Author Topic: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.  (Read 22750 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« on: November 05, 2017, 11:58:04 AM »
Peace,

Firstly, I encourage you to consider the presented evidence dispassionately. It is only recently that Islam has undergone serious historical scrutiny, due to obvious reasons. This scrutiny is much like the scrutiny Christianity and the Bible has gone through: it is objective, academic, and honest. And soon enough, you won't be able to dodge/censor it.

Note: I would also like to remind you that the Quran is the truth, from your God and preserved. Therefore, dishonest censorships will be punished accordingly by God, should you choose to partake in these deceptive practices whilst having full control over your mental faculties. You have been warned.

Below I put the key evidences in bold as they generally have least/no alternative interpretations:

- There is no archaeological evidence that Mecca existed until 150 years after Muhammad's death. This is peculiar given Arabia's dry, preserving climate (every archaelogists dream come true), and by comparative/contrasting histories.
- Makkah as "Mother of All Cities" ( i.e. a major trading city), a term used explicitly in the Quran at 42:7, is not sustainable historically, but fits Petra perfectly,
- Makkah was never a major city on a caravan route whereas Petra was both (how can Mecca be a huge trading hub is it's not even on the trading route?)
- Makkah is not found on any map until 900 CE, 300 years after Muḥammad’s birth
- Makkah does not have a distinct valley or substantial mountains (part of the Qur’anic concept of the holy site) yet Petra has both
- Pilgrimages were traditionally made to Petra from across the Arab region from ancient times
- There is substrantial literary evidence for the existence of neighboring kingdoms e.g. Yemen - detailing even the names of kings spanning many generations - going back 1700 years. Yet Mecca's supposed early existence has no literary evidence,
- The Jews have no record of Ibrāhīm in Makkah, or even of journeying anywhere near it
- All the earliest mosques for which we have evidence of orientation in the first 100 years from the Qur’anic revelation point towards Petra (over the next 100 years there is confusion: 12% towards Petra, 50% towards Makkah and 38% follow parallel orientations)
- It is only 200 years after the Qur’anic revelation that all mosques are built facing Makkah
- Stone boards for games of chance such as those mentioned in the Qur’an have been found at Petra, never at Makkah
- Extensive evidence exists over this period for pilgrimages to Petra from Yemen but none for Makkah
- During the civil war with Ibn Zubayr (64AH, 683 CE) the Syrian army attacked the holy city with trebuchet stones; there is no evidence of trebuchet stones at Makkah whereas hundreds exist in Petra, due to Mecca's barren archaeology,
- Physical statues depicting Allat, Uzza and Manat (Nabatean God's mentioned inside the Qiran explicitly) are found in Petra, whereas Mecca has barren archaeology as repeatedly stated.


This is taken from Dan Gibson's book with a few of my own embellishments. I removed some evidences for Petra, as I wanted to focus on Mecca, given how impactful this city is on your world view. You can watch his documentary on Amazon prime, or you pay for it (it will eventually be free though, when the filmmakers make their money back).

The evidence is clear, Mecca is a relatively recent city in historical terms. It did not exist during Muhannad's time and any attempt to prove otherwise will be met with double-think, similar to the Christian's obviously false trinity, a testament to the cacophony that is Christian apologetics today.

I am afraid I cannot link other sites because I am restricted by the moderators highly cultic and humorous forum rules  :-X.

[Screenshots have been taken, and I will defame this site on other sites e.g. key anti-Islam sites, if there is any unrighteous censorship] Someone will inevitably view this thread, and if it gets deleted then you know the true nature of the moderators.

Offline QuranSearchCom

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Islam is the Divine Truth!
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #1 on: November 05, 2017, 12:44:03 PM »
I gave detailed rebuttal to the points above and to the youtube video at:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php/topic,2911.msg13880.html#msg13880



Quote
Makkah is not found on any map until 900 CE, 300 years after Muḥammad’s birth

How silly can one be.  There is detailed history in the Islamic and Arab writings that point to specific locations about events and people that took place and existed in Mecca and near by places, and battles that took place in Arabia, and tribes that were fought, and tribes that embraced Islam, and how the Arabs after that became all Muslims and fought the Romans and the Persians.  All of this doesn't mean anything, and the real Islam happened in Petra, Jordan?

I've heard similar nonsense from shias on YouTube.  Heretic cults don't have a leg to stand on.  They just spew lies.  It's funny how your theory suggests that the people of Northern Arabia (Jordan and all surrounding lands) and central and southern Arabia are just all plain stupid for messing up Islam by inventing Mecca in Saudi Arabia when it actually was in Petra?  They forgot their history and eliminated it entirely from Petra and put it in the invented city of Mecca?  And then attributed all of the history from

1-  Geographical locations.
2-  Battles.
3-  Tribes.
4-  How Islam started and systematically expanded from Mecca to all of Arabia and the rest of the world.

They messed up all of that, because it was all in Petra and all of its surrounding lands and people, but somehow it all got falsely transferred to Mecca nearly 1000 miles south of Petra?

Do you see how stupid you sound?



The reason for the Hate:

To the reader, the reason for this stupidity is very simple.  Islam came to then nomadic desert "nobodies" (very despised people by the then nearby empires).  Islam crushed under its feet the following empires.  It brought to extinction:

1-  Persia.
2-  Byzantine.
3-  Coptics.

Islam also took the majority of the lands of the Roman empire.  We also had Spain for 800 years.


This is where all of the hate comes from.  The infidels from these NOW-MUSLIM-MAJORITY LANDS (with the exception of Spain) are having heart attacks because their pagan civilizations were replaced with Islam, and their people are mostly all Muslims now.


You find this hatred also with the Hindus because we converted almost half of their people to Islam.  And some of their lands seceded from India and became independent Muslim States; one is even a powerful nuclear one.  Pakistan.




Mecca is Baca:

The following links give proofs that ancient writings did recognize Mecca as Baca (Becca, Bacca):

http://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php/topic,2254.msg10005.html#msg10005
http://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php/topic,2254.msg10009.html#msg10009



And again, the detailed rebuttal to the points above and to the youtube video is located at:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php/topic,2911.msg13880.html#msg13880

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #2 on: November 05, 2017, 01:32:16 PM »
The same old stupid claim remade,first of all there is textual and archaeological proofs of Mecca from Infact even before 4th century
https://discover-the-truth.com/2013/09/03/did-kabah-in-makkah-exist-before-4th-century/

As for your second one there is proof it was a trade route,in those times
Claudius Ptolemy was a Greco-Roman writer of Alexandria, known as a mathematician, astronomer, geographer; is another person, centuries before Islam who makes mention of Makkah. He uses the name ‘Makoraba’ for Makkah.

In the Book: ‘The New Encyclopedia of Islam’, written by Cyril Glassé says that Ptolmey, in the second century mentioned Makkah. Here is what he wrote,

“Mecca (Makkah al-Mukarramah, lit ‘Mecca the blessed’). For thousands of years Mecca has been a spiritual center. Ptolemy, the second century Greek geographer, mentioned Mecca, calling it ‘Makoraba’. Some have interpreted this to mean temple (from Maqribah in south Arabian) but it may also mean ‘Mecca of the Arabs’.” [5]

Ilya Pavlovich Petrushevsky (1898–1977) was an Professor of History of the Near East at the University of Leningrad for twenty years, he also makes mention that Ptolemy in the second Century mentioned Makkah:

“On the caravan route from Syria to the Yemen, in the Hijaz neighbourhood, lay Mecca. Ptolemy, the Greek geographer, mentions it as early as the second century calling it Makoraba, which is derived from the south Arab word Maqrab meaning ‘sanctuary’. [6]


It was a trade route between Syria and Yemen and this is a historian speaking,not some average Muslim.
Infact let me quote a Christian  saying it existed in the time of Patriarchs which was very ancient,btw

Reverend Charles Augustus Goodrich a Christian, was an American author and Congregational minister comments on Kaaba and Mecca, although, he is not fond of the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh), but he is sincere in admitting that Ka’bah existed at the time of Patriarchs. He writes:

“Among the variety of fabulous traditions which have been propagated by the followers of Mahomet, concerning the origin of this building, we find it asserted, that its existence is coeval with our parents, and that it was built by Adam, after his expulsion from paradise, from a representation of the celestial temple, which the almighty let down from heaven in curtains of light and placed in Mecca, perpendicular under the original. To this the patriarch was commanded to turn his face when he prayed, and to compass it by way of devotion, as the angels did the heavenly one. After the destruction of this temple by the deluge, it was rebuilt by Abraham and his son Ishmael on the same spot, and after the same model, according to directions, which they received by revelation; and since that time, it has continued to be the object of veneration to Ishmael’s descendants. Whatever discredit we may give to these, and other ravings of the Moslem imposter concerning the Caaba its high antiquity cannot be disputed; and the most probable account is, that it was built and used for religious purposes by some of the early patriarchs; and after the introduction of idols, it came to be appropriated to the reception of the pagan divinities. Diodorus Siculus, in his description of the cost of the Red Sea, mentions this temple as being, in his time, held in great veneration by all Arabians; and Pocoke informs us, that the linen or silken veil, with which it is covered, was first offered by a pious King of the Hamyarites, seven hundred years before the time of Mahomet.” [1]

Also,as for Al-Lāt,Al Uzza and Manat,Read Ibn Kalbi book of Idols, it proves in Mecca there were these idols,Infact it proved your whole argument wrong,Mecca did exist,it was a trade route,and it was a place of worship for the pagans before Muslims, and in conclusion your argument has been destroyed.

Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #3 on: November 05, 2017, 01:46:05 PM »
You are assuming your historical foundations from an external literature. The hadith was invented by an oligarchy consisting of very few (ingeneous might I add) men well-versed in the art of realpolitik; God did not create the Quran for an invented library of hearsay with its own complex, insane science of authentication to replace it.

May I please request that you do not comment until you have watched the documentary, or read the book, please.

The word Mecca appears once inside the Quran and when it does, does not reference today's Mecca, and ironically the word Salaah does not appear anywhere near the one instance of this root.

Your religion is patchy, incorrect and highly unaesthetic. I cannot cite websites because you'll just ban me, so I'll provide a Youtube video which will provide a window into the main body of work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inJ1mCIsz5A&t=53s.

I do not heil from any sect, I simply seek to spread the Quranic teachings, see my previous thread.

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #4 on: November 05, 2017, 01:54:29 PM »
Oh and just to add up,theres more proof than just this Muhammad SAW was in Mecca,there were narrators and letter-writers of that time who spoke of Muhammad SAW in Mecca. And even people like Ibn Abbas and A'isha R.A after Muhammad SAW who seen him.

And this too destroys your whole points.

Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #5 on: November 05, 2017, 02:06:58 PM »
Peace.

Mecca is not the same place as Macoraba.

No, there are no statues at Mecca depicting the Nabatean Gods. There just isn't. Because it's not there. It's just not. Just like the sky isn't green.

I haven't got the time for this; watch the documentary, or see the link I posted above to Youtube. Or read the book if you have the attention span.

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #6 on: November 05, 2017, 02:16:26 PM »
Again you'd have to explain the Letters,etc and not be ignorant of History,and also explain Ibn Kalbis book of Idols which is a Pre-Islamic book referencing nabatean Gods and I provided my proof and you only provided a video only cherrypicking from the Quran.

Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #7 on: November 05, 2017, 02:26:58 PM »
Again you'd have to explain the Letters,etc and not be ignorant of History,and also explain Ibn Kalbis book of Idols which is a Pre-Islamic book referencing nabatean Gods and I provided my proof and you only provided a video only cherrypicking from the Quran.

Again you'd have to explain the Letters,etc and not be ignorant of History,and also explain John the Baptist's book at 1:1 which is a reliable Biblical account refercning Jesus as God and I provided my proof and you only provided a video only cherrypicking from the Bible.

 ;D

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #8 on: November 05, 2017, 02:32:33 PM »
Again,the bible is something different,Ibn Kalbis book is something different,you're changing topics which proves you cannot defend your case.

And you're definetly an atheist,not a muslim.

Offline QuranSearchCom

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Islam is the Divine Truth!
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #9 on: November 05, 2017, 06:42:26 PM »
Quote
You are assuming your historical foundations from an external literature.

Above, I updated my post and gave links that contain ancient writings that prove Mecca was Baca.  The links again are:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php/topic,2254.msg10005.html#msg10005
http://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php/topic,2254.msg10009.html#msg10009



As to proofs for the "external literature", we have the graves of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, and many of his companions in locations in Saudi Arabia and in northern Arabia where they died after opening the lands from the Persians and the Romans.  The literature that proves the location where Islam started, and what was its Prophet's name, and how Islam systematically spread throughout Arabia and beyond is quite solid.  You have a disease called "everything outside the Quran is false".

We have hard evidence from graves, to physical locations of homes, battles, tribes, etc... and ample literature that thoroughly prove Islam began in Mecca and took off from Mecca.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #10 on: November 05, 2017, 07:50:53 PM »
Quote
You are assuming your historical foundations from an external literature.

Above, I updated my post and gave links that contain ancient writings that prove Mecca was Baca.  The links again are:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php/topic,2254.msg10005.html#msg10005
http://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php/topic,2254.msg10009.html#msg10009



As to proofs for the "external literature", we have the graves of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, and many of his companions in locations in Saudi Arabia and in northern Arabia where they died after opening the lands from the Persians and the Romans.  The literature that proves the location where Islam started, and what was its Prophet's name, and how Islam systematically spread throughout Arabia and beyond is quite solid.  You have a disease called "everything outside the Quran is false".

We have evidence from graves, to physical locations of homes, battles, tribes, etc... and ample literature that thoroughly prove Islam began in Mecca and took off from Mecca.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

It's weak evidence and ignores the big picture: spurious, extremely vague literatures. I might as well he a trinitarian based off of John 1:1, it's really unimpressive. Read this excerpt from Gibson's book:

"Muslims  commonly  believe  that  ancient  Mecca  was  a  major  city  on  the caravan  routes  between  the  kingdoms  of  Arabia.  However,  history  does  not prove  this  to  be  so.  One  would  think  that  kingdoms  like  Yemen,  which  is immediately  south  of  present  day  Mecca,  and  those  north  of  Mecca  would substantiate  Mecca’s  existence,  but  this  is  not  the  case.  The  ancient  kingdoms of  Yemen  utilized  the  skill  of  writing  since  the  10th  century  BC  (Kitchen, 1994,  page  135)  and  yet,  with  the  thousands  of  inscriptions,  graffiti  and  other writings  that  have  survived  to  this  day,  there  is  not  a  single  mention  of  the city  of  Mecca. Looking  north  from  Mecca  to  the  cities  of  Dedan,  Teyma  and Khaybar,  thousands  of  inscriptions,  graffiti  and  other  writings  have  survived to  this  day,  and  once  again  we  have  not  a  single  mention  of  the  city  of  Mecca in any literature prior to 900 AD."

Literary evidence works against you when you deal with the case at hand appropriately, not plucking rare, vague texts.

And you completely blanked the maps, did the cartograpgers brain-fart seven times in a row when drawing their maps? Mysteriously skipping Mecca, the supposed Mother of all cities?

And you blanked the archaeological evidence, another huge piece of the puzzle since it's hard for politicians/later imams to fake. When I go to Petra and I stick a spade in the ground, I'm gonna dig something up, because it was the Umm-Al-Qura described at 42:7 inside the Quran: it was the New York of Arabia, the Dubai of Arabia, the London of Arabia  There are thousands of artifacts from Petra on auction. This is the sort of evidence one needs.

Can I say the same thing with Mecca? No, I cannot. Mecca's not historical.

You also have the footprints of Ibrahim near the Ka'ba, this is embarrasing. They are insulting your intelligence. Your religion is a psyop and is not in the Quran.

It's such a shame that you've got such a pure revelation, but you choose to sell your mental faculties to an unknown, highly questionable priesthood.

Offline Albarra

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #11 on: November 05, 2017, 11:35:45 PM »
Peace.

Mecca is not the same place as Macoraba.

No, there are no statues at Mecca depicting the Nabatean Gods. There just isn't. Because it's not there. It's just not. Just like the sky isn't green.





That's completely dumb. How did you know it's not there. You were just guessing.

Statues? You mean 300 idols around Ka'aba?

