to me for several reasons, so I wanted to look up the surah's you quoted to see what time period they came from, and I found this very interesting article.

As I stated, I only originally found it quite odd that the qur'an never says Mecca but referred to a place called Becca.
This article I found explains a lot in that regard, but that is not how I found it.
I was looking for 'qur'an pre-Meccan' when I found the article.

What I found curious about the reply I have quoted above is the reference, purportedly by the qur'an, to a 'sacred mosque' and a 'farthest mosque', and I couldn't help thinking,
How can the qur'an be referring to mosques when no mosques were even built before Muhammad introduced his religion?
so I wanted to know what time period the surah's were revealed, and they were all (17:1, 9:7, 48:24) prior to the year 620 a.d. of Yshwe.  Two of them as early as Medina.


So here is some of what I found in the article:  http://www.academia.edu/1776803/The_Mecca_Question

The reference in the qur'an is to a 'valley of bekkah' meaning 'valley of the one who weeps much'... or as I tend to think of it, because I think I have heard it from muslims before... the valley of weeping, or tears.

Mecca is only mentioned in surah 48... and the fact that it is mentioned as Mecca, not becca, I think would distinguish the fact that it is referring to a separate place... or a change has been made.

Also, apparently Muhammad first had his followers praying in the direction of Syria, and all the evidence supports the first holy place for muslims as Petra.

from the article:
"Surprising as it may seem, not one map before 900 AD even mentions Mecca.
It is also commonly accepted that Mecca was not just a major city, but it was the focus of pilgrimages in Arabia long before the rise of Islam. While there is little evidence of an early shrine at Mecca, Gibson points out that every historian of Arabia knows that pilgrimages were always made to the Nabataean city of Petra, which was known as the original haram or forbidden area of Ara-bia where killing was not allowed."

I quoted this last part because it supports a thing you have told to me...
the place where killing is not allowed.

9:7  "How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous."

asalaam,
CH

It should also be pointed out that the article you quoted makes the following claim but does not elaborate further:

"Gibson points out that every historian of Arabia knows that pilgrimages were always made to the Nabataean city of Petra, which was known as the original haram or forbidden area of Ara-bia where killing was not allowed."


Which historians state this?  The article does not specify.  Hmmm....

Greetings islamispeace,

Did you take the time to read at the address which I provided?

asalaam,
CH


-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 13 October 2014 at 11:07am
Greetings islamispeace,

The explanations, at the links you provide, are really reaching if you ask me.
The qur'an would have stated 'to the Holy place Jerusalem' if that was what was meant, but it says 'farthest mosque'.  I believe a more likely explanation is that the word mosque(perhaps even the whole thing) is an addition of man when the qur'an was being compiled.
Why not just use the word masjid(place of prostration) if that was what allah meant?  Isn't that what allah would have said?

The best evidence to me is this;

    "On the famous place where once stood the temple, the Saracens worship at a square house of prayer, which they have built with little art, of boards and large beams on the remains of some ruins..."

but this was noticed, or observed to exist, some 40 years after the death of Muhammad.  We do not know of how many years it had been in existence prior.

Creswell states:
    ... their [i.e., Muslims'] architectural resources, before they started in their career of conquest, were barely enough to give expression to their needs. In other words Arabia constituted an almost perfect architectural vacuum... The first mosques in the great hiras, or half nomadic encampments of the conquest, such as Basra, Kufa and Fustat, were primitive in the extreme, and in Syria the first mosques were churches that had been converted or merely divided: In fact there is no reason for believing that any mosque was built as such in Syria until the time of al-Walid (705-15) or possibly `Abd al-Malik (685-705), for over a generation the Arabs remained quite untouched by any architectural ambitions...

It is worth noting that the Prophet disliked extravagance and impressive architecture in buildings, especially mosques. The relative simplicity of early mosques is in fact a historical example of how the Prophet's Companions diligently followed his wishes. This is true to a greater extent even today.
----------------
 
and Ah yes, Psalm 84, the valley of Baca, the valley of weeping, or tears...
that is where I had heard of that.  (and it would seem to me also where Muhammad had heard of it)
The valley of Baca, or valley of weeping is a metaphorical reference to the suffering of this world... it is about the safety of seeking the Lord and dwelling with Him as your strength and guide to get us through the sorrows.  The Psalms are poetry... poetic.
The 'valley of Baca' is not about an actual geographic place (though Muhammad may have thought it was)
'How amiable are thy tabernacles, and safe is the place of dwelling with You'

Psalm 84
How amiable are thy tabernacles, O Lord of hosts!

My soul longeth, yea, even fainteth for the courts of the Lord: my heart and my flesh crieth out for the living God.

Yea, the sparrow hath found an house, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she may lay her young, even thine altars, O Lord of hosts, my King, and my God.

Blessed are they that dwell in thy house: they will be still praising thee. Selah.

Blessed is the man whose strength is in thee; in whose heart are the ways of them.

Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools.

They go from strength to strength, every one of them in Zion appeareth before God.

O Lord God of hosts, hear my prayer: give ear, O God of Jacob. Selah.

Behold, O God our shield, and look upon the face of thine anointed.

10 For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness.

11 For the Lord God is a sun and shield: the Lord will give grace and glory: no good thing will he withhold from them that walk uprightly.

12 O Lord of hosts, blessed is the man that trusteth in thee.

asalaam,
CH

for further clarity:

Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools.

who passing through the valley of sorrows(of this life) fill it with their tears...



-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 13 October 2014 at 1:32pm
Originally posted by Caringheart

Originally posted by islamispeace

Originally posted by Caringheart

Originally posted by islamispeace


As I already, your the one who is confused.  The Quran is actually very clear in differentiating between Jerusalem and Mecca.  When referring to the Isra of the Prophet from Mecca to Jerusalem, the Quran stated:

"Glory to (Allah) Who did take His servant for a Journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the farthest Mosque, whose precincts We did bless,- in order that We might show him some of Our Signs: for He is the One Who heareth and seeth (all things)."

The "Sacred Mosque" (Al-Masjid Al-Haram) is in Mecca, while the "farthest Mosque" (Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa) is in Jerusalem.  Whenever the "Sacred Mosque" is mentioned, the context always shows that it is referring to the Kaaba in Mecca.  For example, in reference to a peace treaty the Muslims had made with the pagans of Arabia, the Quran states:

"How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous."


How much more clearer can it be?  What sane person would claim that the Quran was referring to Jerusalem in this case, especially since the Muslims had not yet been in Jerusalem yet and would not be until the reign of Umar Ibn Al-Khattab when he captured the city from the Byzantines?

Greetings islamispeace,

So, your statements were curious to me for several reasons, so I wanted to look up the surah's you quoted to see what time period they came from, and I found this very interesting article.

As I stated, I only originally found it quite odd that the qur'an never says Mecca but referred to a place called Becca.
This article I found explains a lot in that regard, but that is not how I found it.
I was looking for 'qur'an pre-Meccan' when I found the article.

What I found curious about the reply I have quoted above is the reference, purportedly by the qur'an, to a 'sacred mosque' and a 'farthest mosque', and I couldn't help thinking,
How can the qur'an be referring to mosques when no mosques were even built before Muhammad introduced his religion?
so I wanted to know what time period the surah's were revealed, and they were all (17:1, 9:7, 48:24) prior to the year 620 a.d. of Yshwe.  Two of them as early as Medina.


So here is some of what I found in the article:  http://www.academia.edu/1776803/The_Mecca_Question

The reference in the qur'an is to a 'valley of bekkah' meaning 'valley of the one who weeps much'... or as I tend to think of it, because I think I have heard it from muslims before... the valley of weeping, or tears.

Mecca is only mentioned in surah 48... and the fact that it is mentioned as Mecca, not becca, I think would distinguish the fact that it is referring to a separate place... or a change has been made.

Also, apparently Muhammad first had his followers praying in the direction of Syria, and all the evidence supports the first holy place for muslims as Petra.

from the article:
"Surprising as it may seem, not one map before 900 AD even mentions Mecca.
It is also commonly accepted that Mecca was not just a major city, but it was the focus of pilgrimages in Arabia long before the rise of Islam. While there is little evidence of an early shrine at Mecca, Gibson points out that every historian of Arabia knows that pilgrimages were always made to the Nabataean city of Petra, which was known as the original haram or forbidden area of Ara-bia where killing was not allowed."

I quoted this last part because it supports a thing you have told to me...
the place where killing is not allowed.

9:7  "How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous."

asalaam,
CH

It should also be pointed out that the article you quoted makes the following claim but does not elaborate further:

"Gibson points out that every historian of Arabia knows that pilgrimages were always made to the Nabataean city of Petra, which was known as the original haram or forbidden area of Ara-bia where killing was not allowed."


Which historians state this?  The article does not specify.  Hmmm....

Greetings islamispeace,

Did you take the time to read at the address which I provided?

asalaam,
CH


The article does not specify which historians say this.  It just summarizes Gibson's claims. 


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 13 October 2014 at 1:39pm
Originally posted by Caringheart

Greetings islamispeace,

The explanations, at the links you provide, are really reaching if you ask me.
The qur'an would have stated 'to the Holy place Jerusalem' if that was what was meant, but it says 'farthest mosque'.  I believe a more likely explanation is that the word mosque(perhaps even the whole thing) is an addition of man when the qur'an was being compiled.
Why not just use the word masjid(place of prostration) if that was what allah meant?  Isn't that what allah would have said?

