Is it Mekkah or Petra?

[Hombre]

This youtube documentary is a bit long. Nonetheless, it worth watching, where Dan Gibson examines the central issue in Isalm - did it originate in Mekkah or Petra in today's Jordan?.

Since Muslims never engaged in any meaningful form of archaeology to discover the facts about Isalm - Dan Gibson, who claims to have spent more then 30 years studying the origin of the Quran and that of Islam. His conclusion sound quite convincing.

[Fernando]

Too long for me at the moment but I've seen other material which makes the Petra argument sound very convincing - far more than Mecca. After all, if someone's going to invent a god and a religion, inventing a birthplace for them is a small matter.

[Hombre]

The interesting part is, he uses same common sense approach as many of us do. Take passages from Quran & Hadith themselves and ask the proverbial question "how can it be"?

His poignant argument is - those descriptions seem to fit sites and scene more to Petra & Mekkah.

Btw, if you have never been in Petra, I highly recommend to go there - it is fascinating place to to see

[Garudaman]

& the answer is a bit long too : http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Histor ... qibla.html

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.

[manfred]

So, are you saying they got it wrong the first few times? Isn't it odd that that the mistakes consistently point to some place close to Petra and not, as you would expect, have random variations? Our user "the Cat" has written extensively on this issue... have a look.

[Fernando]

& the answer is a bit long too : http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Histor ... qibla.html

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.

That looks distinctly pagan to me.

[Hombre]

& the answer is a bit long too : http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Histor ... qibla.html

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.

That looks distinctly pagan to me.

Yes. if we consider we are in the zone of la la land of mirage. The very reason that, all those stories of 1000 night Arabian nights had originated from that part of the world.

[Garudaman]

So, are you saying they got it wrong the first few times? Isn't it odd that that the mistakes consistently point to some place close to Petra and not, as you would expect, have random variations? Our user "the Cat" has written extensively on this issue... have a look.

not odd at all, as they all (petra, kaaba, astronomical object) are close each other http://www.muslimheritage.com/article/f ... k-to-makka

[manfred]

not odd at all, as they all (petra, kaaba, astronomical object) are close each other http://www.muslimheritage.com/article/f ... k-to-makka

Approximate distance as the crow flies in miles from Petra Jordan to Mecca Saudi Arabia is 669 miles or 1076.42 Kilometers

https://www.distances-calculator.com/wo ... -mecca.htm

close enough to be a a simple error? Then why did this error repeat itself? What is the chance of that? If people could not work out the Qibla accurately, you would expect random variation, but the divergence is consistently in one direction only.

Also, there is Qur'an's story of Abraham and Ishmael travelling to Mecca and build the kaaba there. With Abraham living somewhere near Hebron in the levant there is a problem with this narrative: We know that Abraham lived some 1000 years before camels were first used in the region to carry supplies and travellers.

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/20 ... -East.aspx

So an elderly man is walking over 1000km through one of the most hostile terrain on the planet, without food and supplies?

Another problem is even more problematic: while the issue with the camels may have been not known to early Muslims, the age of Mecca certainly was. Everybody knew that the settlement was just a little over 200 years old at the time of Mohammed. So how would Abraham have gone to a not yet existing city? Surely this would have been raised with Mohammed if not by his own people, surely by any Jew or Christian. And yet that is something we have no record of in any early text. Isn't that odd?

The thing is, both this issues resolve themselves (and some others...) if the original "kaaba" was in fact in Petra, not Mecca, none of this comes as a problem.

Also, we know that the "night journey" by Mohammed has been only long after his death related to Jerusalem. The Qur'an leaves the location unmentioned. So if later Muslim rulers re-wrote the Mohammed and Jerusalem story, it is just as probable that they also re-wrote the "Mohammed and Mecca" story. There may have been a real Mohammed, (or several people conflated into one). But much of what Muslims say about his are stories and tales invented by later people for political reasons.

[skynightblaze]

So, are you saying they got it wrong the first few times? Isn't it odd that that the mistakes consistently point to some place close to Petra and not, as you would expect, have random variations? Our user "the Cat" has written extensively on this issue... have a look.

As far as I remember from that discussion, we do see random variations. Its not like they are perfectly pointing towards one place close to Petra. If the data put by islamic awareness is correct then the theory that Qibla pointed towards somewhere near petra is wrong. They also quote a non muslim writer from 7th century :

Jacob of Edesa:
The Jews who live in Egypt, as likewise Mahgraye there, as I saw with my own eyes and will now set out for you, prayed to the east, and still do, both people - the Jews towards Jerusalem, and the Mahgraye towards the Kʿabah (K‘bt'). And those Jews who are in the south of Jerusalem pray to the north; and those in Babylonia and nhrt' and bwst' pray to the west. And also the Mahgraye who are there pray to the west, towards the Ka‘ba; and those who are to the south of the Ka‘ba pray to the north, towards the place. So from all this it is clear that it is not to the south that the Jews and Mahgraye here in the regions of Syria pray, but towards Jerusalem or Kʿabah, the patriarchial places of their races

Here is the conclusion of that article which Garudman quoted:

It was claimed by Crone, Cook and Smith that the early mosques pointed towards an unnamed sanctuary in northern Arabia or even close vicinity of Jerusalem. However, a closer analysis using the modern tools available to us show that the qiblas of early mosques were oriented towards astronomical alignments; winter sunrise of mosque in Egypt and winter sunsets for mosques in Iraq. It was shown conclusively that the early mosques do not point at northern Arabia or even close vicinity of Jerusalem. We also added the study of 12 early mosques in Negev highlands to support our conclusions.