Also, "the sky isn't green" is completely different than Mecca.

Offline QuranSearchCom

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Islam is the Divine Truth!
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #12 on: November 06, 2017, 03:57:48 AM »
Quote
It's weak evidence and ignores the big picture: spurious, extremely vague literatures.

Vague literatures?  I don't see millions flocking to pilgrimage to Petra every year.  I see them flocking to Mecca.  Your theory would be valid if literally all of the Arabs in the entire Middle East were permanently drunk or stoned.  To have millions of Muslims flock to Mecca every single year testifies to the Truthfulness of Islam's literature about Islam indeed began from Mecca, and Its Prophet was Muhammad, peace be upon him. 



How was the fabrication possible?

How could Hajj (pilgrimage) be fabricated when the Holy City of Mecca is the VERY CORE of it?  If Hajj began at Petra, as you claim, then please tell us what year did the fabrication happen, and how did the thousands and thousands of Muslims back then just suddenly and/or abruptly change from Petra to Mecca? Like I said, they must all be permanently intoxicated in order for your theory to work.  Otherwise, people wouldn't just change from Petra to Mecca because some doofus ordered them to change.

If you do not directly answer this, I will ban you!  I am getting tired of your BS.

Osama

Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #13 on: November 06, 2017, 04:29:20 AM »
Quote
It's weak evidence and ignores the big picture: spurious, extremely vague literatures.

Vague literatures?  I don't see millions flocking to pilgrimage to Petra every year.  I see them flocking to Mecca.  Your theory would be valid if literally all of the Arabs in the entire Middle East were permanently drunk or stoned.  To have millions of Muslims flock to Mecca every single year testifies to the Truthfulness of Islam's literature about Islam indeed began from Mecca, and Its Prophet was Muhammad, peace be upon him. 



How is the fabrication possible?

How could Hajj (pilgrimage) be fabricated when the Holy City of Mecca is the VERY CORE of it?

Do you have anything else to add?  I am getting tired of your BS.

Osama

I'm not here to convince everyone, it's my Quranic duty to preach against real and potential idols, like your religion. I want to please my maker.

I'm going to say it another time: your city is not historical, you've activated full-on Trinitarian Christian mode: fingers in both ears.

How could they pull it off? Let me ask you, how did they pull off 9/11? You underestimate how much power royalty has.

For your exact answer, it's in the documentary and involves the classic historical formula of: victors win war, victors rewrite history. Hence the burning down of libraries and mass censorship that ensued. But I guess you're not gonna watch it, that's ok, I don't think anyone takes you seriously anyway.

You have this flowery version of your religion's history which is false - the true history is ugly.

Offline Albarra

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #14 on: November 06, 2017, 08:06:28 AM »
Give me a verse that Muhammad (phub) was born in Petra.


Again, your stupid evidence did not prove me that Makkah was not historical. Petra sounds like a unpopular area in southern Jordan. No top Islamic scholars or Salafi said about Muhammad (phub) and Petra.


Also, we have old hadith like Muwatta Malik mentioned about Mecca many times. That was around 700 CE, but oral hadith were memorized since Islam was born.

You just looked the hadiths that were written in 900 CE, but what about oral hadiths? 



UPDATE FROM OSAMA ABDALLAH:

"You just looked the hadiths that were written in 900 CE, but what about oral hadiths?"


Dear brother Albarra, I am afraid that your last statement makes it sound like he has HADITHS (sayings of the Prophet) that were written around year 900 AD/CE that actually say Petra was indeed Mecca.  I just want to make it clear to the reader that such Hadiths do not exist.  Your statement was referring to the alleged maps that he was talking about.  And of course his statement is very stupid, because Mecca did ACTUALLY EXIST in 900 and 800 and 700 and 600 and thousands of years before!  But at the very least, we know that it existed before 900 AD, whether there was a map drawn for it or not.  People lived there and it was always called MECCA, and Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was born there, and his entire sub-tribe Hashim and entire tribe Quraysh were the inhabitants of Mecca.  And the House of GOD Almighty that was built by Abraham and Ishmael, peace be upon them, was already there.

Just wanted to clarify that.  Jazaka Allah Khayr.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2017, 01:57:38 PM by QuranSearchCom »

Offline Albarra

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #15 on: November 06, 2017, 08:23:32 AM »
I don't think NWO knows much about 9/11. I mean several hijackers, including the mastermind, went to the strip club in Las Vegas several months before 9/11, according to FBI and witnesses.

Gee, I wonder why these terrorists did not kill female infidels or gambling.

You know that a strip club is completely forbidden under Shariah law. Honestly, they would get punished by Islamic courts.

Besides, Israel has a lot of classified docments about 9/11. Did you know that an Israeli company has private calling in the United Sates? It means that people can call someone secretly so that FBI or CIA cannot hear them, according to FOX News report.
Gee, I wonder why. Creepy.

Sorry sir, but you seriously know nothing about 9/11.


Again, Mecca is historical. Your evidence is pathetic.


Offline Albarra

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #16 on: November 06, 2017, 08:30:58 AM »
Burning mass libraries?

Again, how did you know these books were written about Petra or Mecca? Your evidence does not prove you anything because we really don't know. Maybe they burned libraries because these books were witten by infidels. I don't know, but you cannot jump to conclusion.

I already watched the video that you gave us a link, but this stupid guy was just guessing.

Your belief is idiotical.

Offline shaad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #17 on: November 06, 2017, 08:51:49 AM »
NWO cleanse, maybe you should summarise your points....

Offline shaad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #18 on: November 06, 2017, 08:52:51 AM »
*summarize

Offline shaad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #19 on: November 06, 2017, 08:56:54 AM »
NWO cleanse, take your time, take a deep breath, get comfortable and write a summary...it would be easier for brother Albarra and the others to discuss your points...

Offline QuranSearchCom

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Islam is the Divine Truth!
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #20 on: November 06, 2017, 12:24:47 PM »
NWO cleanse, take your time, take a deep breath, get comfortable and write a summary...it would be easier for brother Albarra and the others to discuss your points...

I'll do it for him, akhi.  Here is the video and here are the points:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inJ1mCIsz5A&t=53s

1-  Mecca called "the mother of all cities" refers to it being the center of all trading routes.  This is false because Petra was the center of the trading routes.

RESPONSE:  Your author, NWO Cleanse, - Sam Gerrans, - imposed this meaning on the Quranic term to the Holy City of Mecca.



2-  Mecca was not found on any map until around year 900 AD, 300 years after Prophet Muhammad came. 

RESPONSE:  No proof.  Yet, we have ample physical proofs that Mecca existed far earlier than this.  See above.



3-  Mecca does not have any substantial valley or mountain surrounding it, "which is part of the Quranic concept of a holy site"??

RESPONSE:  Where did your Sam Gerrans come up with this lie??  The Glorious Quran does not give this criteria or condition for any holy site!  Also, Mecca does have surrounding mountains, - MOUNT ARAFAT is used in the pilgrimage, - and it does have the underground stream of Zamzam, which fills the Well of Zamzam and it sustains life there.

Then he goes on to say that Petra has deep routes and that supposedly matches the Glorious Quran's "deep routes" statement about Muslims coming from all over the world to do Hajj (pilgrimage).  And he talked about the doomed civilizations that were mentioned in the Glorious Quran were all located in Northern Arabia. 

RESPONSE:  The Arabs in central Arabia were fresh and had no corrupt scriptures like the Jews and Christians were.  They were ready for a new Prophet and new Scripture, and this is one of the reasons why Allah Almighty chose them:

‏34:44 ومااتيناهم من كتب يدرسونها وماارسلنا اليهم قبلك من نذير

[034:044] Although, prior to you We did not give them books they could study كتب يدرسونها, nor did We send a warner towards them وماارسلنا اليهم قبلك من نذير.

This would not apply to the northern Arabs around Petra, because they were under the Christians' rule at the time.  The central Arabs were nomadic people and had no scriptures and no Prophets.



Silencing Mr. Sam Gerrans:

I finished the video and it has ample problems.  All wishful thinking, conjecture and bias towards Petra.  Again, there are points that you just can't refute:

1-  Muslims by the MILLIONS flock to pilgrimage to Mecca, not to Petra.  If Muslims were flocking to Petra by the THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS during the early days of Islam, then they would not be flocking today to Mecca.  And we would certainly have a record for it (Petra), which we do not.


2-  The graves of Prophet Muhammad and many of his companions are in Medina and Mecca and near by lands.  Yes, some are in Northern Arabia due to the battles with the Romans and Persians, and many ended up settling there.  But the Prophet's grave is in Medina!  Can you refute that?


3-  The four Islamic Rightly Guided Caliphs, Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman and Ali ruled in Medina.  Ali later migrated to Iraq, but he was elected in Medina and began his rule in Medina.  Uthman was killed in Medina.  Omar was assassinated by the Persians in Medina.  Abu Bakr fought the apostates from Medina.  Ali migrated to Iraq from Medina.  The Muslims liberated Mecca with 10,000 Muslims army.  And it's even prophesied in the Bible:

www.answering-christianity.com/10000.htm

Nothing mentioned about Petra.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Offline Albarra

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #21 on: November 06, 2017, 02:27:26 PM »
Brother Shaad,

NWO is lazy.

Offline QuranSearchCom

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Islam is the Divine Truth!
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #22 on: November 06, 2017, 03:20:55 PM »
As'salamu Alaikum Everyone,

I just updated my refutation above to Sam Gerrans.  NWO Cleanse, I expect you to respond to it.  I have gone through the entire video and commented on it.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah


Offline submit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #24 on: November 07, 2017, 09:01:14 AM »
that like saying no Jewish tribes existed in Medina and they never received any migration of tribes from Mecca but Petra.

Offline shaad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #25 on: November 07, 2017, 09:41:08 AM »
I wonder where he is, seems he really wanted to discuss about this subject but now when Albarra and the others have responded to his points he's nowhere to be found...

Offline shaad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #26 on: November 07, 2017, 09:47:16 AM »
I mean i really hope his doubts are cleared...

Offline Albarra

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #27 on: November 07, 2017, 02:27:24 PM »
Brother Shaad,

NWO didn't respond to us because he feels stupid.

I challenge him where is a verse that mentioned about Petra and Muhammad (phub) in the Qur'an, but he  declined.

Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #28 on: November 09, 2017, 01:44:44 PM »
Brother Shaad,

NWO didn't respond to us because he feels stupid.

I challenge him where is a verse that mentioned about Petra and Muhammad (phub) in the Qur'an, but he  declined.

I would like to return the question to you and ask: where in the Quran does it say that Muhammad was from Mecca? The Quran itself uses very few place names.

Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #29 on: November 09, 2017, 02:37:08 PM »
NWO cleanse, take your time, take a deep breath, get comfortable and write a summary...it would be easier for brother Albarra and the others to discuss your points...

I'll do it for him, akhi.  Here is the video and here are the points:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inJ1mCIsz5A&t=53s

1-  Mecca called "the mother of all cities" refers to it being the center of all trading routes.  This is false because Petra was the center of the trading routes.

RESPONSE:  Your author, NWO Cleanse, - Sam Gerrans, - imposed this meaning on the Quranic term to the Holy City of Mecca.



2-  Mecca was not found on any map until around year 900 AD, 300 years after Prophet Muhammad came. 

RESPONSE:  No proof.  Yet, we have ample physical proofs that Mecca existed far earlier than this.  See above.



3-  Mecca does not have any substantial valley or mountain surrounding it, "which is part of the Quranic concept of a holy site"??

RESPONSE:  Where did your Sam Gerrans come up with this lie??  The Glorious Quran does not give this criteria or condition for any holy site!  Also, Mecca does have surrounding mountains, - MOUNT ARAFAT is used in the pilgrimage, - and it does have the underground stream of Zamzam, which fills the Well of Zamzam and it sustains life there.

Then he goes on to say that Petra has deep routes and that supposedly matches the Glorious Quran's "deep routes" statement about Muslims coming from all over the world to do Hajj (pilgrimage).  And he talked about the doomed civilizations that were mentioned in the Glorious Quran were all located in Northern Arabia. 

RESPONSE:  The Arabs in central Arabia were fresh and had no corrupt scriptures like the Jews and Christians were.  They were ready for a new Prophet and new Scripture, and this is one of the reasons why Allah Almighty chose them:

‏34:44 ومااتيناهم من كتب يدرسونها وماارسلنا اليهم قبلك من نذير

[034:044] Although, prior to you We did not give them books they could study كتب يدرسونها, nor did We send a warner towards them وماارسلنا اليهم قبلك من نذير.

This would not apply to the northern Arabs around Petra, because they were under the Christians' rule at the time.  The central Arabs were nomadic people and had no scriptures and no Prophets.



Silencing Mr. Sam Gerrans:

I finished the video and it has ample problems.  All wishful thinking, conjecture and bias towards Petra.  Again, there are points that you just can't refute:

1-  Muslims by the MILLIONS flock to pilgrimage to Mecca, not to Petra.  If Muslims were flocking to Petra by the THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS during the early days of Islam, then they would not be flocking today to Mecca.  And we would certainly have a record for it (Petra), which we do not.


2-  The graves of Prophet Muhammad and many of his companions are in Medina and Mecca and near by lands.  Yes, some are in Northern Arabia due to the battles with the Romans and Persians, and many ended up settling there.  But the Prophet's grave is in Medina!  Can you refute that?


3-  The four Islamic Rightly Guided Caliphs, Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman and Ali ruled in Medina.  Ali later migrated to Iraq, but he was elected in Medina and began his rule in Medina.  Uthman was killed in Medina.  Omar was assassinated by the Persians in Medina.  Abu Bakr fought the apostates from Medina.  Ali migrated to Iraq from Medina.  The Muslims liberated Mecca with 10,000 Muslims army.  And it's even prophesied in the Bible:

www.answering-christianity.com/10000.htm

Nothing mentioned about Petra.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Peace.

1. That's a good point, first one you made in fact. What we can infer from the "mother of all cities" is that it is a place of significance, whether this is a major trading destination or a center of pilgrimage, it doesn't matter. Mecca is insignificant, since it was ignored by all cartographers, so it cannot be the subject at this juncture. After all, you do not make a map of the USA whilst awkwardly ignoring New York City... right? It's an iron paradox, you might as well be a Pastafarian at this point.

2. Maps can be found in Gibson's work.

3. Inconclusive and uninteresting point by Sam Gerran's. And it's not a lie, read carefully: "no substantial mountains", google what a valley looks like.

And about the northern arabs... Again, inconclusive and uninteresting point by Sam Gerrans; I focus mainly on the meaty stuff. For example I haven't even focused on the Qiblah's and that's a very meaty topic and makes your religion look very unsightly historically; it is overkill and I didnt really need to focus on it to make my points since the evidence is already overwhelming.

Your next three points are rubbish, so is that article. You again underestimate the power of aristochracy, you can brainwash a nation if you have enough funding and military power; I talked about it earlier with government funded 9/11, zionist media and the obviously fake footprints of Abraham (to mirror the obviously fake graves of Muhammad et al), I am not going to repeat myself. If anyone wants intelligently presented debates/rebuttals between King and Gibson (that kinda stuff) read: https://www.academia.edu/34569516/Response_to_David_King_with_attached_article. Both sides are presented, not low quality info sourced from a chat forum (lol).

Maybe there are people who have some integrity on this forum, like me a year ago - I right for them, wherever they may be.

Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #30 on: November 09, 2017, 02:48:24 PM »
I mean i really hope his doubts are cleared...

I used to follow the official narrative of Islam, and then went through severe sleep loss and depression when I discovered all of this material.

I couldn't reconcile the contradictions, and indeed they cannot be reconciled much like Trinitarian Christianity cannot, they clash too strongly with reality.

Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #31 on: November 09, 2017, 02:58:07 PM »
NWO cleanse, take your time, take a deep breath, get comfortable and write a summary...it would be easier for brother Albarra and the others to discuss your points...
I finished the video and it has ample problems.  All wishful thinking, conjecture and bias towards Petra.  Again, there are points that you just can't refute:

And I would just like to zoom in here, and look at it carefully and the presented evidence carefully. Wishful thinking and conjecture? It's a nuclear bomb of the greatest order on this religion, found nowhere in the Quran.

