Author Topic: Muhammad was not from Mecca, but Petra.  (Read 39715 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline 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?

Offline 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.

Offline 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

Offline 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/

Offline 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.

Offline 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.

Offline 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.

Offline 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.

Offline 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

Offline 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?

Offline 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”.

 

What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube