Author Topic: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.  (Read 22723 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 »

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:,2911.msg13880.html#msg13880

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):,2254.msg10005.html#msg10005,2254.msg10009.html#msg10009

And again, the detailed rebuttal to the points above and to the youtube video is located at:,2911.msg13880.html#msg13880

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Offline 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

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:

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

Offline 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 »

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.

Offline 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 »