Author Topic: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.  (Read 22834 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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.