The best evidence to me is this;

    "On the famous place where once stood the temple, the Saracens worship at a square house of prayer, which they have built with little art, of boards and large beams on the remains of some ruins..."

but this was noticed, or observed to exist, some 40 years after the death of Muhammad.  We do not know of how many years it had been in existence prior.

Creswell states:
    ... their [i.e., Muslims'] architectural resources, before they started in their career of conquest, were barely enough to give expression to their needs. In other words Arabia constituted an almost perfect architectural vacuum... The first mosques in the great hiras, or half nomadic encampments of the conquest, such as Basra, Kufa and Fustat, were primitive in the extreme, and in Syria the first mosques were churches that had been converted or merely divided: In fact there is no reason for believing that any mosque was built as such in Syria until the time of al-Walid (705-15) or possibly `Abd al-Malik (685-705), for over a generation the Arabs remained quite untouched by any architectural ambitions...

It is worth noting that the Prophet disliked extravagance and impressive architecture in buildings, especially mosques. The relative simplicity of early mosques is in fact a historical example of how the Prophet's Companions diligently followed his wishes. This is true to a greater extent even today.
----------------
 
and Ah yes, Psalm 84, the valley of Baca, the valley of weeping, or tears...
that is where I had heard of that.  (and it would seem to me also where Muhammad had heard of it)
The valley of Baca, or valley of weeping is a metaphorical reference to the suffering of this world... it is about the safety of seeking the Lord and dwelling with Him as your strength and guide to get us through the sorrows.  The Psalms are poetry... poetic.
The 'valley of Baca' is not about an actual geographic place (though Muhammad may have thought it was)
'How amiable are thy tabernacles, and safe is the place of dwelling with You'

Psalm 84
How amiable are thy tabernacles, O Lord of hosts!

My soul longeth, yea, even fainteth for the courts of the Lord: my heart and my flesh crieth out for the living God.

Yea, the sparrow hath found an house, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she may lay her young, even thine altars, O Lord of hosts, my King, and my God.

Blessed are they that dwell in thy house: they will be still praising thee. Selah.

Blessed is the man whose strength is in thee; in whose heart are the ways of them.

Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools.

They go from strength to strength, every one of them in Zion appeareth before God.

O Lord God of hosts, hear my prayer: give ear, O God of Jacob. Selah.

Behold, O God our shield, and look upon the face of thine anointed.

10 For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness.

11 For the Lord God is a sun and shield: the Lord will give grace and glory: no good thing will he withhold from them that walk uprightly.

12 O Lord of hosts, blessed is the man that trusteth in thee.

asalaam,
CH

for further clarity:

Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools.

who passing through the valley of sorrows(of this life) fill it with their tears...



LOL Talk about "reaching"...  That's all you are doing.  No evidence, just assumptions. 

As the Islamic-Awareness article shows, the Kaaba was known hundreds of years before the advent of Islam as a place of worship and pilgrimage.


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 13 October 2014 at 10:42pm
"Over the years Gibson has gathered copies of many ancient maps of Arabia and has diligently translated and transcribed them, but never once is Mecca mentioned.

Added to this the Qur'an and the hadiths clearly speak of Mecca being in a valley, and as having another smaller valley or stream next to the Ka’ba. This is quite different from modern day Mecca which has been occasionally flooded with spring runoff but contains no stream.
Over the years Gibson has spoken to pilgrims coming from Mecca. Some of them have been vaguely dissatisfied with the geography around Mecca."


"The Islamic historian Al-Tabari, writing in 900 AD
notes that during the days before Islam, there were two pilgrimages. The lesser was known as ’umrah.
He notes that ’Abd al-Muttalib (Muhammad’s grandfather) performed
’umrah on one occasion. This was at a time when the forbidden sanctuary in the Islamic Holy City held many pagan idols, among them Hubal and Isaf and Na’ilah. The Qur'an tells us that these pre-Islamic pagan pilgrimages were known respectively as hajj and ’umrah, commonly called the greater and lesser pilgrimage. These names continued from pre-Islamic times into the Islamic era and are the terms used today for the two yearly Islamic pilgrimages.  Gibson, however, points out that from ancient time the Arabian pilgrimage was always to the religious center of Arabia, the forbidden sanctuary, the holy burial city of Petra. It was in this city that the Nabataean Arab dead were buried, and it was in this city that the living gathered to eat a ritual meal with their extended family in the presence of their long departed ancestors. This custom was part of the cultural and ethnic make-up of the Nabataeans, and was the glue that held them, a nomadic merchant people, together as a society.  In Petra today visitors can see the feasting halls that are attached to many of the tombs where family gatherings celebrated the living and the dead."


"Besides providing us with over a dozen literary proofs that point to Petra as being the Holy City of Mecca, Gibson also provides seventeen historical proofs."

I guess you would have to read the book.


-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 14 October 2014 at 6:33am
Originally posted by Caringheart

"Over the years Gibson has gathered copies of many ancient maps of Arabia and has diligently translated and transcribed them, but never once is Mecca mentioned.

Added to this the Qur'an and the hadiths clearly speak of Mecca being in a valley, and as having another smaller valley or stream next to the Ka’ba. This is quite different from modern day Mecca which has been occasionally flooded with spring runoff but contains no stream.
Over the years Gibson has spoken to pilgrims coming from Mecca. Some of them have been vaguely dissatisfied with the geography around Mecca."


"The Islamic historian Al-Tabari, writing in 900 AD
notes that during the days before Islam, there were two pilgrimages. The lesser was known as ’umrah.
He notes that ’Abd al-Muttalib (Muhammad’s grandfather) performed
’umrah on one occasion. This was at a time when the forbidden sanctuary in the Islamic Holy City held many pagan idols, among them Hubal and Isaf and Na’ilah. The Qur'an tells us that these pre-Islamic pagan pilgrimages were known respectively as hajj and ’umrah, commonly called the greater and lesser pilgrimage. These names continued from pre-Islamic times into the Islamic era and are the terms used today for the two yearly Islamic pilgrimages.  Gibson, however, points out that from ancient time the Arabian pilgrimage was always to the religious center of Arabia, the forbidden sanctuary, the holy burial city of Petra. It was in this city that the Nabataean Arab dead were buried, and it was in this city that the living gathered to eat a ritual meal with their extended family in the presence of their long departed ancestors. This custom was part of the cultural and ethnic make-up of the Nabataeans, and was the glue that held them, a nomadic merchant people, together as a society.  In Petra today visitors can see the feasting halls that are attached to many of the tombs where family gatherings celebrated the living and the dead."


"Besides providing us with over a dozen literary proofs that point to Petra as being the Holy City of Mecca, Gibson also provides seventeen historical proofs."

I guess you would have to read the book.


I repeat...which "historians" believe this?  And who is this "Dan Gibson" anyway?  The paper says he is a "Canadian historian". For that matter, who is "Jeremy Smyth"?

While there are many flaws in Gibson's theory, I think the most obvious one is that if Petra was the "original" holy city of Islam, then why don't we have any Islamic inscriptions and other archaeological artifacts in Petra?  Why, instead, do we have overwhelming archaeological evidence in Mecca? 


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 14 October 2014 at 11:05am
Originally posted by islamispeace

Originally posted by Caringheart

"Over the years Gibson has gathered copies of many ancient maps of Arabia and has diligently translated and transcribed them, but never once is Mecca mentioned.

Added to this the Qur'an and the hadiths clearly speak of Mecca being in a valley, and as having another smaller valley or stream next to the Ka’ba. This is quite different from modern day Mecca which has been occasionally flooded with spring runoff but contains no stream.
Over the years Gibson has spoken to pilgrims coming from Mecca. Some of them have been vaguely dissatisfied with the geography around Mecca."


"The Islamic historian Al-Tabari, writing in 900 AD
notes that during the days before Islam, there were two pilgrimages. The lesser was known as ’umrah.
He notes that ’Abd al-Muttalib (Muhammad’s grandfather) performed
’umrah on one occasion. This was at a time when the forbidden sanctuary in the Islamic Holy City held many pagan idols, among them Hubal and Isaf and Na’ilah. The Qur'an tells us that these pre-Islamic pagan pilgrimages were known respectively as hajj and ’umrah, commonly called the greater and lesser pilgrimage. These names continued from pre-Islamic times into the Islamic era and are the terms used today for the two yearly Islamic pilgrimages.  Gibson, however, points out that from ancient time the Arabian pilgrimage was always to the religious center of Arabia, the forbidden sanctuary, the holy burial city of Petra. It was in this city that the Nabataean Arab dead were buried, and it was in this city that the living gathered to eat a ritual meal with their extended family in the presence of their long departed ancestors. This custom was part of the cultural and ethnic make-up of the Nabataeans, and was the glue that held them, a nomadic merchant people, together as a society.  In Petra today visitors can see the feasting halls that are attached to many of the tombs where family gatherings celebrated the living and the dead."


"Besides providing us with over a dozen literary proofs that point to Petra as being the Holy City of Mecca, Gibson also provides seventeen historical proofs."

I guess you would have to read the book.


I repeat...which "historians" believe this?  And who is this "Dan Gibson" anyway?  The paper says he is a "Canadian historian". For that matter, who is "Jeremy Smyth"?