Bias towards Petra? Yes, I don't agree entirely with how he presented the video, he should have stuck to macro-historical data (my opinion), there is no macro-historical data supporting Mecca, it's all micro. All.

Offline QuranSearchCom

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Islam is the Divine Truth!
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #32 on: November 09, 2017, 03:46:03 PM »
British people never spoke English.  They've always spoken Arabic.  Whoever says they ever spoke English is a liar.  Whoever says that the inhabitants of England were Brits or English is a liar.  Whoever says that England is an Island is a liar.  Whoever says Muhuhammad was born in Mecca, raised in Mecca, was from the tribe of Hashim, which is part of the whole tribe of Quraysh that inhabited Mecca, and lived in Mecca most of his life is a liar.  Muhammad was a Petran! 

OK dude, you win.  I give up and I concede that you won.  Only Germans live in England.  And all speak Petran.

Osama Abdallah

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #33 on: November 09, 2017, 07:04:26 PM »
Forget all the historical narratives letters,etc,etc just throw that out,it doesnt exist

alright mane,you win totally. nah now being serious

Dan gibson is the reason Christians attack Islam,the Petra being Qibla myth that Dan gibson put out is STUPID and already refuted,and the maps he provided are NO historical maps at all,we need historical maps,
and even maps dont show a trade route,Narrative does,and looking at what Historical narratives say,It was most likely a Trade route

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #34 on: November 09, 2017, 07:05:44 PM »
Quran 48:24

وَهُوَ ٱلَّذِى كَفَّ أَيْدِيَهُمْ عَنكُمْ وَأَيْدِيَكُمْ عَنْهُم بِبَطْنِ مَكَّةَ مِنۢ بَعْدِ أَنْ أَظْفَرَكُمْ عَلَيْهِمْ ۚ وَكَانَ ٱللَّهُ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ بَصِيرًا
And it is He Who has restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of Makka, after that He gave you the victory over them. And Allah sees well all that ye do.

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile

Offline Albarra

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #36 on: November 09, 2017, 09:30:29 PM »


I would like to return the question to you and ask: where in the Quran does it say that Muhammad was from Mecca? The Quran itself uses very few place names.
Mr. NWO,

The holy Qur'an doesn't tell a full story about Muhammad (phub) you dummy. That's why we use hadith to find the answer.
Unfortunately, because you are a Quranist, how do you know that he was from Petra? You were just guessing.
Besides, the holy Qur'an mentioned about Mecca in 48:24, but where is a verse that mentioned Petra?

Don't decline to answer my question you coward.

O by the way, Mecca has a lot of mountians, so we arrived in Ta'if airport and drove about an hour to Mecca. However, many pilgrims arrived in Jeddah's airport for Hajj.

So my question is, of course, why Saudi government didn't build a huge airport in Mecca?


Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #37 on: November 10, 2017, 03:36:14 AM »
Quran 48:24

وَهُوَ ٱلَّذِى كَفَّ أَيْدِيَهُمْ عَنكُمْ وَأَيْدِيَكُمْ عَنْهُم بِبَطْنِ مَكَّةَ مِنۢ بَعْدِ أَنْ أَظْفَرَكُمْ عَلَيْهِمْ ۚ وَكَانَ ٱللَّهُ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ بَصِيرًا
And it is He Who has restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of Makka, after that He gave you the victory over them. And Allah sees well all that ye do.

Peace.

This is the one instance of this root of "Mekka". By comparative Quranic analysis of "Bibatni" and the lexicons, "Bibatni Mekka" translates to "belly of destruction", not "midst of Mekka (city)". Mecca today is not in a belly-like structure, and so fails to impress on these sparse descriptions within the Quran.

Your religion is a psychological operation, look up what that is. The 9/11 inside job is a great example of a psychological operation that is easily demonstrable.

Offline QuranSearchCom

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Islam is the Divine Truth!
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #38 on: November 10, 2017, 04:56:54 AM »
ببطن مكة

ب = in

بطن = belly, tummy, deep.  We say بطن حامل  (BATN HAMIL), which means PREGNANT BELLY.  We also say في باطن الارض  (FEE BATIN ALARD), which means DEEP IN THE EARTH.

مكة = Mecca.


Your entire case is based on conjecture and Islam-hating bias.  As I said in my first reply to you.  Islam crushed the civilizations that surrounded it.  This is why the Islam-hating infidels are desperately trying to disprove Islam.  You seem to be another infidel, but a very stupid one.  MECCA in this Noble Verse refers to the name of the City of Mecca.  The Noble Verse most certainly assumes the name of the Holy City to have been well known by the people, especially that the Glorious Quran was revealed there, and Islam began there, and Prophet Muhammad was from there.  Mecca being the city was a given!  And the Noble Verse is directly linked to the Prophecy of opening the City of Mecca:

www.answering-christianity.com/10000.htm


When we say Alexandria, Virginia, do we mean Alexandria in Egypt or Alexandria in the state of Virginia in the USA?  When Allah Almighty mentions Mecca in Noble Verse 48:24, does He mean Petra?  Of course He meant Mecca as it was already a given to all Muslims there, since liberating the Holy City of Mecca from the infidels was their final destination.  And Petra was never ever called Mecca.

Every time you get soundly refuted, you give a very stupid answer.  Show us where Mecca means destruction.  I am waiting......

Offline QuranSearchCom

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Islam is the Divine Truth!
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #39 on: November 10, 2017, 05:21:56 AM »
The NWO guy is very confused.  There are two aspects to his argument:

1-  BACCA in the Glorious Quran is not MECCA. 

2-  Petra was Mecca.


I believe we have amply and thoroughly refuted the second one.  As to the first one, I really don't care if Mecca is Becca.  The Glorious Quran Says that Allah Almighty established His First House of Worship in Becca.  Whether Becca is Mecca or not, it doesn't matter.  Mecca remains the birth place of our Islam.

I believe he has consolidated the two points above together and is arguing for them at the same time.  And to him, if only he could prove, or cast doubt, that Mecca is not Becca, then this should automatically translate into Mecca = Petra.

I already gave you brother Idris' links in this thread where he showed from ancient writings in Mecca that it was also called Becca.  But like I said, even Mecca was not Becca, it still doesn't matter.  Mecca still remains the birth place of our Islam.



Becca in Northern Arabia?  No problem!

I'll go along with you that Becca is not Mecca.  Is this against Islam?  No.  Allah Almighty did Say that He has blessed the lands that near the land of the Farthest Mosque in Jerusalem:

[017:001] Glorified (and Exalted) be He (Allah) (above all that (evil) they associate with Him),Who took His slave (Muhammad SAW) for a journey by night from Al-Masjid-al-Haram (at Makkah) to the farthest mosque (in Jerusalem), the neighbourhood whereof We have blessed, in order that We might show him (Muhammad SAW) of Our Ayat (proofs, evidences, lessons, signs, etc.). Verily, He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer.

So no matter how you look at it, it doesn't matter.  If Becca was near Palestine, then its no problem.  If Becca was Mecca, it's also no problem.  If Becca was Petra, it still no problem, because it is near Jerusalem.



We don't care about Becca:

Becca is an ancient city that had its time and expired.  Mecca is our Holy City, not Becca.  Mecca is where our Holy House of Allah Almighty, the Kaaba, is located.  Mecca is the point of our Prayer's directions from all over the globe.  Whether Becca is Mecca or Becca isn't, it does not matter to us.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Offline shaad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #40 on: November 10, 2017, 05:59:10 AM »
I'm a total noob on this subject but i've found an article which may help...

http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2016/10/refuting-claim-petra-was-qibla-before.html?m=1

Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #41 on: November 10, 2017, 06:14:10 AM »
ببطن مكة

ب = in

بطن = belly, tummy, deep.  We say بطن حامل  (BATN HAMIL), which means PREGNANT BELLY.  We also say في باطن الارض  (FEE BATIN ALARD), which means DEEP IN THE EARTH.

مكة = Mecca.


Your entire case is based on conjecture and Islam-hating bias.  As I said in my first reply to you.  Islam crushed the civilizations that surrounded it.  This is why the Islam-hating infidels are desperately trying to disprove Islam.  You seem to be another infidel, but a very stupid one.  MECCA in this Noble Verse refers to the name of the City of Mecca.  The Noble Verse most certainly assumes the name of the Holy City to have been well known by the people, especially that the Glorious Quran was revealed there, and Islam began there, and Prophet Muhammad was from there.  Mecca being the city was a given!  And the Noble Verse is directly linked to the Prophecy of opening the City of Mecca:

www.answering-christianity.com/10000.htm


When we say Alexandria, Virginia, do we mean Alexandria in Egypt or Alexandria in the state of Virginia in the USA?  When Allah Almighty mentions Mecca in Noble Verse 48:24, does He mean Petra?  Of course He meant Mecca as it was already a given to all Muslims there, since liberating the Holy City of Mecca from the infidels was their final destination.  And Petra was never ever called Mecca.

Every time you get soundly refuted, you give a very stupid answer.  Show us where Mecca means destruction.  I am waiting......

You have a bad habit of not reading replies properly. I said go to the lexicon, "Mekka" is a simple noun meaning "destruction". Jeez.

Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #42 on: November 10, 2017, 06:16:14 AM »
I'm a total noob on this subject but i've found an article which may help...

http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2016/10/refuting-claim-petra-was-qibla-before.html?m=1

I've read literally every single source on the internet, including this one and its variants.

Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #43 on: November 10, 2017, 06:26:43 AM »
Osama, you're trying to muddy the waters and create confusion. I am not at all interested in Becca, nor am I really interested in Petra.

I am primarily trying to show that Mecca did not exist at Muhammad's time, of which the evidence is absolutely LEGION. You religion is a psychological operation conducted by the Abbasids, information for which you can discover in Gibson's excellently presented documentary, which has recently become very popular in Bangladesh.

I think I remember Idris, I believe I posed a question to him last year and then you deleted my account and deleted my post to him specifically, whilst keeping all my other posts on the system. I just can't take you seriously.

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #44 on: November 10, 2017, 06:27:52 AM »
I dont even get the argument,the argument itself makes absolutely no Sense,

Somehow Mecca became Petra,Muhammad SAW somehow was a petran,even though we have historical letters like the Letter to the Romans or even the letter to the christians(Ashtiname of Muhammad) And we have his clothing and house and all the historical proofs Muhammad was a Meccan but somehow still he was a Petran because Historical narrative and the Clothings found and the houses,the historical areas,etc are irrelevant which is absolutely nonsensical,

Do you really think That they faked all the clothes,the areas of Badr,etc,etc,all these Arabian houses,all of these things in Mecca which prove Muhammad SAW was a Meccan.
And another proof from the Quran that Muhammad SAW was a Meccan was this

Al Imran 3:123–125. "Allah had helped you at Badr, when ye were a contemptible little force; then fear Allah; thus May ye show your gratitude."


This shows Muhammad SAW did indeed fight in Badr,now Muhammad SAW as we know him would never walk towards literally almost the Red sea for a battle.

And now looking at the historical proofs,I mentioned that Mecca was a trade route and Provided Proof it was.


Now please stop with this dumb claim and end it here because the more you twist it the more dumb you sound.

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #45 on: November 10, 2017, 06:29:50 AM »
dward Gibbon writes about the Ka'bah and its existence before the Christian era in his book:

..... of blind mythology of barbarians - of the local deities, of the stars, the air, and the earth, of their sex or titles, their attributes or subordination. Each tribe, each family, each independent warrier, created and changed the rites and the object of this fantastic worship; but the nation, in every age, has bowed to the religion as well as to the language of Mecca. The genuine antiquity of Caaba ascends beyond the Christian era: in describing the coast of the Red sea the Greek historian Diodorus has remarked, between the Thamudites and the Sabeans, a famous temple, whose superior sanctity was revered by all the Arabians; the linen of silken veil, which is annually renewed by the Turkish emperor, was first offered by the Homerites, who reigned seven hundred years before the time of Mohammad.[1]

Diodorus Siculus was a Greek historian of 1st century BC who wrote Bibliotheca Historica, a book describing various parts of the discovered world. The following lines are the English translation of Greek quoted by Gibbon from the book of Diodorus Siculus (Diodorus of Sicily) describing the 'temple' considered to be the the holiest in the whole of Arabia.

And a temple has been set-up there, which is very holy and exceedingly revered by all Arabians.[2]

It is interesting to know that Claudius Ptolemy of Alexandria, mathematician and astronomer, flourishing about a century after Pliny, undertook to make an atlas of the habitable world. He was not a descriptive geographer, and his book was intended to be no more than a commentary on his maps. He enumerated some hundred and fourteen cities or villages in Arabia Felix.

For example, Dumaetha, placed by Ptolemy just outside the northern boundary of Arabia Felix, must be the mediaeval Arabian Daumet, which is today the chief village of the great oasis of Jauf. Hejr, famous in the "times of ignorance" as the seat of a kingdom, and now Medayin Salih, is Ptolemy's Egra. His Thaim is Teima, now known for its inscriptions to have had temples and some sort of civilization as far back as 500 BC. It is the Tema of Job. In Lathrippa, placed inland from Iambia (Yambo), we recognize the Iathrippa of Stephan of Byzantium, the Yathrib of the early Arab traditions, now honoured as El Medina, the City of Cities.[3]

Apart from this a place called Macoraba is also shown which is identified as Mecca (please refer to the map facing page 17 of reference [3]). G E von Grunebaum says:

Mecca is mentioned by Ptolemy, and the name he gives it allows us to identify it as a South Arabian foundation created around a sanctuary.[4]

Makkah In The Scriptures

The Qur'ân talks about Bakkah (the older name of Makkah) being the first house of worship appointed for mankind. It also addresses this place as Umm ul-Qurâ i.e., Mother of the Settlements.

Verily, the first House (of worship) appointed for mankind was that at Bakkah (Makkah), full of blessing, and a guidance for Al-'Alamin (the mankind and jinns). In it are manifest signs (for example), the Maqam (place) of Ibrahim (Abraham); whosoever enters it, he attains security. And Hajj (pilgrimage to Makkah) to the House (Ka'bah) is a duty that mankind owes to Allah, those who can afford the expenses (for one's conveyance, provision and residence); and whoever disbelieves [i.e. denies Hajj (pilgrimage to Makkah), then he is a disbeliever of Allah], then Allah stands not in need of any of the 'Alamin (mankind and jinns). [Qur'ân 3:96-97]

The Bible also mentions about the valley of Baca in connection with the pilgrimage. Below is the quote from Psalms 84 (NIV):

1 How lovely is your dwelling place, O LORD Almighty!
2 My soul yearns, even faints, for the courts of the LORD; my heart and my flesh cry out for the living God.
3 Even the sparrow has found a home, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she may have her young-- a place near your altar, O LORD Almighty, my King and my God.
4 Blessed are those who dwell in your house; they are ever praising you.
5 Blessed are those whose strength is in you, who have set their hearts on pilgrimage.
6 As they pass through the Valley of Baca, they make it a place of springs; the autumn rains also cover it with pools.
7 They go from strength to strength, till each appears before God in Zion.
8 Hear my prayer, O LORD God Almighty; listen to me, O God of Jacob.
9 Look upon our shield, O God; look with favor on your anointed one.
10 Better is one day in your courts than a thousand elsewhere; I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God than dwell in the tents of the wicked.
11 For the LORD God is a sun and shield; the LORD bestows favor and honor; no good thing does he withhold from those whose walk is blameless.
12 O LORD Almighty, blessed is the man who trusts in you.

The interpretation of the valley of Baca in the The Jewish Encylopedia is quite interesting, though it does not provide a complete evidence and leaves the reader with a suggestion. Below is the full quote.

Baca, The Valley Of: A valley mentioned in Psalms LXXXIV:7. Since it is there said that pilgrims transform the valley into a land of wells, an old translators gave to Baca, the meaning of a "valley of weeping"; but it signifies rather any valley lacking water. Support for this latter view is to be found in II Samuel V:23 et seq.; I Chronicles XIV:14 et seq., in which the plural form of the same word designates a tree similar to the balsam tree; and it was supposed that a dry valley could be named after this tree. Konig takes Baca from the Arabian Baka'a, and translates it "lack of streams". The Psalmist apparently has in mind a particular valley whose natural condition led him to adopt its name.[5]

The translation of Arabian Baka'a as "lack of stream" seems to throw some light on the nature of the valley before the appearance of the stream of Zam-Zam near Ka'bah which was a dry place with no vegetation whatsoever.

