Author Topic: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.  (Read 22197 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline 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 ?

Offline 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,




Offline 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

Offline 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.”

Offline 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?


Offline 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.

Offline 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.

Offline 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.