While there are many flaws in Gibson's theory, I think the most obvious one is that if Petra was the "original" holy city of Islam, then why don't we have any Islamic inscriptions and other archaeological artifacts in Petra?  Why, instead, do we have overwhelming archaeological evidence in Mecca? 

Greetings islamispeace,

Regarding your last question, that I boldened,
that is covered in the article as well... and in very thorough fashion I might add.

asalaam,
CH



-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 14 October 2014 at 11:34am
Originally posted by Caringheart

Originally posted by islamispeace

Originally posted by Caringheart

"Over the years Gibson has gathered copies of many ancient maps of Arabia and has diligently translated and transcribed them, but never once is Mecca mentioned.

Added to this the Qur'an and the hadiths clearly speak of Mecca being in a valley, and as having another smaller valley or stream next to the Ka’ba. This is quite different from modern day Mecca which has been occasionally flooded with spring runoff but contains no stream.
Over the years Gibson has spoken to pilgrims coming from Mecca. Some of them have been vaguely dissatisfied with the geography around Mecca."


"The Islamic historian Al-Tabari, writing in 900 AD
notes that during the days before Islam, there were two pilgrimages. The lesser was known as ’umrah.
He notes that ’Abd al-Muttalib (Muhammad’s grandfather) performed
’umrah on one occasion. This was at a time when the forbidden sanctuary in the Islamic Holy City held many pagan idols, among them Hubal and Isaf and Na’ilah. The Qur'an tells us that these pre-Islamic pagan pilgrimages were known respectively as hajj and ’umrah, commonly called the greater and lesser pilgrimage. These names continued from pre-Islamic times into the Islamic era and are the terms used today for the two yearly Islamic pilgrimages.  Gibson, however, points out that from ancient time the Arabian pilgrimage was always to the religious center of Arabia, the forbidden sanctuary, the holy burial city of Petra. It was in this city that the Nabataean Arab dead were buried, and it was in this city that the living gathered to eat a ritual meal with their extended family in the presence of their long departed ancestors. This custom was part of the cultural and ethnic make-up of the Nabataeans, and was the glue that held them, a nomadic merchant people, together as a society.  In Petra today visitors can see the feasting halls that are attached to many of the tombs where family gatherings celebrated the living and the dead."


"Besides providing us with over a dozen literary proofs that point to Petra as being the Holy City of Mecca, Gibson also provides seventeen historical proofs."

I guess you would have to read the book.


I repeat...which "historians" believe this?  And who is this "Dan Gibson" anyway?  The paper says he is a "Canadian historian". For that matter, who is "Jeremy Smyth"?

While there are many flaws in Gibson's theory, I think the most obvious one is that if Petra was the "original" holy city of Islam, then why don't we have any Islamic inscriptions and other archaeological artifacts in Petra?  Why, instead, do we have overwhelming archaeological evidence in Mecca? 

Greetings islamispeace,

Regarding your last question, that I boldened,
that is covered in the article as well... and in very thorough fashion I might add.

asalaam,
CH



Um no, it doesn't.  It makes several claims but with very shaky evidence. 

If Petra was the "holy city" of Islam, there should be a large number of early Islamic inscriptions and artifacts, like we have in Mecca.  Instead, Petra has mostly Nabataean inscriptions.  Some later Islamic inscriptions have been found from the 2nd century AH.  In contrast, 1st century AH inscriptions of the Quran have been found in Mecca.  Why would this be so if Petra was the holy city of Islam and not Mecca?  Shouldn't the opposite be true?  Shouldn't we have earlier inscriptions in Petra and later ones in Mecca? 


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 14 October 2014 at 12:29pm
I found this just now:

http://www.academia.edu/1391820/Early_Islamic_Inscriptions_from_Danqur_al-Khaznah_at_Petra - http://www.academia.edu/1391820/Early_Islamic_Inscriptions_from_Danqur_al-Khaznah_at_Petra

"To conclude, judging from the clues attested in the historical chronicles as well as the nature andamount of archaeological remains in the area, it isevident that Islamic occupation at Petra was very limited and Petra throughout the Islamic periods‘‘had long been what it is today; a field of ruinslargely buried beneath drifts of sand’’ (Simms &Russell 1996: 27)."


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 14 October 2014 at 12:31pm
Originally posted by islamispeace


If Petra was the "holy city" of Islam, there should be a large number of early Islamic inscriptions and artifacts, like we have in Mecca.  Instead, Petra has mostly Nabataean inscriptions.  Some later Islamic inscriptions have been found from the 2nd century AH.  In contrast, 1st century AH inscriptions of the Quran have been found in Mecca.  Why would this be so if Petra was the holy city of Islam and not Mecca?  Shouldn't the opposite be true?  Shouldn't we have earlier inscriptions in Petra and later ones in Mecca? 

Greetings islamispeace,

Are you referring to books? writings?  because this was covered in detail,
summarized as follows:
One can only surmise that the city of Petra is today bereft of all inscriptions because of the actions of zealous Muslims during Yazid’s reign. 
In the end, the only book to survive in Arabia was the Glorious Qur'an.
Everywhere the muslims conquered, books, writings, were destroyed...
in Persia, Egypt, India...
the evidence is there that Petra was a holy place of worship, as I layed out in my previous reply to you.  The archaeological evidence is there.

Have you completely ignored the archaeological evidence?

asalaam,
CH

Note:  I'm curious, where do you come up with your evidence of artifacts in Mecca?



-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 14 October 2014 at 12:38pm
Originally posted by islamispeace

I found this just now:

http://www.academia.edu/1391820/Early_Islamic_Inscriptions_from_Danqur_al-Khaznah_at_Petra - http://www.academia.edu/1391820/Early_Islamic_Inscriptions_from_Danqur_al-Khaznah_at_Petra

"To conclude, judging from the clues attested in the historical chronicles as well as the nature andamount of archaeological remains in the area, it isevident that Islamic occupation at Petra was very limited and Petra throughout the Islamic periods‘‘had long been what it is today; a field of ruinslargely buried beneath drifts of sand’’ (Simms &Russell 1996: 27)."

Thank you.  I'll take a look.
asalaam,
CH


-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 14 October 2014 at 12:59pm
Originally posted by Caringheart

Originally posted by islamispeace


If Petra was the "holy city" of Islam, there should be a large number of early Islamic inscriptions and artifacts, like we have in Mecca.  Instead, Petra has mostly Nabataean inscriptions.  Some later Islamic inscriptions have been found from the 2nd century AH.  In contrast, 1st century AH inscriptions of the Quran have been found in Mecca.  Why would this be so if Petra was the holy city of Islam and not Mecca?  Shouldn't the opposite be true?  Shouldn't we have earlier inscriptions in Petra and later ones in Mecca? 

Greetings islamispeace,

Are you referring to books? writings?  because this was covered in detail,
summarized as follows:
One can only surmise that the city of Petra is today bereft of all inscriptions because of the actions of zealous Muslims during Yazid’s reign. 
In the end, the only book to survive in Arabia was the Glorious Qur'an.
Everywhere the muslims conquered, books, writings, were destroyed...
in Persia, Egypt, India...
the evidence is there that Petra was a holy place of worship, as I layed out in my previous reply to you.  The archaeological evidence is there.

Have you completely ignored the archaeological evidence?

asalaam,
CH

Note:  I'm curious, where do you come up with your evidence of artifacts in Mecca?



LOL What a load of garbage.  He knows that there is no evidence, so he assumes that there must have been a conspiracy by "zealous" Muslims to destroy any evidence.  How scholarly of him!

There are plenty of inscriptions throughout Arabia, both pre-Islamic and Islamic.  The Islamic inscriptions attest to the Muslim presence and the importance of Mecca to Islam.  Here is a list:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/ - http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/

That's the trouble with Google scholars such as yourself.  You sit at your computer, searching for random articles written by random people and with hardly any effort at honest research. 


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 14 October 2014 at 12:59pm
Originally posted by Caringheart

Originally posted by islamispeace

I found this just now:

http://www.academia.edu/1391820/Early_Islamic_Inscriptions_from_Danqur_al-Khaznah_at_Petra - http://www.academia.edu/1391820/Early_Islamic_Inscriptions_from_Danqur_al-Khaznah_at_Petra

"To conclude, judging from the clues attested in the historical chronicles as well as the nature andamount of archaeological remains in the area, it isevident that Islamic occupation at Petra was very limited and Petra throughout the Islamic periods‘‘had long been what it is today; a field of ruinslargely buried beneath drifts of sand’’ (Simms &Russell 1996: 27)."

Thank you.  I'll take a look.
asalaam,
CH


You do that.


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 14 October 2014 at 2:31pm
Greetings islamispeace...

You, dear sir, do not read.  You refuse to read or process from anything other than your own biased sources.
islamic-awareness.org ? really?  How unbiased is that?  Don't they start with a premise... with an agenda of proving a point? 
Whereas the article and book which I have presented resulted purely from exploration with no pre-conceived agenda, just interest.

I'll read your latest, at islamic-awareness, also, because I believe in looking at, and trying to see both sides of any issue, (but truly who is it that has, and had, to gain from distorting, hiding, and/or changing, the truth?)

I just wish people could learn to 'tell it like it is' and 'let the chips fall where they may'.  But that is why I always look at both islamic and non-islamic recordings and look for the truth in the middle.

asalaam,
CH


-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 14 October 2014 at 2:56pm
Originally posted by islamispeace


If Petra was the "holy city" of Islam, there should be a large number of early Islamic inscriptions and artifacts, like we have in Mecca.  Instead, Petra has mostly Nabataean inscriptions.  Some later Islamic inscriptions have been found from the 2nd century AH.  In contrast, 1st century AH inscriptions of the Quran have been found in Mecca.  Why would this be so if Petra was the holy city of Islam and not Mecca?  Shouldn't the opposite be true?  Shouldn't we have earlier inscriptions in Petra and later ones in Mecca? 

Greetings islamispeace,

Did you read this:

The pre-Islamic Arabic is often referred to as the "Old Arabic" by scholars. The most obvious characteristic of the Old Arabic is the use of the definite article ʾl-, the precursor of classical Arabic ʾal-. Old Arabic seems to have remained a purely spoken language until the late fifth / early sixth centuries CE which means that no specific script was associated with it before that period. Thus, on the rare occasions when it was written, the script associated with the local language of prestige was used: South Arabian in the southern half of the Peninsula; Nabataean at Ḥijr, ʿEn ʿAvdat in the Negev, and at al-Namarah; a form of eastern Aramaic at Mleiha on the Oman Peninsula; and early Arabic, mainly in Syria.

The Arabic script originated from the Nabataean script. T. Nöldeke was the first to establish the link between the Nabataean and Arabic scripts in 1865, which later confirmed against J. Starcky's Syriac thesis by Grohmann. The affiliation between Nabataean and Arabic scripts has now been fully documented by J. Healey. Following are the example of some of the inscriptions written in Old Arabic.



-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 14 October 2014 at 2:59pm
Originally posted by Caringheart

Greetings islamispeace...

You, dear sir, do not read.  You refuse to read or process from anything other than your own biased sources.
islamic-awareness.org ? really?  How unbiased is that?  Don't they start with a premise... with an agenda of proving a point? 
Whereas the article and book which I have presented resulted purely from exploration with no pre-conceived agenda, just interest.

I'll read your latest, at islamic-awareness, also, because I believe in looking at, and trying to see both sides of any issue, (but truly who is it that has, and had, to gain from distorting, hiding, and/or changing, the truth?)

I just wish people could learn to 'tell it like it is' and 'let the chips fall where they may'.  But that is why I always look at both islamic and non-islamic recordings and look for the truth in the middle.

asalaam,
CH


LOL You, dear lady, are a troll who sits at her computer doing Google searches instead of actual research.  In one such search, you found the article from one "Jeremy Smyth" which purports to present evidence from one "Dan Gibson" which contradicts the established history regarding Mecca's place in Islam.  Unfortunately, the "evidence" is flimsy at best.  Case in point: Gibson realizes that the archaeological evidence simply does not prove that Petra was the original Islamic "holy city", so naturally he assumes that the big, bad Muslims must have destroyed it as part of a conspiracy.  The rest of his "evidence" is based on leaps of faith.  He merely makes suggestions based on his presumption that Petra was the Muslim place of pilgrimage.  For example, we already dealt with the ridiculous claim that many early mosques did not face Mecca.  The articles from Islamic-Awareness completely refuted this claim.

Another flimsy argument is regarding the pagan Meccans' ability to raise large armies against the Muslims.  Gibson alleges that this meant that Mecca had to be a large city.  Naturally, he assumes that it must have been Petra that was the source of the large armies.  Unfortunately for Gibson, as is widely known in scholarly circles, Petra had been in a state of decline and decay since Roman times.  It had reached its zenith hundreds of years before the coming of Islam.  Even at this time, its http://www.livescience.com/23168-petra.html - population never reached more than 20,000 people!  So how exactly would Petra have been the source of the armies mentioned in the Islamic sources?       


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 14 October 2014 at 3:01pm
Originally posted by Caringheart

Originally posted by islamispeace


If Petra was the "holy city" of Islam, there should be a large number of early Islamic inscriptions and artifacts, like we have in Mecca.  Instead, Petra has mostly Nabataean inscriptions.  Some later Islamic inscriptions have been found from the 2nd century AH.  In contrast, 1st century AH inscriptions of the Quran have been found in Mecca.  Why would this be so if Petra was the holy city of Islam and not Mecca?  Shouldn't the opposite be true?  Shouldn't we have earlier inscriptions in Petra and later ones in Mecca? 

Greetings islamispeace,

Did you read this:

The pre-Islamic Arabic is often referred to as the "Old Arabic" by scholars. The most obvious characteristic of the Old Arabic is the use of the definite article ʾl-, the precursor of classical Arabic ʾal-. Old Arabic seems to have remained a purely spoken language until the late fifth / early sixth centuries CE which means that no specific script was associated with it before that period. Thus, on the rare occasions when it was written, the script associated with the local language of prestige was used: South Arabian in the southern half of the Peninsula; Nabataean at Ḥijr, ʿEn ʿAvdat in the Negev, and at al-Namarah; a form of eastern Aramaic at Mleiha on the Oman Peninsula; and early Arabic, mainly in Syria.

The Arabic script originated from the Nabataean script. T. Nöldeke was the first to establish the link between the Nabataean and Arabic scripts in 1865, which later confirmed against J. Starcky's Syriac thesis by Grohmann. The affiliation between Nabataean and Arabic scripts has now been fully documented by J. Healey. Following are the example of some of the inscriptions written in Old Arabic.



So what?  How does this establish that Petra was the original "holy city" of Islam?  Are you "reaching" again?


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 14 October 2014 at 8:09pm
Originally posted by islamispeace

Originally posted by Caringheart

Originally posted by islamispeace


If Petra was the "holy city" of Islam, there should be a large number of early Islamic inscriptions and artifacts, like we have in Mecca.  Instead, Petra has mostly Nabataean inscriptions.  Some later Islamic inscriptions have been found from the 2nd century AH.  In contrast, 1st century AH inscriptions of the Quran have been found in Mecca.  Why would this be so if Petra was the holy city of Islam and not Mecca?  Shouldn't the opposite be true?  Shouldn't we have earlier inscriptions in Petra and later ones in Mecca? 

Greetings islamispeace,

Did you read this:

The pre-Islamic Arabic is often referred to as the "Old Arabic" by scholars. The most obvious characteristic of the Old Arabic is the use of the definite article ʾl-, the precursor of classical Arabic ʾal-. Old Arabic seems to have remained a purely spoken language until the late fifth / early sixth centuries CE which means that no specific script was associated with it before that period. Thus, on the rare occasions when it was written, the script associated with the local language of prestige was used: South Arabian in the southern half of the Peninsula; Nabataean at Ḥijr, ʿEn ʿAvdat in the Negev, and at al-Namarah; a form of eastern Aramaic at Mleiha on the Oman Peninsula; and early Arabic, mainly in Syria.

The Arabic script originated from the Nabataean script. T. Nöldeke was the first to establish the link between the Nabataean and Arabic scripts in 1865, which later confirmed against J. Starcky's Syriac thesis by Grohmann. The affiliation between Nabataean and Arabic scripts has now been fully documented by J. Healey. Following are the example of some of the inscriptions written in Old Arabic.


So what?  How does this establish that Petra was the original "holy city" of Islam?  Are you "reaching" again?

Greetings islamispeace,

I was just replying to your questions, not trying to 'establish' anything. Smile

asalaam,
CH


-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 14 October 2014 at 8:24pm
Originally posted by islamispeace

Originally posted by Caringheart

Greetings islamispeace...

You, dear sir, do not read.  You refuse to read or process from anything other than your own biased sources.
islamic-awareness.org ? really?  How unbiased is that?  Don't they start with a premise... with an agenda of proving a point? 
Whereas the article and book which I have presented resulted purely from exploration with no pre-conceived agenda, just interest.

I'll read your latest, at islamic-awareness, also, because I believe in looking at, and trying to see both sides of any issue, (but truly who is it that has, and had, to gain from distorting, hiding, and/or changing, the truth?)

I just wish people could learn to 'tell it like it is' and 'let the chips fall where they may'.  But that is why I always look at both islamic and non-islamic recordings and look for the truth in the middle.

asalaam,
CH

You, dear lady, are a troll who sits at her computer doing Google searches instead of actual research.  In one such search, you found the article from one "Jeremy Smyth" which purports to present evidence from one "Dan Gibson" which contradicts the established history regarding Mecca's place in Islam.  Unfortunately, the "evidence" is flimsy at best.  Case in point: Gibson realizes that the archaeological evidence simply does not prove that Petra was the original Islamic "holy city", so naturally he assumes that the big, bad Muslims must have destroyed it as part of a conspiracy.  The rest of his "evidence" is based on leaps of faith.  He merely makes suggestions based on his presumption that Petra was the Muslim place of pilgrimage.  For example, we already dealt with the ridiculous claim that many early mosques did not face Mecca.  The articles from Islamic-Awareness completely refuted this claim.

Another flimsy argument is regarding the pagan Meccans' ability to raise large armies against the Muslims.  Gibson alleges that this meant that Mecca had to be a large city.  Naturally, he assumes that it must have been Petra that was the source of the large armies.  Unfortunately for Gibson, as is widely known in scholarly circles, Petra had been in a state of decline and decay since Roman times.  It had reached its zenith hundreds of years before the coming of Islam.  Even at this time, its http://www.livescience.com/23168-petra.html - population never reached more than 20,000 people!  So how exactly would Petra have been the source of the armies mentioned in the Islamic sources?       