The Anchor Bible Dictionary does not throw any light on it, albeit, there are some suggestions in it too like the The Jewish Encylopedia. Below is the full quote.

Baca, The Valley Of (PLACE): [Hebrew 'emeq habakka'], The valley of Baca (Psalms 84:1) is either a historical place name or a symbolical expression for "deep sorrow". The first part of Psalms 84:6 seems to mean that by "passing through the experience of deep sorrow, righteous ones can make it the source of life." The Septuagint translated the phrase into Greek as "the valley of weeping". The word 'emeq "valley" has the root meaning of "deep", so the expression may mean "deep sorrow".

However, some have considered it as the "valley of the balsam tree" from the same word in plural form found in 2 Samuel 5:24. This is based on the assumption that baka may be a "gum-exuding [weeping] tree". Another possibility is that the word beka'im (plural of baka) may mean "weeping wall-rocks" in the valley of Rephaim on whose tops David and his troops were waiting for the coming of the Philistine army passing through the valley below (2 Samuel 5:24). It seems safe to seek the meaning of baka in relation to the dripping water, since we often find this word in the names related to rivers and wadis, such as Wadi al-Baka in the Sinaitic district and Baca on the wadi in the central Galilee area, W of Meroth. It is also possible to understand beka'im as the place of "weepings" of the Philistine army for their defeat by David. After all these considerations, the expression of "valley of baka" can best be taken as a symbolic expression "weeping" or "deep sorrow" which fits well in the context of Psalms 84:6.[6]

The interpretation of the valley of Baca as a "the valley of weeping" makes sense because of the distress which Hagar(P) underwent when she was left with Ishmael(P) in the barren desert with no means of living.

The two interpretations of Baca, viz., "lack of stream" and "the valley of weeping" appears to fit in the context of pilgrimage to Bakkah, the older name of Makkah where the Ka'bah is situated. Ka'bah has been a place of reverence by all Arabians before the Christian era as we have seen earlier.

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #46 on: November 10, 2017, 06:30:28 AM »
And theres way more to it. this argument has been presented before by Brother.Idris.

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #48 on: November 10, 2017, 06:33:58 AM »
Also,ever heard of the ancient name for Mecca,Paran?


Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #49 on: November 10, 2017, 06:37:59 AM »
British people never spoke English.  They've always spoken Arabic.  Whoever says they ever spoke English is a liar.  Whoever says that the inhabitants of England were Brits or English is a liar.  Whoever says that England is an Island is a liar.  Whoever says Muhuhammad was born in Mecca, raised in Mecca, was from the tribe of Hashim, which is part of the whole tribe of Quraysh that inhabited Mecca, and lived in Mecca most of his life is a liar.  Muhammad was a Petran! 

OK dude, you win.  I give up and I concede that you won.  Only Germans live in England.  And all speak Petran.

Osama Abdallah

Peace.

England has substantial historical literature written in English or its integral siblings, spanning many generations, none of which (or very few) is in Arabic; hence they did not speak Arabic primarily. This can be immediately verified.

England is an Island as demonstrated by aeriel photos. This can be immediately verified.

Your analogy is ill-posed.

And your conclusions regarding Muhammad are assumed from an external literaure, whose advent coincides with the victory of the Abbasid regime, post Ali and Uthman assassination.

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #50 on: November 10, 2017, 06:58:19 AM »
And again,your array of Irrationality is back,even After I provided enough proof to show Mecca was where Muhammad SAW was from.

Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #51 on: November 10, 2017, 08:13:19 AM »
And again,your array of Irrationality is back,even After I provided enough proof to show Mecca was where Muhammad SAW was from.

Peace.

I didn't bother responding to your wall of text because it is all rubbish that I have already studied. If you were genuine you would have studied it yourself, it's all rubbish.

The macro-historical data doesn't lie. And the intelligent viewers of this forum, most of whom probably haven't signed up, know that the evidence I bought is extremely strong and forms a silhouette that explains all the data. You ignore data and just spew rubbish.

If you believe in Mecca's fake history, then you also have to believe that Mecca predates the Egyptian pyramids. THAT MECCA PREDATES THE EGYPTIAN PYRAMIDS.

IT'S INSANE.

IT'S REDICULOUS.

Dat dere double think brah. Dat dere.

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #52 on: November 10, 2017, 08:44:52 AM »
You never even backed up any of your claims and only used the Qur'an instead of historical narrative.

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #53 on: November 10, 2017, 08:47:51 AM »
I do believe Mecca predated the Pyramids,its a simple block building not a huge triangle,so how is it Ridiculous? you're just using arguments like christian Creationists,you just judge physically instead of Evidently.

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #54 on: November 10, 2017, 08:49:31 AM »
And again to prove Mecca was a trade route or any of that,we must read an historical book and this book isnt by a Muslim,its an ancient pagan.

Ibn Kalbi,Kitab al Asnam,read that for yourself.

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #55 on: November 10, 2017, 08:57:54 AM »
If you claim that is ridiculous,then go be a Atheist,we dont need another kafir sect in Islam,as the Quran says,Mecca did exist

“Glorified be He Who took His slave on a journey by night from Al-Masjid-al-Haram[1]  to the Masjid-al-Aqsa[2], the neighborhood whereof We have blessed, in order that We might show him of Our signs[3].  Verily, He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer.” (Quran 17:1)

Offline shaad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #56 on: November 10, 2017, 09:14:10 AM »
NWO cleanse, you're simply rejecting their arguments without pointing out with which of the points you're in disagreement, if you really are confident like you're portraying then why don't you point out the mistakes and discuss about it? It would be a win-win situation because first of all if you succeed, you'll be able to "open our eyes" or if it is the other way around, we'll be able to "open" your's....

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #57 on: November 10, 2017, 09:23:45 AM »
All hes been doing Is screaming Maps ignoring literary evidence as rubbish and also just mocking nothing else,we destroyed Sam Gerrans points with simple logic yet hes just ignoring

Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #58 on: November 10, 2017, 10:36:07 AM »
NWO cleanse, you're simply rejecting their arguments without pointing out with which of the points you're in disagreement, if you really are confident like you're portraying then why don't you point out the mistakes and discuss about it? It would be a win-win situation because first of all if you succeed, you'll be able to "open our eyes" or if it is the other way around, we'll be able to "open" your's....

I can't open your eyes, the Quran is clear: God guides.

I promote macro-historical data because it is very hard for politicians to fake. For example, almost all early mosques faced Petra, then they gradually turned towards Mecca, this coincides with Mecca finally appearing on official maps.

When it does appear on the maps, it is not on the old trade route. This is all macro-historical data, there isn't much room for reinterpretation unless you are willing to manipulate data towards an agenda. This hard, physical data demonstrates the evolution of your hadith based religion.

Did that open your eyes? Nope. You're going to pull a micro-history like ptolemy (which is perpetually misrepresented, makoraba =/= mecca) and ignore the hard, physical data I presented.

There are intelligent societies of other Quranists who also reject Mecca and place the original site elsewhere than Petra, but bottom line: Mecca is not the original site. It's a psyop: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_Operations_(United_States)

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #59 on: November 10, 2017, 11:24:10 AM »
This guy has probably never heard of Mihrabs,that argument is so dang old.

Offline QuranSearchCom

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Islam is the Divine Truth!
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #60 on: November 10, 2017, 11:48:01 AM »
Mecca means destruction?  Where did you come up with this rubbish?  According to www.baheth.info, - a website that gives ample meanings from encyclopedic dictionaries, - Mecca was named as such because:

ومَكَّةُ معروفة، البلد الحرام، قيل: سميت بذلك لقلة مائها، وذلك أَنهم كانوا يَمْتَكُّون الماء فيها أي يستخرجونه


"Mecca, also known as the Holy City, is said was named as such because it the scarcity of its water, and that's because people YAMTAKOON the water in it, meaning they would extract it from the ground."

It makes perfect sense since Saudi Arabia has no rivers, and Mecca has the blessed well of Zamzam.

They gave many meanings, but none said or implied destruction.  Your source lied about the meaning of Mecca.



Very interestingly in the link above, one of the words that was derived from Mecca is MAKKOOK, which means a container.  And in today's Arabic, we do call the space ship AL-MAKKOOK AL-FADAAI.

AL = The.

MAKKOOK = Ship.

AL-FADAAI = One for space or in space.  FADAA' means space.  FADAAI means that of space or in space or belongs to space.  Like Iraq and Iraqi.  Israel and Israeli (Israelite).  Kuwait and Kuwati.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #61 on: November 10, 2017, 12:40:59 PM »
This guy has probably never heard of Mihrabs,that argument is so dang old.

Trying to wriggle your way out with ill-researched one liners isn't going to make your black box worship historical.

Mihrabs were introduced so that the new prayer direction could be identified. The original prayer direction was... I don't need to say it, do I? It begins with the letter P.

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #62 on: November 10, 2017, 12:42:24 PM »
Then how about you go and pray to your Al Uzza and Manats and stop disrupting Muslims? That'll be better for you,now you sound like a christian missionary again.


Mihrabs were there in Older mosques aswell,for eg the Mali mosque,etc,etc.

Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #63 on: November 10, 2017, 04:46:35 PM »
Then how about you go and pray to your Al Uzza and Manats and stop disrupting Muslims? That'll be better for you,now you sound like a christian missionary again.


Mihrabs were there in Older mosques aswell,for eg the Mali mosque,etc,etc.

I don't sound like a Christian missionary, I'm about strict monotheism.

I sound more like prophet Ibrahim when he was preaching against idol worship, and you sound like his people who were angry when he destroyed their idols, since you want me to go away. We are to replicate the example of the previous prophets, so I will continue preaching against worship of the priestly classes (hadith writers/Saudi librarians/oligarchs/wealthy politicians) and what they write with their pens, because according to them and you Allah somehow needs appendment (nauzubillah).

You can certainly pray towards Mecca, like some righteous Jews pray towards Jeruselum, you just cannot claim that your chosen method is the only acceptable way.

I pray towards Mecca when I'm with my family or at Friday prayers.

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #64 on: November 10, 2017, 05:29:49 PM »
This is your disgustful misunderstanding of the hadith then,

First of all Its not that Allah SWT needs apendment,Hadith is only a recording to follow the example of the Prophet,after all the Quran says we must follow what the Prophet has said too.

Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #65 on: November 10, 2017, 06:43:01 PM »
This is your disgustful misunderstanding of the hadith then,

First of all Its not that Allah SWT needs apendment,Hadith is only a recording to follow the example of the Prophet,after all the Quran says we must follow what the Prophet has said too.

Great, so I guess we should all start bowing to black boxes because the government said that Muhammad said to do it, and the government never lies (sarcasm).

Offline adilriaz123

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #66 on: November 10, 2017, 07:11:19 PM »
Asalam ul laykum dear brothers and sisters. Been quite busy lately so never had time to comment on subjects.

New World Order Cleanse, i do 't see the issue here. In the Quran Allah swt made it pretty clear when he mentioned the following:

Quran [2:144] "SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
We have certainly seen the turning of your face, [O Muhammad], toward the heaven, and We will surely turn you to a qiblah with which you will be pleased. So turn your face towardal-Masjid al-Haram. And wherever you [believers] are, turn your faces toward it [in prayer]. Indeed, those who have been given the Scripture well know that it is the truth from their Lord. And Allah is not unaware of what they do."

So what's the problem here? Clearly everyone knows that musjid al-Haram has always been in Makkah/Bakkah. There are reference from the Quran and Old Testament not just that but other historians. Your pointing out bias historians, so when u go to a doctor to get ur car fixed what happens? Exactly, ur taking expertise in a subject from those who shouldn't be looked as experts in the subject because they are not from the region nor did they look at research of the native people in arabic but rather read from other historians from times were there was termoil between different races and religions. All im saying is ur looking at the wrong people for information, because Allah swt already made it very clear in Quran. Also it wasn't the government that told us muslims to pray towards Kabba which is musjid al-Haram it was Allah swt and prophet Muhammad (pbuh) if u have problem withthat then i don't see how u can call urself a muslim. Sorry bro just being honest.

Offline Albarra

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #67 on: November 11, 2017, 12:06:24 AM »


Peace.

This is the one instance of this root of "Mekka". By comparative Quranic analysis of "Bibatni" and the lexicons, "Bibatni Mekka" translates to "belly of destruction", not "midst of Mekka (city)". Mecca today is not in a belly-like structure, and so fails to impress on these sparse descriptions within the Quran.

Your religion is a psychological operation, look up what that is. The 9/11 inside job is a great example of a psychological operation that is easily demonstrable.
[/quote]

Yes, sure. Whatever you say. Virginia means virgin. Therefore, people are virgins hahaha.

In fact, I'm living in a small town in Pennslyvania. It's called State College. So, this town is all about state college, right?

Philadelphia means "brotherly love". According to sources, this fancy word came from the new testament.

The same thing with Medinah. It means "city".
And many other examples as well.

Your argument is dumb and hilarious.

9/11 is a serious mystery. We know that the U.S. and Israeli governments have a lot of classified documents that are related to 9/11.

And now they accused Saudi Arabia for claiming 9/11? This is going too far! I really hope WikiLeak can hack classified documents from Israeli-American government.

You can disagree all you want, but many non-Muslims agree with us. Ironically, I heard an American preacher believe that the U.S. government had been responsible for 9/11.

And did you know that the Pentagon secretly paid a half of a billion dollars for making fake al-Qaeda's videos during US invasing in Iraq?

Oh by the way, President Trump ordered to release classified files about John F. Kenedy, but some federal officials urged him not to release some high-sensitive files for security reasons.

Jeez, I wonder why.
 
And you still refuse to answer my simple question.

Offline Albarra

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #68 on: November 11, 2017, 12:28:50 AM »
dang old.
[/quote]

Trying to wriggle your way out with ill-researched one liners isn't going to make your black box worship historical.

Mihrabs were introduced so that the new prayer direction could be identified. The original prayer direction was... I don't need to say it, do I? It begins with the letter P.
[/quote]

Yes Mr. NWO. I know the exact answer. P means piss.


Offline QuranSearchCom

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Islam is the Divine Truth!
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #69 on: November 11, 2017, 12:42:37 AM »
NWO Cleanse, please address my refutation to your source above.  I don't mind opposing views being posted here and discussed, but I don't tolerate clowns and liars.  Not accusing you of this, but do not weasel around the refutations.

You said that your source says Mecca in the lexicon means destruction.  I've gone through the dictionaries online and have not found it.  Please provide the proof here.

I've googled your definition and saw some empty loons pushing this idea on blogs, and all of their garbage thoroughly refuted by Arabs who used dictionaries and Arabic grammatical rules.  If you do not respond to this, then I will immediately ban you.  I don't need your rubbish rhetoric and lies here.  I respect real substance and love to learn from it and debate it, but not lies.


In one of blogs, one of your infidels spewed this rubbish:

"MKKH مكة  means "destruction" in the same way that the same form NKBH  نكبة means "disaster" (same exact form F3LH). This is a mundane form and a well known fact in Arabic that only the most ignorant can deny."

Taking advantage of the people's ignorance in Arabic, this anti-Islam prostitute lied by taking advantage of the similar sound of the two very-different words.  Here we have:

MECCA and NAKBA.  I've already shown above why Mecca was named as such.  But nakba means calamity.  The two words are entirely different.  They're not even spelling anywhere close to each other.  They just appear to the non-Arab as such.  Here is the proof:


MECCA is spelled as M, K, T

NAKBA is spelled as  N, K, B, T


Do you see people how the Arabic infidel prostitutes operate?  They fool the ignorant like our ignorant NWO Cleanse here with rubbish and they appear as scholars.


This is like saying "school" means evil, because "cruel" means one who intentionally causes pain and harm to others.  They both sound similar.  Just shut the hell up!




Will blame each other:

These infidel prostitutes remind me of this Noble Verse:

[007:038]  God shall say unto them at the resurrection, enter ye with the nations which have preceded you, of genii and of men, into hell fire: So often as one nation shall enter, it shall curse its sister, until they shall all have successively entered therein. The latter of them shall say of the former of them, O Lord, these have seduced us; therefore inflict on them a double punishment of the fire of hell. God shall answer, it shall be doubled unto all; but ye know it not.

The Day will come when these doomed-to-Hell infidels will turn on each other.  They can enjoy their current pathetic heaven from the cursed satan.  But the doom of Hell is near and real.  The Glorious Quran is Islam's Miracle.  It speaks Truth and Its Promises are all real, because they are from Allah Almighty.

To the reader, visit the following links to see the Glorious Quran's STUNNING Numerical and Scientific Miracles:

www.answering-christianity.com/ac20.htm#links
www.answering-christianity.com/ac20.htm#numerical_miracles
www.answering-christianity.com/100_percent_guarantee_that_quran_is_divine.htm


Osama

Offline QuranSearchCom

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Islam is the Divine Truth!
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #70 on: November 11, 2017, 01:20:11 AM »
NWO Cleanse, let's wrap this nonsense up.  Either you directly respond to my latest post or begone.

Offline Albarra

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #71 on: November 11, 2017, 01:40:05 AM »
And don't forget to answer my simple question, NWO.

Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #72 on: November 11, 2017, 04:58:42 AM »
NWO Cleanse, let's wrap this nonsense up.  Either you directly respond to my latest post or begone.

Peace.

I can't comment on the Arabic language, you might be right; I'm going to consult people who are skilled in Arabic. But Mecca at this juncture cannot mean the city Mecca today, because of everything I've said previously. If it did it would make everything messy.

Yes, I am entirely open to being proven wrong and learning. The goal is to strive to understand the Quran as it is, not assume conclusions from external literatures.

Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #73 on: November 11, 2017, 05:24:46 AM »


Peace.

This is the one instance of this root of "Mekka". By comparative Quranic analysis of "Bibatni" and the lexicons, "Bibatni Mekka" translates to "belly of destruction", not "midst of Mekka (city)". Mecca today is not in a belly-like structure, and so fails to impress on these sparse descriptions within the Quran.

Your religion is a psychological operation, look up what that is. The 9/11 inside job is a great example of a psychological operation that is easily demonstrable.

Yes, sure. Whatever you say. Virginia means virgin. Therefore, people are virgins hahaha.

In fact, I'm living in a small town in Pennslyvania. It's called State College. So, this town is all about state college, right?

Philadelphia means "brotherly love". According to sources, this fancy word came from the new testament.

The same thing with Medinah. It means "city".
And many other examples as well.

Your argument is dumb and hilarious.

9/11 is a serious mystery. We know that the U.S. and Israeli governments have a lot of classified documents that are related to 9/11.

And now they accused Saudi Arabia for claiming 9/11? This is going too far! I really hope WikiLeak can hack classified documents from Israeli-American government.

You can disagree all you want, but many non-Muslims agree with us. Ironically, I heard an American preacher believe that the U.S. government had been responsible for 9/11.

And did you know that the Pentagon secretly paid a half of a billion dollars for making fake al-Qaeda's videos during US invasing in Iraq?

Oh by the way, President Trump ordered to release classified files about John F. Kenedy, but some federal officials urged him not to release some high-sensitive files for security reasons.

Jeez, I wonder why.
 
And you still refuse to answer my simple question.
[/quote]

You misunderstood me. I know 9/11 is an inside job, therefore it is a psychological operation. Debris was ejected very far from the site, indicating preset explosives, and it was a perfect pancake demolition, plane's can't cause that. I go to the big fat evidence, not spurious literatures.

Likewise, when analysing Mecca, I go to the big fat evidences e.g. the early mosque orientations, the maps etc. Not spurious literatures (ptolemy, diadorus etc).

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #74 on: November 11, 2017, 08:22:28 AM »
You quite handily ignore the incense trade route map and the silk road map.

Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #75 on: November 11, 2017, 08:52:21 AM »
You quite handily ignore the incense trade route map and the silk road map.

Show me the map with the incense trade route map and the silk road map with Mecca's name on it, in the same vicinity.

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #76 on: November 11, 2017, 09:16:24 AM »

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #77 on: November 11, 2017, 09:19:34 AM »

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #78 on: November 11, 2017, 09:20:12 AM »
This website format aint that good,i cant post pics easily,

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #79 on: November 11, 2017, 09:22:24 AM »

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #80 on: November 11, 2017, 09:26:11 AM »
Want more?


Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #81 on: November 11, 2017, 09:29:48 AM »


Peace.

Can you please provide the dating of this trade route (is it pre-Islamic, Islamic, or post-Islamic?), and can you provide a historical map (not digitized) that corroborates with this dating?

If there was such a map, I'm sure the skeptical historians wouldn't have missed it.

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #83 on: November 11, 2017, 09:45:30 AM »
Dan Gibson never provided any ancient Map nor did Sam gerrans,

I provided historical maps like Ptolemy's map,what about it?

Offline Albarra

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #84 on: November 11, 2017, 03:06:30 PM »
NWO Cleanse, let's wrap this nonsense up.  Either you directly respond to my latest post or begone.

Peace.

I can't comment on the Arabic language, you might be right; I'm going to consult people who are skilled in Arabic. But Mecca at this juncture cannot mean the city Mecca today, because of everything I've said previously. If it did it would make everything messy.

Yes, I am entirely open to being proven wrong and learning. The goal is to strive to understand the Quran as it is, not assume conclusions from external literatures.

It doesn't matter. Mecca is a city in the Arabian Peninsula, and I've never heard that Petra is a holy land for Muslims.
Currently, there is no evidence that Muhammad (phub) was born in Petra. Not in the Qur'an or Hadith, or even Islamic history.
 

Your claim is dumb because Qur'an actually mentioned about Mecca in 1,400 years ago. Where in the Qur'an that mentioned Petra? Answer now!

In fact, all English translators, including doctors and non-Muslims, agreed that the Qur'an mentioned Mecca in 48:24.
http://islamawakened.com/quran/48/24/


NWO, just give up already. Mecca is a historical city, but Petra is useless.

Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #85 on: November 11, 2017, 04:35:16 PM »
NWO Cleanse, let's wrap this nonsense up.  Either you directly respond to my latest post or begone.

Peace.

I can't comment on the Arabic language, you might be right; I'm going to consult people who are skilled in Arabic. But Mecca at this juncture cannot mean the city Mecca today, because of everything I've said previously. If it did it would make everything messy.

Yes, I am entirely open to being proven wrong and learning. The goal is to strive to understand the Quran as it is, not assume conclusions from external literatures.

It doesn't matter. Mecca is a city in the Arabian Peninsula, and I've never heard that Petra is a holy land for Muslims.
Currently, there is no evidence that Muhammad (phub) was born in Petra. Not in the Qur'an or Hadith, or even Islamic history.
 

Your claim is dumb because Qur'an actually mentioned about Mecca in 1,400 years ago. Where in the Qur'an that mentioned Petra? Answer now!

In fact, all English translators, including doctors and non-Muslims, agreed that the Qur'an mentioned Mecca in 48:24.
http://islamawakened.com/quran/48/24/


NWO, just give up already. Mecca is a historical city, but Petra is useless.

Qiblah.

Maps.

Maps.

Qiblah.

Mass cencorship Qiblah Qiblah Mass cencorship.

Maps maps.

Qiblah Mass cencorship.

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #86 on: November 11, 2017, 09:51:28 PM »
Your view is non Quranic,its worthless arguing with you.

Remember We made the House a place of assembly for men and a place of safety; and take ye the station of Abraham as a place of prayer; and We covenanted with Abraham and Isma'il, that they should sanctify My House for those who compass it round, or use it as a retreat, or bow, or prostrate themselves (therein in prayer). (Surah Al-Baqara, 125)

From whencesoever Thou startest forth, turn Thy face in the direction of the sacred Mosque; that is indeed the truth from the Lord.And Allah is not unmindful of what ye do. (Surah Al-Baqara, 149)

Behold! Safa and Marwa are among the Symbols of Allah.So if those who visit the House in the Season or at other times, should compass them round, it is no sin in them.And if any one obeyeth his own impulse to good,- be sure that Allah is He Who recogniseth and knoweth. (Surah Al-Baqara, 158)

And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them.Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. (Surah Al-Baqara, 191)

And complete the Hajj or 'umra in the service of Allah.But if ye are prevented (From completing it), send an offering for sacrifice, such as ye may find, and do not shave your heads until the offering reaches the place of sacrifice.And if any of you is ill, or has an ailment in his scalp, (Necessitating shaving), (He should) in compensation either fast, or feed the poor, or offer sacrifice; and when ye are in peaceful conditions (again), if any one wishes to continue the 'umra on to the hajj, He must make an offering, such as he can afford, but if he cannot afford it, He should fast three days during the hajj and seven days on his return, Making ten days in all.This is for those whose household is not in (the precincts of) the Sacred Mosque.And fear Allah, and know that Allah Is strict in punishment. (Surah Al-Baqara, 196)

O ye who believe! Violate not the sanctity of the symbols of Allah, nor of the sacred month, nor of the animals brought for sacrifice, nor the garlands that mark out such animals, nor the people resorting to the sacred house, seeking of the bounty and good pleasure of their Lord.But when ye are clear of the sacred precincts and of pilgrim garb, ye may hunt and let not the hatred of some people in (once) shutting you out of the Sacred Mosque lead you to transgression (and hostility on your part).Help ye one another in righteousness and piety, but help ye not one another in sin and rancour: fear Allah.for Allah is strict in punishment. (Surah Al-Ma’ida, 2)

But what plea have they that Allah should not punish them, when they keep out (men) from the sacred Mosque - and they are not its guardians? No men can be its guardians except the righteous; but most of them do not understand. (Surah Al-Anfal, 34)

Their prayer at the House (of Allah.is nothing but whistling and clapping of hands: (Its only answer can be), "Taste ye the penalty because ye blasphemed." (Surah Al-Anfal, 35)

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. (Surah At-Tawba, 7)

Do ye make the giving of drink to pilgrims, or the maintenance of the Sacred Mosque, equal to (the pious service of) those who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and strive with might and main in the cause of Allah.They are not comparable in the sight of Allah.and Allah guides not those who do wrong. (Surah At-Tawba, 19)

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). (Surah Al-Isra’, 1)


Now tell me,seeing all these verses,wheres Petra? Nowhere. Nor can Petra be the sacred Mosque because

1.No evidence saying Abraham built Petra
2.Its a christian place with Idols and churches,from basic knowledge we know the idols were broken,so how ckme there are idols there?
3.It has churches,no sacred mosque to be found again.

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #87 on: November 11, 2017, 10:04:35 PM »
Btw Mecca is a valley,arabian valleys kind of look like this



And this is how Mountains of Mecca look like,this is an old image of Mecca before the Valley was destroyed by Wahhabists/and or inhabited by Buildings



So Mecca IS a Valley.

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #88 on: November 11, 2017, 10:07:09 PM »
Infact even Modern Mecca has sorrounding Mountains and is a complete Valley,still


Offline submit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #89 on: November 11, 2017, 11:00:23 PM »
The only figure in that can be relate to Petra was Paul based on Christians tradition , as Paul interpreted the verse Isaiah 42:11 as Petra , hence he visited Petra to fulfill the prophecy of new religion where God decided to adopt the way of Hellenistic worshiping by manifesting into a human body as a son of God giving salvation to mankind.

Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #90 on: November 12, 2017, 04:25:04 AM »
AMuslimDude STOP THINKING. Watch the documentary or shut up.

Every atom of data is considered; safa, marwa, ptolemy, surah fil, masjid al-haram etc EVERYTHING. Dont ask me to do your research for you.

Offline shaad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #91 on: November 12, 2017, 04:34:04 AM »
AMuslimDude STOP THINKING. Watch the documentary or shut up.

Every atom of data is considered; safa, marwa, ptolemy, surah fil, masjid al-haram etc EVERYTHING. Dont ask me to do your research for you.

I don't understand you're telling him to do his own research when you're the one who started this discussion...how is that even logical? If you've watched the documentary then why don't you summarise the points? It's $2.99 on Amazone prime, i wonder if his parents would allow him to rent this documentary...

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #92 on: November 12, 2017, 05:49:33 AM »
He hasn't summarized the points or anything,I doubt if he even has understood his own points he's tried to make,all he's been doing is trying to link us to the documentary rather than actually Prove Petra is where Muslims should be worshipping rather than Mecca.

I provided my proofs,thats it.

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #93 on: November 12, 2017, 05:56:21 AM »
Look,if Muhammad SAW was from Petra,Muhammad SAW would've been a huge influence since he preached religions other than the nabatean faith,

Can you give me ONE ancient Nabatean literature Mentioning Muhammad SAW in Petra??
Can you from 600 A.D?

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #94 on: November 12, 2017, 06:00:45 AM »
How can you take this guy seriously?

Look at him,he believes the earth is flat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP8QfiE9sxo

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #95 on: November 12, 2017, 06:16:19 AM »
I swear this guy's a joke,he tries to dumb down the historical narrative to the bible once proven wrong,then references 9/11 conspiracy's as his saviour,this is basically being a complete conspiracist and resorting to change of argumentation,9/11,and the Bible are different than the issue of Mecca,for 9/11 we had things laying around proving it wrong,we have no proof of it infact that it was the american government which did it,whereas the Bible John 1:1 thing,is not a letter,because its author is unknown,we donot know who it was,
But in the case of Mecca,we have ancient letters like so:
https://ponderingislam.com/2015/04/08/a-new-arabic-papyrus-dating-within-12-years-of-the-prophet-muhammad/


We have the proofs and archaelogical proofs like Muhammad SAW's clothings that Mecca was indeed where Muhammad SAW was from,and then these infidel Quranists expect to go and bow down to Idols in Petra?

its like they're trying to Paganize the religion to make it fit Liberal Values.

Offline Albarra

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #96 on: November 12, 2017, 07:04:42 AM »
AMuslimDude STOP THINKING. Watch the documentary or shut up.

Every atom of data is considered; safa, marwa, ptolemy, surah fil, masjid al-haram etc EVERYTHING. Dont ask me to do your research for you.

I don't understand you're telling him to do his own research when you're the one who started this discussion...how is that even logical? If you've watched the documentary then why don't you summarise the points? It's $2.99 on Amazone prime, i wonder if his parents would allow him to rent this documentary...

Honestly, last Thursday I bought a fish meal at a cafeteria and it was $5.80.


Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #97 on: November 12, 2017, 07:33:25 AM »
AMuslimDude STOP THINKING. Watch the documentary or shut up.

Every atom of data is considered; safa, marwa, ptolemy, surah fil, masjid al-haram etc EVERYTHING. Dont ask me to do your research for you.

I don't understand you're telling him to do his own research when you're the one who started this discussion...how is that even logical? If you've watched the documentary then why don't you summarise the points? It's $2.99 on Amazone prime, i wonder if his parents would allow him to rent this documentary...

Hi Professor Double Think,

He's a kid? I'll stop replying to him then. Well, this forum seems intellectually stagnant.

Offline shaad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #98 on: November 12, 2017, 09:04:48 AM »
Intellectually stagnant? Says the guy who watched a video but can't even summarise the points...he's not a kid by the way, he's a teenager, such a pity you're ignoring his points, why don't you even try to refute it instead of asking him spending real money on a documentary? Come on Mr. Quranist, summarise the points...of course you won't do it, too lazy eh?

Offline shaad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #99 on: November 12, 2017, 09:11:45 AM »
NWO cleanse, we'll be waiting Professor Lazy...take your time...

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #100 on: November 12, 2017, 09:21:08 AM »
Noice the Quranist is using ad hominems to escape the argument.

Offline shaad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #101 on: November 12, 2017, 09:49:22 AM »
By the way correct me if i'm wrong, isn't Mecca clearly mentioned in 48:24?

"....بِبَطۡنِ مَكَّةَ"

If that's not the case then what is the explanation for it?

Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #102 on: November 12, 2017, 01:59:38 PM »
By the way correct me if i'm wrong, isn't Mecca clearly mentioned in 48:24?

"....بِبَطۡنِ مَكَّةَ"

If that's not the case then what is the explanation for it?

Why don't you watch the documentary or read through the comments.

Offline shaad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #103 on: November 12, 2017, 05:30:06 PM »
By the way correct me if i'm wrong, isn't Mecca clearly mentioned in 48:24?