Greetings islamispeace,

No articles I looked at that you shared gave any information regarding the direction of qibla.
Gibson's evidence is compelling.
'Flimsy arguments'... is in 'your' opinion.


Now, the point about Petra being in decline is well taken and I will have to look into that.

"as Palmyra (fl. 130–270) grew in importance and attracted the Arabian trade away from Petra, the latter declined. It seems, however, to have lingered on as a religious centre. "
" the Arabs conquered the region in 663. "

I don't know what to make of all that.
Perhaps it is because it was in decline that Muhammad was able to prevail?
and yet the notation, if it is correct, is that the 'arabs did not conquer the region until 663'... some 30 years after Muhammad's death.


This is what I found disturbing, if it is true, and worthy of further study also;
"A Roman road was constructed at the site. Epiphanius of Salamis (c.315–403) writes that in his time a feast was held there on December 25 in honor of the virgin Khaabou (Chaabou) and her offspring Dushara (Haer. 51).[citation needed]"
I wonder if this was a pagan feast, or a Christian feast.


I've spent some time and have found this;

Some writers have estimated that Petra might have had a population of 20,000 to 30,000 inhabitants. Interestingly enough, few academic sources substantiate these figures. (originally derived by a journalist). There was a limited amount of room within http://nabataea.net/pwalls.html - Petra's city walls. If we calculated, say, 10 people to a household, this would come to at least 2000 large houses. The problem with this is that there was very little room within the city proper for private housing. The great majority all of the buildings uncovered to date have been public buildings. As an example, consider the market places. For years, part of Petra was deemed as having upper, middle, and lower marketplaces. When archaeologists decided to excavate the lower market in 1998, they discovered a series of public pools, gardens, and waterworks.

Most archeologists, however, now believe that Petra was a large, urban center. The http://nabataea.net/scrolls.html - Petra Scrolls clearly tell us of the crowded living conditions within the city during the Byzantine era, but little is known of Petra during its purely Nabataean days from around 60 BC to 200 AD.

As the Nabataeans were a nomadic people who traditionally lived in tents, it is assumed that for the first several hundred years of their occupation of the http://nabataea.net/InnerK3a.GIF - Inner Kingdom that they lived in tents, and did not erect stone houses. This is true in most of the Nabataean cities. It is only during the latter part of the Nabataean kingdom that suddenly the Nabataeans began constructing houses, and then they were often of incredible size, varying from 600 to 2000 square meters.


and it looks like a whole lot of good information here:
http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Joukowsky_Institute/Petra/


I think the Nabataeans make a fascinating study if I had more time.

asalaam,

CH




-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 14 October 2014 at 8:53pm
Originally posted by Caringheart

Originally posted by islamispeace

Originally posted by Caringheart

Greetings islamispeace...

You, dear sir, do not read.  You refuse to read or process from anything other than your own biased sources.
islamic-awareness.org ? really?  How unbiased is that?  Don't they start with a premise... with an agenda of proving a point? 
Whereas the article and book which I have presented resulted purely from exploration with no pre-conceived agenda, just interest.

I'll read your latest, at islamic-awareness, also, because I believe in looking at, and trying to see both sides of any issue, (but truly who is it that has, and had, to gain from distorting, hiding, and/or changing, the truth?)

I just wish people could learn to 'tell it like it is' and 'let the chips fall where they may'.  But that is why I always look at both islamic and non-islamic recordings and look for the truth in the middle.

asalaam,
CH

You, dear lady, are a troll who sits at her computer doing Google searches instead of actual research.  In one such search, you found the article from one "Jeremy Smyth" which purports to present evidence from one "Dan Gibson" which contradicts the established history regarding Mecca's place in Islam.  Unfortunately, the "evidence" is flimsy at best.  Case in point: Gibson realizes that the archaeological evidence simply does not prove that Petra was the original Islamic "holy city", so naturally he assumes that the big, bad Muslims must have destroyed it as part of a conspiracy.  The rest of his "evidence" is based on leaps of faith.  He merely makes suggestions based on his presumption that Petra was the Muslim place of pilgrimage.  For example, we already dealt with the ridiculous claim that many early mosques did not face Mecca.  The articles from Islamic-Awareness completely refuted this claim.

Another flimsy argument is regarding the pagan Meccans' ability to raise large armies against the Muslims.  Gibson alleges that this meant that Mecca had to be a large city.  Naturally, he assumes that it must have been Petra that was the source of the large armies.  Unfortunately for Gibson, as is widely known in scholarly circles, Petra had been in a state of decline and decay since Roman times.  It had reached its zenith hundreds of years before the coming of Islam.  Even at this time, its http://www.livescience.com/23168-petra.html - population never reached more than 20,000 people!  So how exactly would Petra have been the source of the armies mentioned in the Islamic sources?       

Greetings islamispeace,

No articles I looked at that you shared gave any information regarding the direction of qibla.
Gibson's evidence is compelling.
'Flimsy arguments'... is in 'your' opinion.


Now, the point about Petra being in decline is well taken and I will have to look into that.

"as Palmyra (fl. 130–270) grew in importance and attracted the Arabian trade away from Petra, the latter declined. It seems, however, to have lingered on as a religious centre. "
" the Arabs conquered the region in 663. "

I don't know what to make of all that.
Perhaps it is because it was in decline that Muhammad was able to prevail?
and yet the notation, if it is correct, is that the 'arabs did not conquer the region until 663'... some 30 years after Muhammad's death.


This is what I found disturbing, if it is true, and worthy of further study also;
"A Roman road was constructed at the site. Epiphanius of Salamis (c.315–403) writes that in his time a feast was held there on December 25 in honor of the virgin Khaabou (Chaabou) and her offspring Dushara (Haer. 51).[citation needed]"
I wonder if this was a pagan feast, or a Christian feast.


I've spent some time and have found this;

Some writers have estimated that Petra might have had a population of 20,000 to 30,000 inhabitants. Interestingly enough, few academic sources substantiate these figures. (originally derived by a journalist). There was a limited amount of room within http://nabataea.net/pwalls.html - Petra's city walls. If we calculated, say, 10 people to a household, this would come to at least 2000 large houses. The problem with this is that there was very little room within the city proper for private housing. The great majority all of the buildings uncovered to date have been public buildings. As an example, consider the market places. For years, part of Petra was deemed as having upper, middle, and lower marketplaces. When archaeologists decided to excavate the lower market in 1998, they discovered a series of public pools, gardens, and waterworks.

Most archeologists, however, now believe that Petra was a large, urban center. The http://nabataea.net/scrolls.html - Petra Scrolls clearly tell us of the crowded living conditions within the city during the Byzantine era, but little is known of Petra during its purely Nabataean days from around 60 BC to 200 AD.

As the Nabataeans were a nomadic people who traditionally lived in tents, it is assumed that for the first several hundred years of their occupation of the http://nabataea.net/InnerK3a.GIF - Inner Kingdom that they lived in tents, and did not erect stone houses. This is true in most of the Nabataean cities. It is only during the latter part of the Nabataean kingdom that suddenly the Nabataeans began constructing houses, and then they were often of incredible size, varying from 600 to 2000 square meters.


and it looks like a whole lot of good information here:
http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Joukowsky_Institute/Petra/


I think the Nabataeans make a fascinating study if I had more time.

asalaam,

CH




LOL You can continue to deceive yourself and believe whatever you want.  The fact is that Gibson has only his own theories and nothing else.  No serious scholar believes that Petra was the original "holy city" of Islam. 

Now, you quoted Wikipedia in reference to Petra's decline (and didn't provide a link, as per your usual habit Wink), but that was with regard Roman times.  In the next section, the article discusses Petra in the Byzantine era and it only proves further that Petra could not possibly have been a large, religious center.  You only quoted a portion of that:

"Petra declined rapidly under Roman rule, in large part from the revision of sea-based trade routes. In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilee_earthquake_of_363 - 363 an earthquake destroyed many buildings, and crippled the vital water management system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petra#cite_note-16 - [16] The last inhabitants abandoned the city (further weakened by another major earthquake in 551) when the Arabs conquered the region in 663."

One finds it hard to believe that this city would have maintained a large population and served as a major religious center with all these problems.   
Also, if Petra was supposed to be the "holy city" of Islam, why did the Arabs only manage to conquer the region by 663?  If it was so important, wouldn't they have captured in much earlier?  In fact, Gibson insists that the Islamic sources only make sense if they were talking about Petra instead of Mecca.  The conquest of Mecca is supposed to have happened in the year 630, so if the Islamic sources were actually referring to Petra, then it should have been conquered in 630, not 663.  We can see Gibson's theory beginning to crack. 


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 14 October 2014 at 10:01pm
Originally posted by islamispeace

Originally posted by Caringheart


Greetings islamispeace,

No articles I looked at that you shared gave any information regarding the direction of qibla.
Gibson's evidence is compelling.
'Flimsy arguments'... is in 'your' opinion.


Now, the point about Petra being in decline is well taken and I will have to look into that.

"as Palmyra (fl. 130–270) grew in importance and attracted the Arabian trade away from Petra, the latter declined. It seems, however, to have lingered on as a religious centre. "
" the Arabs conquered the region in 663. "

I don't know what to make of all that.
Perhaps it is because it was in decline that Muhammad was able to prevail?
and yet the notation, if it is correct, is that the 'arabs did not conquer the region until 663'... some 30 years after Muhammad's death.