"....بِبَطۡنِ مَكَّةَ"

If that's not the case then what is the explanation for it?

Why don't you watch the documentary or read through the comments.

NWO cleanse, did you watch it before coming here? Of course you did....why don't you at least summarize the point then mate? Is that so hard?

Offline shaad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #104 on: November 12, 2017, 05:38:37 PM »
NWO cleanse, you said that MuslimDude's points are already dealt with in the documentary then it won't be hard for you refute it by yourself right? I remember you implied that this website is intellectually stagnant, so it would be easy for an intellectually superior being like you to refute those points....

Offline shaad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #105 on: November 12, 2017, 05:46:40 PM »
NWO cleanse, sorry for being rude yesterday by the way....

Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #106 on: November 13, 2017, 12:30:31 PM »
NWO cleanse, you said that MuslimDude's points are already dealt with in the documentary then it won't be hard for you refute it by yourself right? I remember you implied that this website is intellectually stagnant, so it would be easy for an intellectually superior being like you to refute those points....

"Mekka" root appears once in the Quran at 48:24. Some assert that 48:24 was altered from "Bekka" (denoting Petra) to "Mekka" (denoting Mecca) by politicians and other interested parties; some assert that "Mekka" means "destruction"; others believe that it indeed denotes a place called Mecca but not the Meecca known today, but some other place in northern Arabia.

And of course those who adhere to the Abbasid narrative (the hadith, majority of this forum) will believe that this word "Mekka" denotes today's Mecca. This is false, but you are free to double think if you feel it makes your life more comfortable.

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #107 on: November 13, 2017, 12:45:26 PM »
Agh,it all resorts to the common Quranist argument

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/questions_that_the_quranites_have_no_good_logical_responses_to


Even Your own Quranists

[48:24] He is the One who withheld their hands of aggression against you, and withheld your hands of aggression against them in the valley of Mecca, after He had granted you victory over them. GOD is Seer of everything you do.

(Rashad Khalifa translation)


And Rashad Khalifa translated most of it accurately,so you're also denying your own Quranist theory.

Issue is,you're making up arguments,and not backing them up,my point still stands if Muhammad SAW was from Petra there would've been some literature mentioning him out of the Quran in Petra since Muhammad SAW would've been a big influence to the Petrans.

Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #108 on: November 13, 2017, 01:32:54 PM »
Agh,it all resorts to the common Quranist argument

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/questions_that_the_quranites_have_no_good_logical_responses_to


Even Your own Quranists

[48:24] He is the One who withheld their hands of aggression against you, and withheld your hands of aggression against them in the valley of Mecca, after He had granted you victory over them. GOD is Seer of everything you do.

(Rashad Khalifa translation)


And Rashad Khalifa translated most of it accurately,so you're also denying your own Quranist theory.

Issue is,you're making up arguments,and not backing them up,my point still stands if Muhammad SAW was from Petra there would've been some literature mentioning him out of the Quran in Petra since Muhammad SAW would've been a big influence to the Petrans.

Forget about black boxes and gymnastics for a second, I have a mental exercise for shaad, who claims this forum isn't intellectually stagnant: there are numerous problems and assumed conclusions in the above quoted comment, point some out and predict the trajectory of my reply.

It doesn't have to be perfect.

Offline shaad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #109 on: November 13, 2017, 06:11:41 PM »
NWO cleanse, you claim about politicians changing the name from Bekka to Mecca and stuff....where are the proofs for that?  As far as AMuslimDude's reply is concerned, well if i were you i would have used the same response to him but i've got nothing to back it up....if you could bring some proofs it would be great for us....

Offline shaad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #110 on: November 13, 2017, 06:22:52 PM »
NWO cleanse, Concerning the meaning of "Makka", i can see that Osama already responded to you a you said you'll have to consult an expert to check his claim....we'll have to wait for you i guess

Offline shaad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #111 on: November 13, 2017, 06:24:47 PM »
Agh,it all resorts to the common Quranist argument

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/questions_that_the_quranites_have_no_good_logical_responses_to


Even Your own Quranists

[48:24] He is the One who withheld their hands of aggression against you, and withheld your hands of aggression against them in the valley of Mecca, after He had granted you victory over them. GOD is Seer of everything you do.

(Rashad Khalifa translation)


And Rashad Khalifa translated most of it accurately,so you're also denying your own Quranist theory.

Issue is,you're making up arguments,and not backing them up,my point still stands if Muhammad SAW was from Petra there would've been some literature mentioning him out of the Quran in Petra since Muhammad SAW would've been a big influence to the Petrans.

Forget about black boxes and gymnastics for a second, I have a mental exercise for shaad, who claims this forum isn't intellectually stagnant: there are numerous problems and assumed conclusions in the above quoted comment, point some out and predict the trajectory of my reply.

It doesn't have to be perfect.

Already said, i would have used the same response....

Offline Albarra

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #112 on: November 13, 2017, 10:54:10 PM »
NWO cleanse, Concerning the meaning of "Makka", i can see that Osama already responded to you a you said you'll have to consult an expert to check his claim....we'll have to wait for you i guess

Obviously ---  -

Hey brother Osama, can you give me a hand? We're still refuting this crazy guy about Muhammad's birth.


Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #113 on: November 14, 2017, 04:54:48 AM »
Agh,Osama already refuted this fool,all thats left is to ban him,he isnt even adressing MY points,he's just calling them weak and "mental gymnastics" even though my points are simple and straightforward,where is the PROOF?!

I provided my maps,proof,etc,and literature,he didn't so I'm waiting for a rational response with Proof.

Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #114 on: November 14, 2017, 07:15:21 AM »
Agh,it all resorts to the common Quranist argument

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/questions_that_the_quranites_have_no_good_logical_responses_to


Even Your own Quranists

[48:24] He is the One who withheld their hands of aggression against you, and withheld your hands of aggression against them in the valley of Mecca, after He had granted you victory over them. GOD is Seer of everything you do.

(Rashad Khalifa translation)


And Rashad Khalifa translated most of it accurately,so you're also denying your own Quranist theory.

Issue is,you're making up arguments,and not backing them up,my point still stands if Muhammad SAW was from Petra there would've been some literature mentioning him out of the Quran in Petra since Muhammad SAW would've been a big influence to the Petrans.

Forget about black boxes and gymnastics for a second, I have a mental exercise for shaad, who claims this forum isn't intellectually stagnant: there are numerous problems and assumed conclusions in the above quoted comment, point some out and predict the trajectory of my reply.

It doesn't have to be perfect.

Already said, i would have used the same response....

He claimed that I was affiliated with Rashad Khalifa, just because I reject the Abbasid narrative as canonical like Rashad - this is not true. I don't believe in the no.19 miracle, it's choppy.

Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #115 on: November 14, 2017, 07:22:47 AM »
Agh,Osama already refuted this fool,all thats left is to ban him,he isnt even adressing MY points,he's just calling them weak and "mental gymnastics" even though my points are simple and straightforward,where is the PROOF?!

I provided my maps,proof,etc,and literature,he didn't so I'm waiting for a rational response with Proof.

Peace.

I didn't respond because your commend was stupid. Your maps are very much post-Islamic and digitized too, which is explicit misinformation. And Ptolemy did not note Mecca on his maps, how many times did I say it - Makoraba on Ptolemy's maps are inland and so it is not the same place as Mecca which is on the edge of the hejaz. Read: https://www.academia.edu/4735458/Suggested_Solutions_for_Issues_Concerning_The_Location_of_Mecca_in_Ptolemys_Geography

Please do not comment on this topic further, I do not wish to converse with you anymore. Thank you.

Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #116 on: November 14, 2017, 07:26:08 AM »
p.s. I will respond if your comment is well-researched, else assume that I am ignoring you. Peace.

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #117 on: November 14, 2017, 07:48:24 AM »
Did Abraham build Petra?

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #118 on: November 14, 2017, 08:03:15 AM »
And you literally went from one thing,to something else,stay on point,you refuted one argument of mine,but what about there being literally no mention of Petra in the Quran explicitly,and there being no External literature mentioning Muhammad SAW,ALL of the places the Quran mentions that is related to Muhammad SAW are only near Mecca,none near Petra,

For example

Medina;"And among those around you of the bedouins are hypocrites, and [also] from the people of Madinah. They have become accustomed to hypocrisy. You, [O Muhammad], do not know them, [but] We know them. We will punish them twice [in this world]; then they will be returned to a great punishment."(9:101)

Badr:" And already had Allah given you victory at [the battle of] Badr while you were few in number. Then fear Allah ; perhaps you will be grateful."(3:123)

Now you'll resort to the Badr in amman,but this is problematic.

It isnt a valley,
Remember ye were on the hither side of the valley, and they on the farther side, and the caravan on lower ground than ye. Even if ye had made a mutual appointment to meet, ye would certainly have failed in the appointment: But (thus ye met), that Allah might accomplish a matter . For to Allah do all questions go back (for decision). ([Quran 8:42])   

The Quran describes Badr as a valley,whereas the badr in Jordan is not like a valley,its more like a desert Oasis,and nor was there any Muslim battle recorded there in any petran pre-islamic literature,infact not even Muhammad SAW was recorded,but somehow you came up with the claim "Muhammad SAW in Petra" even though his name is not present in any Pre-Islamic Petran Literature.


Hunayn:Assuredly Allah did help you in many battle-fields and on the day of Hunain: Behold! your great numbers elated you, but they availed you naught: the land, for all that it is wide, did constrain you, and ye turned back in retreat.
But Allah did pour His calm on the Messenger and on the Believers, and sent down forces which ye saw not: He punished the Unbelievers; thus doth He reward those without Faith.
[Quran 9:25]

Behold! they came on you from above you and from below you, and behold, the eyes became dim and the hearts gaped up to the throats, and ye imagined various (vain) thoughts about Allah! In that situation were the Believers tried: they were shaken as by a tremendous shaking. And behold! The Hypocrites and those in whose hearts is a disease (even) say: "Allah and His Messenger promised us nothing but delusion!" Behold! A party among them said: "Ye men of Yathrib! ye cannot stand (the attack)! therefore go back!" And a band of them ask for leave of Muhammad, saying, "Truly our houses are bare and exposed," though they were not exposed they intended nothing but to run away. And if an entry had been effected to them from the sides of the (city), and they had been incited to sedition, they would certainly have brought it to pass, with none but a brief delay! ... They think that the Confederates have not withdrawn; and if the Confederates should come (again), they would wish they were in the deserts (wandering) among the Bedouins, and seeking news about you (from a safe distance); and if they were in your midst, they would fight but little... When the Believers saw the Confederate forces, they said: "This is what Allah and his Messenger had promised us, and Allah and His Messenger told us what was true." And it only added to their faith and their zeal in obedience. [Quran 33:10–22)



So tell me are you still going to deny?


Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #119 on: November 14, 2017, 08:18:22 AM »
And Historically Abraham never built Petra
It was there even before Abraham in 2010 BC

and Paran is The region of hijaz today and the bible Says

Then God opened her [Hagar's] eyes and she saw a well of water. So she went and filled the skin with water and gave the boy a drink. God was with the boy as he grew up. He lived in the desert and became an archer. While he was living in the Desert of Paran, his mother got a wife for him from Egypt. (Genesis 21:19-22)


So how come?


and also
King David spent some time in the wilderness of Paran after Samuel died (1 Samuel 25:1).
I wonder what was King David doing there?(Pilgrimage)

And since Petra wasn't built by Abraham nor is it mentioned like that in the Quran,I wonder who built the Kaaba?

"Behold!  We gave the site, To Abraham, of the (Sacred) House [That is the Kaaba that he built], (Saying):  'Associate not anything (In worship) with Me; And sanctify My House For those who compass it round, Or stand up, Or bow, or prostrate themselves (Therein in prayer).  And proclaim the Pilgrimage among men: they will come to thee on foot and (mounted) on every kind of camel, lean on account of journeys through deep and distant mountain highways;  (The Noble Quran, 22:26-27)


Now Petra has no foundations like the Kaaba,or the black stone,Infact the Ka'ba is explicitly mentioned in the Quran

“God has made the Kaba, the Sacred House, an asylum of security, Hajj, and 'Umrah (pilgrimage) for mankind...” (Quran 5:97)

Did God DECEIVE THE WHOLE OF MANKIND? by letting Man change prayer directions,if you really do believe so? then you must be deluded,and your claim is an INSULT to Allah SWT

And you can't make the excuse of Petra,Petra is not a cubic building, While the Quran al Ka'aba quite literally means THE CUBE in arabic,this cannot be mentioning anything other than the Ka'aba of Mecca,since thats the only significant place in Islamic literature,in the Quran which is CUBIC,

So there,your claim has been Quranically debunked,even if you were a Quranist,you'll instantly know Petra wasnt the Qiblah,the Cube(or Al Kaaba in arabic) was the Qibla,according to the Quran.

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #120 on: November 14, 2017, 08:27:07 AM »
And also what I dont get if the original one was petra,and the Qibla was changed by Man,why wasn't there any outrage to this?

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #121 on: November 14, 2017, 08:34:18 AM »
Also going back to ptolemy heres a historical map





I wonder what place is "Mecha" on the map?

Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #122 on: November 14, 2017, 08:50:46 AM »
NWO cleanse, you claim about politicians changing the name from Bekka to Mecca and stuff....where are the proofs for that?  As far as AMuslimDude's reply is concerned, well if i were you i would have used the same response to him but i've got nothing to back it up....if you could bring some proofs it would be great for us....

Peace.

This view is because of the Qiblah change enforced by Abbasid politicians. Watch the documentary for a fuller answer.

I don't agree with this view because I believe in the Quran, I am just highlighting different views.

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #123 on: November 14, 2017, 08:54:58 AM »
If this was indeed true why was there no outrage on the Scholars? this is just a Qiblah argument,and again,there needs to be some scholarly book,or something left which does indeed denote this view,the Quran doesn't even mention Petra,nor does it describe the enviroment of Petra,rather it describes a place with a cubic building,which is a sacred Mosque
Yet in Petra,it is not cubic,nor are there signs of Any mosques there

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #124 on: November 14, 2017, 09:00:58 AM »
And the Macoraba response isnt that great neither,when we look at the Arabian felix map of Ptolemy he uses Macoraba somewhere in modern saudi arabia,and its right next to Mecca,maybe a little off,but then again its a historical map,infact this could show us where the name Makkah came from,
It was changed from Macoraba to Mecha.



If you want to view hte image more closely
You can view it on this site

https://www.wdl.org/en/item/2916/

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #125 on: November 14, 2017, 09:15:19 AM »
Even your Mihrab response is weak

The Mihrab was there since the time of Ancient Prophets like 'Isa A.S

"Then the angels called him, while he was standing in prayer in Al-mihrab (a praying place or a private room), (saying): "Allah gives you glad tidings of Yahya (John), confirming (believing in) the word from Allah [i.e. the creation of 'Îsa (Jesus) عليه السلام, the Word from Allah ("Be!" - and he was!)], noble, keeping away from sexual relations with women, a Prophet, from among the righteous."

(سورة آل عمران, Aal-i-Imraan, Chapter #3, Verse #39)

According to the Quran itself.

And has the news of the litigants reached you? When they climbed over the wall into (his) mihrab (a praying place or a private room);

(سورة ص, Saad, Chapter #38, Verse #21)

Offline shaad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #126 on: November 14, 2017, 11:46:09 PM »
AMuslimDude, i've sent you a PM please check it out...

Offline AhmadFarooq

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #127 on: November 15, 2017, 12:29:56 AM »
Numerous forum topics have been opened regarding the same subject. I suggest limiting responses to one, this one as it is the most replied-to.
If anyone wants intelligently presented debates/rebuttals between King and Gibson ... read: ... Both sides are presented...
"Both sides are presented" are not accurate words to attach to a rebuttal work. In the absence of a response by David A. King it is quite inaccurate to claim that "Both sides are presented".