This is what I found disturbing, if it is true, and worthy of further study also;
"A Roman road was constructed at the site. Epiphanius of Salamis (c.315–403) writes that in his time a feast was held there on December 25 in honor of the virgin Khaabou (Chaabou) and her offspring Dushara (Haer. 51).[citation needed]"
I wonder if this was a pagan feast, or a Christian feast.


I've spent some time and have found this;

Some writers have estimated that Petra might have had a population of 20,000 to 30,000 inhabitants. Interestingly enough, few academic sources substantiate these figures. (originally derived by a journalist). There was a limited amount of room within http://nabataea.net/pwalls.html - Petra's city walls. If we calculated, say, 10 people to a household, this would come to at least 2000 large houses. The problem with this is that there was very little room within the city proper for private housing. The great majority all of the buildings uncovered to date have been public buildings. As an example, consider the market places. For years, part of Petra was deemed as having upper, middle, and lower marketplaces. When archaeologists decided to excavate the lower market in 1998, they discovered a series of public pools, gardens, and waterworks.

Most archeologists, however, now believe that Petra was a large, urban center. The http://nabataea.net/scrolls.html - Petra Scrolls clearly tell us of the crowded living conditions within the city during the Byzantine era, but little is known of Petra during its purely Nabataean days from around 60 BC to 200 AD.

As the Nabataeans were a nomadic people who traditionally lived in tents, it is assumed that for the first several hundred years of their occupation of the http://nabataea.net/InnerK3a.GIF - Inner Kingdom that they lived in tents, and did not erect stone houses. This is true in most of the Nabataean cities. It is only during the latter part of the Nabataean kingdom that suddenly the Nabataeans began constructing houses, and then they were often of incredible size, varying from 600 to 2000 square meters.


and it looks like a whole lot of good information here:
http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Joukowsky_Institute/Petra/


I think the Nabataeans make a fascinating study if I had more time.

asalaam,

CH


You can continue to deceive yourself and believe whatever you want.  The fact is that Gibson has only his own theories and nothing else.  No serious scholar believes that Petra was the original "holy city" of Islam. 


Greetings islamispeace,

You obviously did not take any time for serious scholarly study of the links I provided.  I say obviously because I literally spent hours reading through them before replying to you.  Please go and do some reading.

Originally posted by islamispeace


 In the next section, the article discusses Petra in the Byzantine era and it only proves further that Petra could not possibly have been a large, religious center.

You clearly did not read, even what I boldened in my reply above.

Originally posted by islamispeace


Now, you quoted Wikipedia in reference to Petra's decline (and didn't provide a link, as per your usual habit Wink),

that's because I know that you are perfectly capable of doing your own research and I believe it is better that way. Smile

Originally posted by islamispeace


 if Petra was supposed to be the "holy city" of Islam, why did the Arabs only manage to conquer the region by 663?  If it was so important, wouldn't they have captured in much earlier?  In fact, Gibson insists that the Islamic sources only make sense if they were talking about Petra instead of Mecca.  The conquest of Mecca is supposed to have happened in the year 630, so if the Islamic sources were actually referring to Petra, then it should have been conquered in 630, not 663.

Yes, did you not understand that I concur that there is a difficulty here?  Why do you have to be so combative.  Ouch

Peace,
Caringheart




-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 15 October 2014 at 7:57am
Originally posted by caringheart

Greetings islamispeace,

You obviously did not take any time for serious scholarly study of the links I provided.  I say obviously because I literally spent hours reading through them before replying to you.  Please go and do some reading.


Sure, sure.  I don't count Wikipedia and your regular Google searches as "serious scholarly study".  You haven't presented one scholarly work that corroborates Gibson's theory.  Show me which scholars believe that Petra was the original "holy city" of Islam.  I have a feeling you will not find many, if any at all.

Originally posted by caringheart

You clearly did not read, even what I boldened in my reply above.


You have yet to present any conclusive evidence that Petra was a populous city.  Your vague appeal to the Petra scrolls doesn't prove anything.  What exactly does "crowded living conditions" mean?  How many people were living in Petra at the time?  And given the damage and decline the city had suffered over the course of a few centuries, would the city have remained such an influential city as it had been during Roman times?

Originally posted by caringheart

that's because I know that you are perfectly capable of doing your own research and I believe it is better that way. Smile


Or because you were trying to hide certain information. Wink

Originally posted by caringheart

Yes, did you not understand that I concur that there is a difficulty here?  Why do you have to be so combative.  Ouch


LOL You "concurred" that there was a "difficulty" but at the same time, you have insisted that "Gibson's evidence is compelling".  Go figure...

Here is another "difficulty" with Gibson's theory.  In his attempt to confirm that Mecca was not the original pilgrimage site of Islam, he appealed to the Qarmatian insurgency.  He claims that the Qarmatians believed that the "pilgrimage to Mecca was all wrong".  Naturally, the assumption he is making is that the Qarmatians believed that the "correct" pilgrimage site was Petra.  Yet, as usual, Gibson is simply manipulating the evidence to serve his preconceived notion.  The fact is that while the Qarmatians were definitely against the pilgrimage to Mecca, it had nothing to do with Petra.  In fact, the Qarmatians opposed many aspects of Islam.  As Islamic scholar Jonathan Brown states:

"Identifying their own local, true, returned imam, whom they considered to be God incarnate, they declared the age of religious law terminated.  Between 912 and 951, these communities of Qarmatians, as they were known, banned Islam's daily prayers, destroyed mosques in eastern Arabia, ate pork and drank wine openly in daylight during Ramadan.  They repeatedly robbed and slaughtered caravans of pilgrims headed to Hajj and, in 930, they committed the unprecedented abomination of sacking the holy sanctuary of Mecca as pilgrims performed their Hajj, massacring countless innocents" ("Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenge and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet's Legacy", p. 174).

Notice that there is no mention of Petra.  In fact, the Qarmatians controlled Bahrain and parts of eastern Arabia, and were situated nowhere near Petra.  It was never even on their minds.  The Qarmatians were an apocalyptic cult who believed that a new age had dawned and thus they opposed standard Islamic practices like the daily prayers, fasting and the Hajj and massacred anyone who resisted.  Brown mentions that they even desecrated pages of the Holy Quran.  They were, in short, violent heretics who posed a grave threat to Islamic culture.   


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 15 October 2014 at 8:30am
Here is yet another "difficulty" with Gibson's theories.  This one is regarding the Battle of Medina, also known as the Battle of the Trench.  As Jeremy Smyth summarizes:

"Gibson goes on to demonstrate that Petra is north of Medina and Mecca is to the south. He then points out that during the Battle of Medina, the Quraysh armies from Mecca always attacked Medina from the north, and during the Battle of the Trench, Medina was defended by a trench between two mountains on the north side of the city."

So again, Gibson is naturally assuming that the pagan armies must have been coming from Petra.  Case closed, right?  Well, no.  There is actually a very simple reason why the Quraysh would have attacked from the north.  As James Wynbrandt states in his book "A Brief History of Saudi Arabia":

"At the suggestion of a Persian who knew about defensive fortifications used in other lands, Muhammad had a trench and earthworks dug across the northern approach to the city, which was surrounded by mountains on the other three sides.  Unable to breach the earthworks, the Meccans laid siege to Medina, a campaign subsequently known as the Battle of the Trench" (p. 43).

So, due to the natural fortifications on the southern, eastern and western sides of Medina, the only side that was vulnerable to an attack was the northern side.  Even with a large army, the Meccans could do nothing against the mountains surrounding the other sides of the city.  That is why they attacked from the north and that is why Muslim armies always marched from the north.

And by the way, the reason the Meccan army was so large (10,000 strong) was because they had recruited fighters from across Arabia.  That is why they were known as the "confederates".


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 15 October 2014 at 11:37am
Originally posted by islamispeace

Here is yet another "difficulty" with Gibson's theories.  This one is regarding the Battle of Medina, also known as the Battle of the Trench.  As Jeremy Smyth summarizes:

"Gibson goes on to demonstrate that Petra is north of Medina and Mecca is to the south. He then points out that during the Battle of Medina, the Quraysh armies from Mecca always attacked Medina from the north, and during the Battle of the Trench, Medina was defended by a trench between two mountains on the north side of the city."

Greetings islamispeace,
I wonder, have you looked at the photo's of Petra?  Just asking, because again, it is compelling evidence for Petra.

Originally posted by islamispeace


So again, Gibson is naturally assuming that the pagan armies must have been coming from Petra.  Case closed, right?  Well, no.  There is actually a very simple reason why the Quraysh would have attacked from the north.  As James Wynbrandt states in his book "A Brief History of Saudi Arabia":

"At the suggestion of a Persian who knew about defensive fortifications used in other lands, Muhammad had a trench and earthworks dug across the northern approach to the city, which was surrounded by mountains on the other three sides.  Unable to breach the earthworks, the Meccans laid siege to Medina, a campaign subsequently known as the Battle of the Trench" (p. 43).


This doesn't make sense to me because on the one hand it says that they 'could not breach the trench', yet they 'laid siege to Medina'?

Originally posted by islamispeace


And by the way, the reason the Meccan army was so large (10,000 strong) was because they had recruited fighters from across Arabia.  That is why they were known as the "confederates".

Do you suppose that would really be true?  That men would come from far and wide to fight for the Quraiysh and go to Medina(Yathrib) to fight against Muhammad?
I'm not so convinced of this.  I can see the men of the local town where pilgrimage is made, fighting to preserve their town and their economy(i.e., the pilgrimages to the Holy place).

Just some thoughts,
CH


-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 15 October 2014 at 11:42am
Greetings islamispeace,

Your complaints about sources are tired, old, tiresome, and also laughable. Smile  Why waste time on such things.
Are you going to say that you do not use search engines to find your information?  No I'm sure you have the Library of all libraries at your disposal, right?  Which you wander through daily, finding all the information you need in the blink of an eye.  (anyway, I am venturing towards sarcasm which I do not like, so my apologies, and I will move on)

I have already shared with you this;
Some writers have estimated that Petra might have had a population of 20,000 to 30,000 inhabitants. Interestingly enough, few academic sources substantiate these figures. (originally derived by a journalist).
I have already shared with you that Gibson gives a reasonable explanation for it.

and I have also shared with you this;
Most archeologists, however, now believe that Petra was a large, urban center. The Petra Scrolls clearly tell us of the crowded living conditions within the city during the Byzantine era, but little is known of Petra during its purely Nabataean days from around 60 BC to 200 AD.
which includes the link to read about the Petra scrolls.
and also talks about how the Nabataeans were more likely to dwell in tents than buildings, meaning great numbers could have lived there, and apparently did as indicated by the public buildings.  Public buildings and pools would be of no use unless there was a bustling, thriving community there.

Did you do any reading at the Brown.edu link?  There was a wealth of information there to sift through.  I don't really see why you have the need to keep replying to me.  Just go read.

I do find Gibson's evidence compelling but I also find this one conundrum which may be explained at some time in the future but now remains a mystery.

Regarding the Qarmatians, you are quite right.  Gibson may be seeing through the lens of his own prejudice, as is common to most everyone.  We are shaped by how, and where, we are raised, and what we learn as we grow.  These things will always have an influence on us, unless a thing can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.  We are gong to believe what fits most comfortably with our own minds and life experience.
As I said earlier, you can not say that the islamic sources did not have reason to write things so to fit their own narrative.
All we can do is weigh things in the balance and come to our own conclusions... right and wrong. Smile

asalaam and blessings to you,
CH


-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 15 October 2014 at 12:00pm
Originally posted by caringheart

Greetings islamispeace,
I wonder, have you looked at the photo's of Petra?  Just asking, because again, it is compelling evidence for Petra.


You're going in circles.  You only see what you want to see, not what is actually there. 

Gibson insists that the fact that the Meccans had to attack from the north, which was also where the Muslims dug the trench, somehow implies that the attackers were from Petra, not Mecca.  The target was Medina, but Gibson believes that the attackers were from Petra.  What does he base this on?  Well, because Petra is to the north of Medina, so naturally the attackers must have come from there!  Talk about reaching!

Originally posted by caringheart

This doesn't make sense to me because on the one hand it says that they 'could not breach the trench', yet they 'laid siege to Medina'?


Of course, it "doesn't make sense" to you.  You refuse to see the facts.  You want Gibson's theory to be true. 

Do you not know what a "siege" is?  It is when an enemy force surrounds a city and launches attacks to try to gain entrance.  Why do you think medieval castles had moats?

Originally posted by caringheart

Do you suppose that would really be true?  That men would come from far and wide to fight for the Quraiysh and go to Medina(Yathrib) to fight against Muhammad?
I'm not so convinced of this.  I can see the men of the local town where pilgrimage is made, fighting to preserve their town and their economy(i.e., the pilgrimages to the Holy place).


Why not?  You are not "convinced" (as if I really cared) because it would completely refute Gibson's theory, right? Wink


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 15 October 2014 at 12:16pm
Originally posted by Caringheart

Greetings islamispeace,

Your complaints about sources are tired, old, tiresome, and also laughable. Smile  Why waste time on such things.
Are you going to say that you do not use search engines to find your information?  No I'm sure you have the Library of all libraries at your disposal, right?  Which you wander through daily, finding all the information you need in the blink of an eye.  (anyway, I am venturing towards sarcasm which I do not like, so my apologies, and I will move on)

I have already shared with you this;
Some writers have estimated that Petra might have had a population of 20,000 to 30,000 inhabitants. Interestingly enough, few academic sources substantiate these figures. (originally derived by a journalist).
I have already shared with you that Gibson gives a reasonable explanation for it.

and I have also shared with you this;
Most archeologists, however, now believe that Petra was a large, urban center. The Petra Scrolls clearly tell us of the crowded living conditions within the city during the Byzantine era, but little is known of Petra during its purely Nabataean days from around 60 BC to 200 AD.
which includes the link to read about the Petra scrolls.
and also talks about how the Nabataeans were more likely to dwell in tents than buildings, meaning great numbers could have lived there, and apparently did as indicated by the public buildings.  Public buildings and pools would be of no use unless there was a bustling, thriving community there.

Did you do any reading at the Brown.edu link?  There was a wealth of information there to sift through.  I don't really see why you have the need to keep replying to me.  Just go read.

I do find Gibson's evidence compelling but I also find this one conundrum which may be explained at some time in the future but now remains a mystery.

Regarding the Qarmatians, you are quite right.  Gibson may be seeing through the lens of his own prejudice, as is common to most everyone.  We are shaped by how, and where, we are raised, and what we learn as we grow.  These things will always have an influence on us, unless a thing can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.  We are gong to believe what fits most comfortably with our own minds and life experience.
As I said earlier, you can not say that the islamic sources did not have reason to write things so to fit their own narrative.
All we can do is weigh things in the balance and come to our own conclusions... right and wrong. Smile

asalaam and blessings to you,
CH


LOL You're still not answering my question.  Instead, you only offer vague references to Petra's "crowded" and "bustling" community. 

Here is a question for you.  If Petra was indeed the original "holy city" of Islam, and if the Islamic sources have been "edited" to remove any mention of it (obviously a leap of faith by Gibson), then why don't non-Muslim sources say anything about the Muslim pilgrimage to Petra?  Instead, why do the sources which have anything to say about Islam or Muslims (such as Jacob of Edessa) never mention Petra?


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 15 October 2014 at 3:34pm


the passage that leads to Petra


-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 15 October 2014 at 3:52pm
Originally posted by islamispeace


Here is a question for you.  If Petra was indeed the original "holy city" of Islam, and if the Islamic sources have been "edited" to remove any mention of it (obviously a leap of faith by Gibson), then why don't non-Muslim sources say anything about the Muslim pilgrimage to Petra?  Instead, why do the sources which have anything to say about Islam or Muslims (such as Jacob of Edessa) never mention Petra?

Greetings islamispeace,

As the original article I cited says;
During his study of Islamic literature, Gibson noted that mention of the city of Petra was missing in all early Islamic literature. Since the Petra scrolls create an overwhelming picture of Petra as a viable city with a functioning hinterland throughout the sixth century, why is there no mention of Petra in any early Islamic literature? There are records of people passing through the region and armies marching through this area, but Petra is never mentioned. At the very same time, non-Islamic literature mentions Petra, but never Mecca. There is no mention of Mecca in any literature until 740 AD when it frst appears in the Continuatio Byzantia Arabica.

While the non-islamic sources are not listed in this article, it does say;
This book contains many references, as well as some useful appendices including a 32 page timeline of Islamic history from 550AD - 1095AD, and a 20 page annotated selected bibliography of early Islamic sources in chronological order from 724AD - 1100AD plus a list of many early Qur'anic manuscripts.  Over 470 pages, with index.
As I said in my post on Oct. 13th... I guess you would need to read the book. Smile

asalaam,
CH


-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 15 October 2014 at 4:00pm
I'm suddenly put in mind of a line I heard in a movie trailer once......

"What if everything you've ever believed was based on a lie?"

Wish I knew what movie it came from. Smile


-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 15 October 2014 at 7:26pm
Originally posted by Caringheart



the passage that leads to Petra


And your point...?

Are you getting confused?  Are you trying to establish the similarity between Petra and Medina by any chance?  Are you reaching again?

But wait.  I though Gibson believed that Petra was the original "holy place" of Islam, instead of Mecca?  What does Medina have to do with it?  Didn't Gibson claim that because Petra is to the north of Medina and Mecca is to the south, it somehow proves that the Muslims had fled from Petra and not Mecca?  Wasn't he saying that Petra was the source of the large armies that battled the Muslims at Medina?

You are confused, aren't you?  Big%20smile   


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 15 October 2014 at 7:36pm
Originally posted by Caringheart

Originally posted by islamispeace


Here is a question for you.  If Petra was indeed the original "holy city" of Islam, and if the Islamic sources have been "edited" to remove any mention of it (obviously a leap of faith by Gibson), then why don't non-Muslim sources say anything about the Muslim pilgrimage to Petra?  Instead, why do the sources which have anything to say about Islam or Muslims (such as Jacob of Edessa) never mention Petra?