A relevant article, The Qibla Of Early Mosques: Jerusalem Or Makkah?, rebuttal to an argument which can be claimed to be the intellectual predecessor of the Petra claim. Another relevant article, Ka'bah As A Place Of Worship In The History

A relevant quote,
Quote
And in those days Heraclius saw a dream in which it was said to him : «Verily there shall come against thee a circumcised nation, and they shall vanquish thee and take possession of the land». So Heraclius thought that they would be the Jews, and accordingly gave orders that all the Jews and Samaritans should be baptized in all the provinces which were under his dominion. But after a few days there appeared a man of the Arabs, from the southern districts, that is to say, from Mecca or its neighbourhood, whose name was Muhammad; and he brought back the worshippers of idols to the knowledge of the One God, and bade them declare that Muhammad was his apostle; and his nation were circumcised in the flesh, not by the law, and prayed towards the South, turning towards a place which they called the Kaabah. And he took possession of Damascus and Syria, and crossed the Jordan, and dammed it up. And the Lord abandoned the army of the Romans before him, as a punishment for their corrupt faith, and because of the anathemas uttered against them, on account of the council of Chalcedon, by the ancient fathers.
– The History Of The Patriarchs Of Alexandria, c. 96 - 97 AH / c. 715 CE.
Source: B. Evetts (Trans & Ed.), "History Of The Patriarchs Of The Coptic Church Of Alexandria - Peter I To Benjamin I (661)", in R. Graffin & F. Nau (Eds.), Patrologia Orientalis, 1904, Volume 1, Librarie de Paris, pp. 492-494. (Cited in Dated And Datable Texts Mentioning Prophet Muhammad ﷺ From 1-100 AH / 622-719 CE)

If someone can do the work, it will be interesting to see whether the oldest surviving Hadith manuscripts which also predate the Abbassids include any mention of Mecca or not.

Important to remember at this point is that the Qibla, due to the Muslims performing five prayers each day has the foundational importance of a magnitude so as to make hoodwinking hundreds of thousands of Muslims quite difficult, if not practically impossible.

Additionally, another side-point to add is the fact that by 50 years after the Prophet's death, the Arabs had taken over the Persian empire, therefore strong Islamic influence and its knowledge had reached from the borders of India to Egypt. In around a century after the Prophet's death Muslim rulers, religious influence and the knowledge of Islam had reached up-to-the Iberian peninsula (i.e. Spain). All this happened before the Abbassids even came to power and therefore before any alleged burning of libraries by the Abbassids.

Basically the Petra-truthers claim is that somehow, against all odds, the Abbassid efforts to subvert Islam in one of the most fundamental ways possible was so absolute, so comprehensive that they managed to remove the mention of the original Qibla from the hearts and minds of not only all the Muslims of their time, which by now should number in the hundreds of thousands, but also from the minds of hundreds of thousands of non-Muslims especially Persians who had just lost their centuries old empire to the Arabs and were, quite understandably, especially bitter about it.

Furthermore, the Ummayyads were ruling in Spain while this supposed Abbassid inquisition is taking place, who had, just a few decades previously, been overthrown in a bloody coup by the Abbassids. A coup which included incidences of brutality, such as barring one male, all members of the deposed Caliph's family getting eliminated. Exactly what extraordinary theory do the Petra-truthers have, to explain as to why even the deposed surviving Ummayyads accepted the Abbassids re-invention of religion? Co-incidentally, this Spain also has a culturally and intellectually vibrant Jewish community which, according to the Petra theory, apparently had also been completely convinced by the Abbassids even though they were pretty much completely beyond the reach of the Abbassid power.

Moreover, making the Abbassids as the conspirators in this elaborate scheme is even more problematic since their time was one of the most intellectually rich times for that region. Supported by facts such as The Abbasids’ House of Wisdom in Baghdad. So, basically, the Muslims and people of other faiths of those regions were able to save centuries-old Greek works but found themselves completely incapable of saving a single mention of Petra as the Qibla.

Such extraordinary efficiency of a government is absolutely unprecedented and unheard of, well aside from fiction that is.

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #128 on: November 15, 2017, 02:49:34 AM »
He hasn’t responded after my last response,hmm I wonder why?

Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #129 on: November 15, 2017, 10:05:21 AM »
Peace,

I put the evidence that suggests that Mecca is not historical in bold, that was the main purpose of this thread - hence why the information regarding the Qiblah is is not in bold. Petra is of secondary importance. You did not touch on the macro-historical data regarding Mecca.

Quote
"Both sides are presented" are not accurate words to attach to a rebuttal work. In the absence of a response by David A. King it is quite inaccurate to claim that "Both sides are presented".

This is needlessly pedantic, I am not into religious apologetics. Both sides are presented in that both authors views are linked, and if you read it then you'll find that Gibson agrees with a lot of what King claims.

Quote
A relevant article, The Qibla Of Early Mosques: Jerusalem Or Makkah?, rebuttal to an argument which can be claimed to be the intellectual predecessor of the Petra claim.

This is parroted everywhere. Look at the below table from Gibson's book, it largely agrees with the data of the orientations in your linked article.



Of the mosques that do face Petra:




Quote
Another relevant article, Ka'bah As A Place Of Worship In The History

Rubbish. I will not repeat myself. Those who are genuine can read back, or study the claims themselves.

Quote
A relevant quote:

"And in those days Heraclius saw a dream in which it was said to him : «Verily there shall come against thee a circumcised nation, and they shall vanquish thee and take possession of the land». So Heraclius thought that they would be the Jews, and accordingly gave orders that all the Jews and Samaritans should be baptized in all the provinces which were under his dominion. But after a few days there appeared a man of the Arabs, from the southern districts, that is to say, from Mecca or its neighbourhood, whose name was Muhammad; and he brought back the worshippers of idols to the knowledge of the One God, and bade them declare that Muhammad was his apostle; and his nation were circumcised in the flesh, not by the law, and prayed towards the South, turning towards a place which they called the Kaabah. And he took possession of Damascus and Syria, and crossed the Jordan, and dammed it up. And the Lord abandoned the army of the Romans before him, as a punishment for their corrupt faith, and because of the anathemas uttered against them, on account of the council of Chalcedon, by the ancient fathers.
– The History Of The Patriarchs Of Alexandria, c. 96 - 97 AH / c. 715 CE."

Source: B. Evetts (Trans & Ed.), "History Of The Patriarchs Of The Coptic Church Of Alexandria - Peter I To Benjamin I (661)", in R. Graffin & F. Nau (Eds.), Patrologia Orientalis, 1904, Volume 1, Librarie de Paris, pp. 492-494. (Cited in Dated And Datable Texts Mentioning Prophet Muhammad ﷺ From 1-100 AH / 622-719 CE)

This dating roughly coincides with the advent of the finalized Qiblah, reinforcing the interests of the Mecca conspirators in light of the larger data preceding Islam.

Quote
If someone can do the work, it will be interesting to see whether the oldest surviving Hadith manuscripts which also predate the Abbassids include any mention of Mecca or not.

If the elites permit you to have such information. And some truth will inevitably be found in the hadith; they would not want to create fake material out of thin air, they would rather take real material and manipulate it towards whatever agenda you are trying to push. This is what Paul did with Christianity and what the Zionist media does with world events. These people are not stupid, and I have huge professional respect for them.

Quote
Important to remember at this point is that the Qibla, due to the Muslims performing five prayers each day has the foundational importance of a magnitude so as to make hoodwinking hundreds of thousands of Muslims quite difficult, if not practically impossible.

Assumed conclusions from the hadith literature, salah does not denote a ritual prayer, I will make a separate thread about this in the future. In the mean time, read: https://www.quranite.com/salat-in-the-quran/

Excerpt:

"While he does not always capitalise the noun, he still treats it as a proper noun, i.e. the Prayer. Like Mount Everest in the grammar section above, by the Prayer he means something known and recognised as a discrete thing. Yet the Traditionalist shifts around to other values for ṣalāt as we shall see:

-Default: the Islamic ritual (proper noun)
-Prayer as an abstraction (abstract noun)
-The Jewish prayer (proper noun)
-Blessings – most commonly: blessings sent by the believer upon the dead prophet  (abstract noun)
-Blessings – from God toward men (abstract noun)
-Synagogues (common noun)"


For those with a damage attention span and cannot read, watch Joesph's excellent, erudite presentation on the Quranic concept of salah: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4APNPrfRORQ (I do not agree with everything in Joseph's video, but I do with Gerran's article).

Quote
Additionally, another side-point to add is the fact that by 50 years after the Prophet's death, the Arabs had taken over the Persian empire, therefore strong Islamic influence and its knowledge had reached from the borders of India to Egypt. In around a century after the Prophet's death Muslim rulers, religious influence and the knowledge of Islam had reached up-to-the Iberian peninsula (i.e. Spain). All this happened before the Abbassids even came to power and therefore before any alleged burning of libraries by the Abbassids.

Basically the Petra-truthers claim is that somehow, against all odds, the Abbassid efforts to subvert Islam in one of the most fundamental ways possible was so absolute, so comprehensive that they managed to remove the mention of the original Qibla from the hearts and minds of not only all the Muslims of their time, which by now should number in the hundreds of thousands, but also from the minds of hundreds of thousands of non-Muslims especially Persians who had just lost their centuries old empire to the Arabs and were, quite understandably, especially bitter about it.

Furthermore, the Ummayyads were ruling in Spain while this supposed Abbassid inquisition is taking place, who had, just a few decades previously, been overthrown in a bloody coup by the Abbassids. A coup which included incidences of brutality, such as barring one male, all members of the deposed Caliph's family getting eliminated. Exactly what extraordinary theory do the Petra-truthers have, to explain as to why even the deposed surviving Ummayyads accepted the Abbassids re-invention of religion? Co-incidentally, this Spain also has a culturally and intellectually vibrant Jewish community which, according to the Petra theory, apparently had also been completely convinced by the Abbassids even though they were pretty much completely beyond the reach of the Abbassid power.

This is not our game. I say "Abbasid" for simplicity, what I really mean are the elites in general, because we do not know their dealings fully. Who knows why the Umayyad's would absorb Abbasid reinventions? It's like asking why would George Bush want to fly planes into buildings on American soil? No one truly knows (assuming 9/11 was an inside job). I follow macro-historical data (of which are generally archaeological in nature) and not interjections based upon political micro-translations of a thousand years ago; we do not know their dealings, are not permitted to know their dealings, and cannot know their dealings.

Quote
Moreover, making the Abbassids as the conspirators in this elaborate scheme is even more problematic since their time was one of the most intellectually rich times for that region. Supported by facts such as The Abbasids’ House of Wisdom in Baghdad. So, basically, the Muslims and people of other faiths of those regions were able to save centuries-old Greek works but found themselves completely incapable of saving a single mention of Petra as the Qibla.

You are assuming that there was an iron-rule for the original Qiblah, this is demonstrably not the case when you read the beginning of 2:177 on the Quranic concept of virtue and the historical context of Muhammad's time vis-a-vis the builders of early mosques. The Quran does not favour a racially centric Qilah, details of which can be found in Gerran's translation.

Also, I am not an expert on realpolitik. I use the pre-Islamic macro-historical data and generally disregard the micro-historical data, especially when the micro-historical data takes on a completely different flavour than the macro.

Quote
Such extraordinary efficiency of a government is absolutely unprecedented and unheard of, well aside from fiction that is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE9Lbu9_bVA

Arguably bigger, if true.

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #130 on: November 15, 2017, 10:18:18 AM »
LOL I GOT IT WHAT YOU ARE,YOU ARE A CONSPIRACIST,YOU ARE NOW TRYING TO IMPLY HISTORY IS CHANGED
WOW
Its good to ignore you then.

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #131 on: November 15, 2017, 10:25:09 AM »
I doubt Dan Gibson or Sam gerrans have ever even visited these mosques.

The Qibla can only be determined by the original floorplans,which  none of these authors have.

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #132 on: November 15, 2017, 10:30:30 AM »
The video you provided is idiotic

Chapter 10 Jonah سورة يونس - Yunus: Verse 87
وَأَوْحَيْنَا إِلَىٰ مُوسَىٰ وَأَخِيهِ أَنْ تَبَوَّآ لِقَوْمِكُمَا بِمِصْرَ بُيُوتًا وَاجْعَلُوا بُيُوتَكُمْ قِبْلَةً وَأَقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ ۗ وَبَشِّرِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ
We inspired Moses and his brother with this Message: "Provide dwellings for your people in Egypt, make your dwellings into places of worship, and establish regular prayers: and give glad tidings to those who believe!" View more verses

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #133 on: November 15, 2017, 10:30:57 AM »
Do you ever bring a argument that can Quranically be suppored?

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #134 on: November 15, 2017, 10:35:35 AM »
And for people who were actual historians who studied these floorplans,etc

Have said this

Modern studies have shown that in the early mosques astronomical alignments were used for qibla. Astronomical phenomenon such as sunrise or sunset during equinoxes, solstices, Pole star, Canopus, etc. were used to direct the mosques towards qibla. Concerning the early mosques in Egypt and Iraq, David King says:

The first mosque to be built in Egypt was built facing winter sunrise, and it was this direction which remained the most popular throughout the medieval period amongst the religious authorities. Likewise some of the earliest mosques in Iraq were built facing winter sunset. Only recently has it become known that astronomical alignments were used for the qibla, so that some modern historians (sic!) have mistakenly inferred from the orientations of the early mosques in Egypt and Iraq that they were not built to face the Kaaba at all, but rather to face some other sacred site. Now, however, we even know why such astronomical alignments were used

As brilliantly outlined in this video by the erudite Mansoor, Smith’s conclusions and leanings on the work Dan Gibson and a certain “Dr Theus” are wild-eyed to the point of giving up on critical thinking and intellectual honesty. Smith’s theory of Petra being the early qibla (and his subsequent theory of Muslims inventing a new history and role for Mecca after the fact) are based on Google Earth images of mosques. Mansoor highlights the obvious problem in this methodology that anybody who offers it a little thought would recognise; one cannot ascertain the qibla via satellite images of mosques.
One must have knowledge of the interior of the mosque, Mansoor mentions floor plans and the mihrab (a niche in the interior of the wall of a mosque denoting the direction of prayer for worshippers in the mosque). Let me emphasise the methodology of folk like Jay Smith. If I showed you a Google Earth image of your local mosque would you be able to ascertain the direction the Muslims at that mosque pray towards? No, of course not. Smith would have folk believe he can do this for ancient mosques!

As pointed out in the video,”Dr Theus” even criticises the methodology of Dan Gibson and how arbitrary it was in terms of deciding where each mosque’s qibla was. One could just as easily decided the qibla was the direction of Hawaii rather than Petra using such a method.

At the end of the day this is an excellent example of how folks with agendas in the revisionists community churn out “research” which is essentially manipulated in attempts to support one’s pre-conceived contentions.

Basically Muslims would direct the qibla towards what they observed in the horizon when facing one of the walls of the Kaba. To read about the astronomical alignments which Muslims were using over the centuries to ascertain the qibla have a read of the relevant section in this article. A couple of take home points here are:

1. As the Kaba has four walls there were differences in the way Muslims directed their mosques – you’ll use different astronomical alignments depending on which wall of the Kaba you face to observe the horizon

2. It wasn’t an exact science and thus finding old mosques which aren’t orientated accurately is nothing to write home about. Islamic Awareness do show the most famous mosque outside of Arabia, masjid al aqsa, was oriented correctly towards Mecca.

Another excellent snippet to be alert to would be the leeway the Islamic tradition affords Muslims when it comes to determining the qibla; it doesn’t have to be an exact science:

There are several traditions in the Islamic heritage showing that the determination of the qibla was accomodated with some flexibility except for Makkah owing to the little knowledge in the fields of geography and geometry in the early centuries of Islam. Such traditions can be found in several ḥadīth collections like Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Sunan Ibn Majah and Muwaṭṭaʾ Mālik as stated below.

a. Muwaṭṭaʾ Mālik

Malik narrated to me on the authority of Nafiʿ that ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb said: “[Anywhere] between the East and the West is taken as a qibla as long as one heads towards the House”. Source

The Petra conspiracy theory has no evidence to it at all and I’m sure deep down this shamed Christian missionary knows it’s absurd – even if he is unable to comprehend what the scholarly Muslim was saying he will surely ask why there is NOTHING about Petra in early Muslim literature and why there was no upheaval and dispute after this supposed shift to Mecca!

So why does he make outlandish claims like these and try to prop them up with faulty reasoning and misinformation? It’s because of his agenda to “destroy Islam”.