Greetings islamispeace,

As the original article I cited says;
During his study of Islamic literature, Gibson noted that mention of the city of Petra was missing in all early Islamic literature. Since the Petra scrolls create an overwhelming picture of Petra as a viable city with a functioning hinterland throughout the sixth century, why is there no mention of Petra in any early Islamic literature? There are records of people passing through the region and armies marching through this area, but Petra is never mentioned. At the very same time, non-Islamic literature mentions Petra, but never Mecca. There is no mention of Mecca in any literature until 740 AD when it frst appears in the Continuatio Byzantia Arabica.

While the non-islamic sources are not listed in this article, it does say;
This book contains many references, as well as some useful appendices including a 32 page timeline of Islamic history from 550AD - 1095AD, and a 20 page annotated selected bibliography of early Islamic sources in chronological order from 724AD - 1100AD plus a list of many early Qur'anic manuscripts.  Over 470 pages, with index.
As I said in my post on Oct. 13th... I guess you would need to read the book. Smile

asalaam,
CH


Learn how to read, dear.  I asked why non-Muslim sources don't say anything about the Muslim pilgrimage to Petra.  I don't doubt that they mention Petra.  But do they mention that the Muslims performed pilgrimages to Petra? 

Another thing that amazes me that you haven't even bothered to check whether Gibson's claims are even true.  You assume that "this book contains many references" etc., etc., but you haven't bothered to check any of the claims made.  You just take it on faith.  How objective of you!

On the other hand, I have actually bothered to check Gibson's claims, and as I have shown, he has not presented any conclusive evidence, only his own imaginative revision of the historical evidence.  It's like something a five-year old might say: Petra is to the north of Medina.  The pagans attacked Medina from the north.  Therefore, Petra must have been the original "holy place" of Islam!  Wow! 


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 15 October 2014 at 7:37pm
Originally posted by Caringheart

I'm suddenly put in mind of a line I heard in a movie trailer once......

"What if everything you've ever believed was based on a lie?"

Wish I knew what movie it came from. Smile


I don't know, but it must have been about Christianity! LOL


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 15 October 2014 at 7:39pm
Originally posted by islamispeace

Originally posted by Caringheart



the passage that leads to Petra


And your point...?

Are you getting confused?  Are you trying to establish the similarity between Petra and Medina by any chance?  Are you reaching again?

But wait.  I though Gibson believed that Petra was the original "holy place" of Islam, instead of Mecca?  What does Medina have to do with it?  Didn't Gibson claim that because Petra is to the north of Medina and Mecca is to the south, it somehow proves that the Muslims had fled from Petra and not Mecca?  Wasn't he saying that Petra was the source of the large armies that battled the Muslims at Medina?

You are confused, aren't you?  Big%20smile   


Another thing about this...

Armies just love going into narrow, winding passages, eh?  Wink


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 15 October 2014 at 8:06pm
While most people will never read the original academic study, it is hoped that through this review, you will be introduced to the study, and better understand what academics and Muslim scholars are wrestling with.  

Dan Gibson, the author of Qur'anic Geography is a Canadian historian who has spent a life-time studying the history of the Arabian peninsula. He is the author of a dozen books, including The Nabataeans, Builders of Petra, as well as many papers and articles. He may be reached through the forum at www.searchfor-mecca.com

While Muslims are adamant that Mecca was the center of the trade route, modern historians give us a different picture. Dr. Patricia Crone tells us:
“Mecca was a barren place, and barren places do not make natural halts, and least of all when they are found at a short distance from famously green environments. Why should caravans have made a steep descent to the barren lands of  Mecca when they could have stopped at Ta’if?

If the Holy City was such a large city, then it is strange that the name Mecca is missing on early maps.  One would expect that a major merchant city in Arabia would be mentioned in early times. Such maps never claimed to show every village and settlement, but certainly sought to place signifcant and famous cities.
... not one map before 900 AD even mentions Mecca.  Not until 300 years after Muhammad’s death does Mecca appear on any map.



-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 15 October 2014 at 8:08pm
Greetings islamispeace,

"The Holy City is described as being surrounded by mountains where people could look down into the city to see the Yemeni elephant attacking the Ka’ba."

So were you mistaken in thinking it was Medina that is surrounded by mountains?  Medina is also a Holy city to muslims, is it not?

Did you take the time to read at the address which I provided?
So here is some of what I found in the article:  http://www.academia.edu/1776803/The_Mecca_Question

at any of the addresses I provided?
http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Joukowsky_Institute/Petra/

I also asked;
Note:  I'm curious, where do you come up with your evidence of artifacts in Mecca?
Has any archaealogical evidence ever been turned up in Mecca?


Shukran and salaam,
CH



-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 15 October 2014 at 8:09pm
Originally posted by islamispeace

Originally posted by Caringheart

I'm suddenly put in mind of a line I heard in a movie trailer once......

"What if everything you've ever believed was based on a lie?"

Wish I knew what movie it came from. Smile

I don't know, but it must have been about Christianity

It is true... it is a statement which could be made of any religion.

asalaam,
CH


-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 15 October 2014 at 8:47pm
Originally posted by Caringheart

While most people will never read the original academic study, it is hoped that through this review, you will be introduced to the study, and better understand what academics and Muslim scholars are wrestling with.  

Dan Gibson, the author of Qur'anic Geography is a Canadian historian who has spent a life-time studying the history of the Arabian peninsula. He is the author of a dozen books, including The Nabataeans, Builders of Petra, as well as many papers and articles. He may be reached through the forum at www.searchfor-mecca.com

While Muslims are adamant that Mecca was the center of the trade route, modern historians give us a different picture. Dr. Patricia Crone tells us:
“Mecca was a barren place, and barren places do not make natural halts, and least of all when they are found at a short distance from famously green environments. Why should caravans have made a steep descent to the barren lands of  Mecca when they could have stopped at Ta’if?

If the Holy City was such a large city, then it is strange that the name Mecca is missing on early maps.  One would expect that a major merchant city in Arabia would be mentioned in early times. Such maps never claimed to show every village and settlement, but certainly sought to place signifcant and famous cities.
... not one map before 900 AD even mentions Mecca.  Not until 300 years after Muhammad’s death does Mecca appear on any map.



People who do actual research would know that plenty of scholars have criticized Crone' revisionist claims.  For example, Mikhail Bukharin writes:

"Crone's work has been subjected to a careful analysis by R.B. Serjeant, who has concentrated primarily on the Arabic sources.  Serjeant's starting-point is the fact that the valley of Mecca had been settled by Qusayy in spite of its lack of natural resources, and that the Meccans had been consequently forced to import their foodstuffs, i.e. to engage in long-distance caravan trade.  They therefore had to have some kind of income, and pilgrimage to the Meccan sanctuary must have involved trading.  Serjeant points out that Yemen and Syria were the most important suppliers of Mecca with grain" ("The Qur'an in Context: Historical and Literary Investigations into the Qur'anic Milieu", p. 116).   




-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 15 October 2014 at 9:11pm
Originally posted by caringheart

"The Holy City is described as being surrounded by mountains where people could look down into the city to see the Yemeni elephant attacking the Ka’ba."

So were you mistaken in thinking it was Medina that is surrounded by mountains?  Medina is also a Holy city to muslims, is it not?


So you are confused!  Gibson insists that Petra was the site of the Muslim pilgrimage, instead of Mecca not Medina!  Medina is not part of the Hajj. 

Now, Medina was surrounded on three sides by mountains, which is why the Meccan had to attack from the north, and which is why the Muslims dug the trench there. 

By the way, http://www.ahlanpk.org/trip212.jpg - Mt. Abu Qubais is very close to the Kaaba, and it would have been easy to see what was going on when Abraha's army was attacking Mecca. 

Originally posted by carignheart

I also asked;
Note:  I'm curious, where do you come up with your evidence of artifacts in Mecca?
Has any archaealogical evidence ever been turned up in Mecca?



As I already said, there is evidence of Mecca's importance to Islam, as can be seen in inscriptions of the Quran.  Did you look at the link I provided?


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 16 October 2014 at 7:06am
Originally posted by islamispeace

By the way, http://www.ahlanpk.org/trip212.jpg - Mt. Abu Qubais is very close to the Kaaba, and it would have been easy to see what was going on when Abraha's army was attacking Mecca. 


Some more info on Mt. Abu Qubais in Mecca.  Muhammad Asad, a Jewish convert to Islam, wrote:

"To the north of the Holy City rises Mount Abu Qubays, the center of many ancient legends and traditions.  From its summit, crowned by a small, whitewashed mosque with two low minarets, there is a wonderful view down into in the valley of Mecca with the square of the mosque of the Kaaba at its bottom..." ("The Road to Mecca", p. 312)


-------------
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)



Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 21 January 2015 at 6:28pm
Originally posted by Caringheart


Also, apparently Muhammad first had his followers praying in the direction of Syria, and all the evidence supports the first holy place for muslims as Petra.

So tonight I was doing some studying and I learn that Hagar and Ishmael were known to have settled in the wilderness of Paran... in Jordan...
and this previous research jumped to my mind... about the original qibla being to the north...
Jordan... to the north...
Petra... in Jordan...
the wilderness of Paran... in Jordan
This fits with the areas Abraham was known, according to archaeology, to have traveled.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0015_0_15406.html

Hagar and Ishmael are even said to have attended the funeral of Abraham.




-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever
"I believe in Jesus as I believe in the sun... not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.: - C.S.Lewis



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums version 8.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2006 Web Wiz Guide - http://www.webwizguide.info