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #135 on: November 15, 2017, 10:41:52 AM »
They were given an expedient (anything between east and west in a southerly direction and with the technology of that time within 9 degrees when they tried. Quite good I say. I know Dan Gibson thinks they were super Arabs that had precise science that would allow them to exactly point to an area. Yeah sure and evidence?. So what is the problem?

This explanation fits the late antique context, the non Muslim testimony, the archaeological data and the collective memory of all the Muslims

So there is your explanation why mosques in this period didn’t precisely point to Mecca

Now here is your self defeating proposition. Please provide me with the coordinates from an academic source on the ground of one mosque that precisely points to Petra. Go for it! Significant number of data available (from academic sources) if you bothered.

“It demonstrates at the very least that Islam was EVOLVING”

Just love this . Nope in the words of Hoyland

“The issue then may not be so much what the Muslims were directing themselves towards, as how they established what that direction was. Here one must differentiate between the calculation of the direction for congregational mosques and its estimation for individuals, private prayer places and so on. The latter was always likely to be inaccurate whereas the former was likely to be depend on the current state of astronomical science and its correct application. From the late eighth century onwards we find Muslim astronomers busily devising trigonometric and geometric solutions to the problem of determining the Qibla for any given locality……The problem was that “the greater the distance involved, the greater the error in the qibla”

There you go and data on the ground has not changed since Hoyland mentioned this in the late 90’s

Islam isn’t evolving, its the technology. Get it ?

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #136 on: November 15, 2017, 11:03:27 AM »
As for Safa and Marwa,IT IS IN THE QURAN

Sura 2 - Al-Baqara (MADINA) : Verse 158
Verily! As-Safâ and Al-Marwah (two mountains in Makkah) are of the Symbols of Allâh. So it is not a sin on him who performs Hajj or 'Umrah (pilgrimage) of the House (the Ka'bah at Makkah) to perform the going (Tawâf) between them (As-Safâ and Al-Marwah).[] And whoever does good voluntarily, then verily, Allâh is All-Recogniser, All-Knower.

OMG I guess someone didnt bother searching through the Quran??

Allah SWT made it clear the KAABA is the Holy house

Sura 5 - Al-Maeda (MADINA) : Verse 97
Allah has made the Ka’bah, the Sacred House, a source of stability for people, and also the sacred month and the sacrificial animal and the garlands. All this is because you may learn that Allah knows what is in the heavens and what is in the earth. Allah is All-Knowing in respect of everything.
Translation : Eng-Mufti Taqi Usmani

Sura 5 - Al-Maeda (MADINA) : Verse 95
O you who believe! Kill not game while you are in a state of Ihrâm for Hajj or 'Umrah (pilgrimage), and whosoever of you kills it intentionally, the penalty is an offering, brought to the Ka'bah, of an eatable animal (i.e. sheep, goat, cow) equivalent to the one he killed, as adjudged by two just men among you; or, for expiation, he should feed Masâkin (poor persons), or its equivalent in Saum (fasting), that he may taste the heaviness (punishment) of his deed. Allâh has forgiven what is past, but whosoever commits it again, Allâh will take retribution from him. And Allâh is All¬Mighty, All-Able of Retribution

IS THE KAABA IN PETRA? Nope,Petra is infact not even a cube,its shape is a mixture of Triangles and Circles,




Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #138 on: November 15, 2017, 12:06:31 PM »
After a bit of research on Zimrans

he Greek historian Diodorus Siculus is believed to have mentioned the Kaabah in 60–30 BC while describing the coast of Jeddah and its surrounding areas mentioned:
The inhabitants of the land about the gulf, who are known as Banizomenes, find their food by hunting the land animals and eating their meat. And a temple has been set up there, which is very holy and exceedingly revered by all Arabians.
— Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, Book 3 Chapter 44[38]

Banizomenes were zimrans,and they lived on the coast of Arabia(RED SEA) so therefore
THIS HAS TO BE AN EARLY MENTION OF MECCA/KAABA

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #139 on: November 15, 2017, 12:16:50 PM »
And Makoraba is mecca,now you may ask,Why is it off coordinates?
The solution is below.

If we suppose that Macoraba is Mecca, there is a slight problem with its coordinates. Ptolemy puts it southeast of Yathrib; Mecca is southwest. Even before 1800 Konrad Mannert noticed that Macoraba was too far from the coast and offered a solution: Ptolemy’s sources knew Mecca from the overland caravan route, and had never approached the town from the coast. Of course, we don’t know where Ptolemy’s information ultimately came from; but even this solution may be too elaborate, because in general it seems that Ptolemy had more trouble calculating longitude than latitude, meaning that his towns are more accurately positioned north-south than east-west.

This had decisive consequences for his geography of Arabia. Dūmat al-Jandal (Dumaitha) is indeed further north than Taymā’ (Thaima), which is further north than al-Ḥijr (Egra), Yathrib (Lathrippa), and Najrān (Nagara); but then Ptolemy puts Najrān way out east in the middle of the peninsula. The overall effect is to push towns away from the coast, crowding the heart of the peninsula and practically erasing the Empty Quarter of harsh desert in the southeast. Under these constraints, Macoraba’s location with respect to Mecca may be considered within a margin of error.

But we should be cautious. This margin of error is not itself evidence that Macoraba is Mecca; it merely opens the door for investigation. As this blog series will show, some of the ancient names that have been associated with Mecca are most likely in the region of the Sinai and the Gulf of Aqaba, or down by Oman and the Hadramawt. Macoraba has the virtue of at least being placed in the Hijaz, but imprecisely. We should heed Patricia Crone’s advice: “Naturally, Pliny’s longitudes and latitudes are inexact; but if they are inexact, one cannot identify places on the basis of them alone.”

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #140 on: November 15, 2017, 01:15:30 PM »
Okay,enough of this BS that NWO cleanse keeps putting out instead of sufficient Proof.

Ima go do things more relevant rather than somehow History changing courses and somehow all the letters of Muhammad SAW which Mention Mecca are false,and somehow all the Houses,places,etc and the area the Quran mentions that Fits Mecca is not there in the Quran(even though the Only place with a Macoraba/Kaaba is in Mecca,and no other ancient temple is there in Saudi arabia)

Offline AhmadFarooq

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #141 on: November 18, 2017, 05:35:49 PM »
This is needlessly pedantic…
Not, when you accuse others of lacking critical reasoning when you yourself link to an article that supports your position and not any that go against it.

On its own, there wouldn’t have been a problem with linking to an article which supports one’s position, people do that all the time.
However, you went further; you claimed “both sides are presented”, which is untrue, as Gibson’s response to criticisms against him have been cited but not King’s counter-response. It’s like a scenario in which after my response (my previous one or this one), this topic gets closed and you are restricted from replying. After which, I start advertising on the internet that “both sides are presented” or that everyone got a chance to prove their arguments.

Additionally, only an observation was made when this was pointed out, you were not accused of lying, maliciousness, or arrogance. But instead of accepting it or even ignoring it and just moving on, you couldn’t stop yourself from snubbing it and calling the other person a pedant.

Furthermore, all of this still could’ve been chalked up to an honest inconsequential mistake, but then you went further by accusing someone else of lacking critical intellect, and said “stop thinking, because you can't think. Lol.”
If you are overly emotional about your religion, then don't watch it.

I am not a relativist, things are either true or they are not. Muhammad was not from Mecca, because he just wasn't. Critical thinking isn't your sport... let academic historians do their stuff and then judge from there, stop sprouting misinformation. I linked Gibson's and King's clash, read that and stop thinking, because you can't think. Lol.
In light of the previous points, are you sure “critical thinking isn't your sport.”

I am not into religious apologetics.

If I’m not mistaken, you should realise that pretty much all the responses that have been made to your comments come under the purview of “religious apologetics”.

This is parroted everywhere. Look at the below table from Gibson's book, it largely agrees with the data of the orientations in your linked article. This basically means that after posting your topic here, you don’t really care about the replies. I’m pretty sure that this wasn’t your intention.

I apologise but I don’t understand whether this is supposed to disprove anything or not. From what I understand, pretty much the whole point, or a large part, of Gibson’s response to King’s article was to show how Gibson comes to different conclusions than King using the same basic information. King and others argue the orientation to be inspired by equinoxes/solistices, already present architectural foundations, casual mistakes/coincidences etc. while Gibson’s claims they represent deliberate effort to direct towards Petra.

Rubbish. I will not repeat myself.

I apologise, I missed that you were looking for specific types of evidence and not any evidence that could be provided against the Petra claim.

This dating roughly coincides with the advent of the finalized Qiblah, reinforcing the interests of the Mecca conspirators…

First it was the Abbasids who hatched the elaborate conspiracy and now the Umayyads were in on it too? Abbasids couldn’t accept the Umayyad rule – took over the government, wiped out almost the entire ruling family, fractured the Muslim people – but changing the religion of their entire people, apparently, this they had no issues with. If any evidence that goes against your claim is going to be disregarded and chalked up as being part of the conspiracy, there probably isn’t going to be anything that would have the capacity to convince you.

Assumed conclusions from the hadith literature, salah does not denote a ritual prayer…

So, now I suppose the Salat was a conspiracy too. Out of curiosity, basically what purpose do you think ablution serves which is specifically mentioned in the Qur’an?

This is not our game. I say "Abbasid" for simplicity, what I really mean are the elites in general, because we do not know their dealings fully. Who knows why the Umayyad's would absorb Abbasid reinventions?

So basically, you don’t have any plausible explanation or motivation for the alternate history you are trying to forward. People can’t be expected to believe this alternate version of history if even a pragmatic reason for allegedly one of the most successful and extensive history re-writing campaigns cannot be supplied.

It's like asking why would George Bush want to fly planes into buildings on American soil? No one truly knows (assuming 9/11 was an inside job).

If this is actually what happened, obvious motivations can easily be attributed to it. The Bush administration wanted to attack Iraq and they wanted a plausible reason to do so and for the American people to let it be done. From what I know, money was made due to the Iraq war by Bush administration officials. Bush’ re-election can also be attributed to the war. The American government was able to subvert civil liberties of their people, get rid of the Habeus Corpus, an enemy was needed after the Cold War to keep the funding and innovation going for military and intelligence services (as attested to by multiple US officials). Several plausible rationalities are obvious.

I follow macro-historical data (of which are generally archaeological in nature) and not interjections based upon political micro-translations of a thousand years ago … I use the pre-Islamic macro-historical data and generally disregard the micro-historical data, especially when the micro-historical data takes on a completely different flavour than the macro.

Basically, what you are saying is that you accept some forms of historical evidence but not others. In this particular case being, the type that allows your position to remain alive, but not the type that completely refutes it. Besides, some of the evidence that is used for the Petra claim, comes not under the purview of macro-historical data but under micro-historical form.

You are assuming that there was an iron-rule for the original Qiblah, this is demonstrably not the case when you read the beginning of 2:177 on the Quranic concept of virtue and the historical context of Muhammad's time vis-a-vis the builders of early mosques. The Quran does not favour a racially centric Qilah, details of which can be found in Gerran's translation.

I don’t think there was anything in my quoted reply that appeared to declare that I assumed “an iron-rule for the original Qiblah”. The main point of that paragraph was the question of why protection of centuries old, comparatively irrelevant, Greek texts was possible, but not of any mention of the most important Islamic site. As even without the Hajj or the Salat it would still remain the birthplace of Prophet Muhammad and by extension Islam itself, that is, in addition to all the geographical and archaeological evidence provided in support of Petra being the original Makkah.

… Arguably bigger, if true.
If it were true.

Bart Ehrman, a famous Bible scholar, pointed out in one of his debates, that the only surviving manuscript of the New Testament from the first three centuries consisted of only a few verses. Additionally, we have pretty much no information about the humans from whom we get various New Testament books, we don’t even know their names. Additionally, the text went through a translation process from its original language which then became the widely available format. If similar issues persist with the Old Testament, then it would require the collusion of only a handful people at a certain point in time for such an extraordinary reinvention of history to become a reality. Additionally, the Jewish people were also not propagating their religion to others, which would’ve made an internal conspiracy more plausible. Possible or not, such a scenario still remains unlikely. Not being a scholar on the issue, is the only reason I don’t provide more of an absolute rejection of this idea.

On the other hand, Islamic scripture, for the most part, did not have any of these problems. Islam was not limited to one particular community, its followers became the dominant force over an extensive area in a short time period, major proselytizing work was involved, hundreds, if not thousands, of people, have been recorded to be involved in the works which provide us with the traditionalist history of Islam. Their names, characters, geographic locations have been recorded and even comments about their memories have been made. No major translation efforts can be pointed out that would have afforded the opportunity for such a drastic reinvention of history. Individuals involved with collecting Islam’s history were at times severely disliked by the government, case in point would be of Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, author of the most extensive collection of Hadiths, but also one put in jail and allegedly tortured by his Abbasid ruler. Additionally, unlike the Old Testament times, this is also the time from which numerous historical records survive and when literary activities became much more frequent, not only for Muslims but for Jews in Spain as well. In light of all these points and many more, no, I don’t believe a potential Jewish reinvention of history would be a “bigger” achievement.

Offline submit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #142 on: November 20, 2017, 09:00:18 AM »
the funny thing  ;D is that the conspirator forgot to insert Medina in their '1001 tale of historical origins'. Obviously that  ruling caliphate had to develop two new cities to fit the storyline.
 
hence the accusation should be read as

Peace,

Below I put the key evidences in bold as they generally have least/no alternative interpretations:

- There is no archaeological evidence that Mecca and Medina existed until 150 years after Muhammad's death. This is peculiar given Arabia's dry, preserving climate (every archaelogists dream come true), and by comparative/contrasting histories.
- Makkah as "Mother of All Cities" ( i.e. a major trading city), a term used explicitly in the Quran at 42:7, is not sustainable historically, but fits Petra perfectly,
- Makkah and Medina  never a major city on a caravan route whereas Petra was both (how can Mecca be a huge trading hub is it's not even on the trading route?)
- 'Makkah and Madina'  not found on any map until 900 CE, 300 years after Muḥammad’s birth


Offline Albarra

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #143 on: November 20, 2017, 10:04:32 PM »
If Medinah did not exist during Muhammad's life, then where is his funeral? Petra?


Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #144 on: March 28, 2018, 03:02:09 PM »
Ahh this old argument that I refuted it was actually fun to dig down on ancient maps and finally find several that were showing Mecca to be a city.

and that Incense route took me a week and hours of research to finally find xD

Thing is. Mecca had historical sites. REALLY ANCIENT ONES proving Muhammad SAWs existence there. but they were all destroyed thanks to the Saudi government.
and also another thing to consider is in the Maps the area Mecca is we see the sign of a city that Ptolemy used to draw to signify a significant place.

And another historical thing to consider would be that many cities werent well known in the ancient world. for eg. there are some maps where Jerusalem isnt there. for eg. Some Maps show America doesnt exist.

So thing is. Mecca was a global trade route as I've shown but in the same it could have been a tribal one
Perhaps the reason Quran calls it mother of all cities was because of how famous it was among the arab tribes.

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #145 on: March 28, 2018, 03:34:11 PM »
Another funny thing about the argument is that Petra flooded in 551 and was destroyed by earthquakes and people Abandoned Petra in 551. so we can see it could NOT have been Petra since Petra died in 551 and theres no historical proof of Muhammad SAW being there  ;D
So really the argument just springs back to NWOs face since there was no trade route in Petra after its destruction in 551. and Muhammad SAW was born in Makkah. as many historical records tell us. heck HIS OWN COUSIN. Ali Ibn Abi Talib R.A came out of Makkah. no Petra was mentioned.

Even his adopted son. Zaid as his name is mentioned on the Quran. a historical Zaid of the such was only recorded in Mecca
 not a Petra.

So really this argument is hilarious as NWO is mentioning he follows the Quran yet goes against its Historical narrative it proposes.

Very Ironic Wallahi  ;D


Offline Albarra

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #146 on: March 29, 2018, 09:12:14 AM »
MuslimDue, I think he stopped responding after AhmadFarooq destroyed him.

Online AMuslimDude213

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.
« Reply #147 on: March 29, 2018, 12:14:05 PM »
Yes but this argument is still being taken seriously by Missionaries,its just historically embarassing and unsupported,really.