In the early centuries of Islam, Muslim did not have tools to determine the qibla with precision. Only from third century onwards mathematical solutions for determining qibla were available; even then their use was not widespread. The folk astronomy retained its strength as suggested by various mosques in Cairo, Cordova and Samarqand. This gave rise to various directions of qibla, sometimes way off from the true direction.

[manfred]

Hi SNB, good to hear from you. OK, we have 7th century sources telling us that early Muslims prayed toward the KAABA. But does it say it is the particular one in Mecca? We know that at that time there were many such sanctuaries.

And you are right, the orientations of those early mosques are not PERFECTLY pointing a Petra, you would not expect them to, as people were not yet very good at determining the qibla. But the early ones from Egypt all consistently point towards the Levant, and not Arabia. There is an a good 60 degree difference, if taken from Egypt, far too big to be a chance error, specially if repeated several times. And while people were not perfect in getting the qibla right in early Islam, errors of that size would be very strange.

One could perhaps explain the Egyptian misalignments by suggesting that one builder copied another, including the mistakes. That is a possibility.

However, if we assume that Mecca really was the origin of Islam, how would you handle the issue of the story of Abraham and the Kaaba and its problems, one of which at least, the age of the settlement in Mecca, would have been known to people living there? Perhaps they assumed Abraham only lived quite recently?

The is also the curiosity that "Mecca", like Jerusalem, escapes a mention in the Qur'an. All we have is a place called "Bakka" which is suggested to be Mecca, but that is simply an interpretation. Another interpretation is that the word refers to the "valley of the Baka tree" mentioned in the Psalms, but that is a location close to Jerusalem, and certainly not Mecca in Arabia.


Perhaps we need to be a little careful and not automatically assume when we hear "Kaaba" is ALWAYS means Mecca and its sanctuary there. We also need to careful tease apart what the sources say to us and how people have decided to interpret them.

[Fernando]

The folk astronomy retained its strength as suggested by various mosques in Cairo, Cordova and Samarqand. This gave rise to various directions of qibla, sometimes way off from the true direction.

Folk astronomy? That would be a pagan matter, carried forward into Islam, rather than amateurish geography.

[skynightblaze]

Hi SNB, good to hear from you. OK, we have 7th century sources telling us that early Muslims prayed toward the KAABA. But does it say it is the particular one in Mecca? We know that at that time there were many such sanctuaries.

No it doesn't. But, lets assume for a minute that Qibla pointed towards somewhere in Levant as the qiblas of mosques in Egypt suggest . Now as far as I know there were multiple Kaabas in arabia and not Levant. So if Kaabas existed in arabia alone then Jacob of Edessa is hinting about qibla somewhere in arabia and not Levant. This means the either Jacob of Edesa got it wrong or the theory of orientation of qiblas to decide where islam started is wrong. I think its the latter. I will elaborate it below.

And you are right, the orientations of those early mosques are not PERFECTLY pointing a Petra, you would not expect them to, as people were not yet very good at determining the qibla. But the early ones from Egypt all consistently point towards the Levant, and not Arabia. There is an a good 60 degree difference, if taken from Egypt, far too big to be a chance error, specially if repeated several times. And while people were not perfect in getting the qibla right in early Islam, errors of that size would be very strange.

One could perhaps explain the Egyptian misalignments by suggesting that one builder copied another, including the mistakes. That is a possibility.

In this case , we are considering mosques only from Egypt and not from other places. Islamic awareness cites a study carried out by Avni regarding early mosques in Negev. The number of mosques is 12 and all of them roughly (not exactly) point towards Mecca . Here is what they write:

However, if we assume that Mecca really was the origin of Islam, how would you handle the issue of the story of Abraham and the Kaaba and its problems, one of which at least, the age of the settlement in Mecca, would have been known to people living there? Perhaps they assumed Abraham only lived quite recently?

I cannot explain this. Even I wonder how people could believe that Abraham went to Mecca. I expect people during those times (7th century) to know that Mecca was at the max 2 centuries old and not old by 2000 odd years . Anyway, this is a problem that muslims face and there is no answer for that apart from accepting the historical blunder.

The is also the curiosity that "Mecca", like Jerusalem, escapes a mention in the Qur'an. All we have is a place called "Bakka" which is suggested to be Mecca, but that is simply an interpretation. Another interpretation is that the word refers to the "valley of the Baka tree" mentioned in the Psalms, but that is a location close to Jerusalem, and certainly not Mecca in Arabia.

48:24 in quran does make a mention of Mecca. All the translators translate the highlighted word to Mecca.

Wahuwa allathee kaffa aydiyahum AAankum waaydiyakum AAanhum bibatni makkata min baAAdi an athfarakum AAalayhim wakana Allahu bima taAAmaloona baseeran

Also,just because a book did not mention a place, it would not automatically follow that the place did not exist. Even if we assume that Mecca is not mentioned in quran, a non muslim can defend this by saying- Quran was never collected properly. It might be the case that some copy had the word Mecca but Uthman's copy did not.

Perhaps we need to be a little careful and not automatically assume when we hear "Kaaba" is ALWAYS means Mecca and its sanctuary there. We also need to careful tease apart what the sources say to us and how people have decided to interpret them.

I agree and I think the best way to truth is through discussion. Either of us can have a point which might change the conclusion radically.

[manfred]

I have a lot to do today, but I will try to write some more later.

And you are right there is this one mention, I forgot about that one...

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.

It is in the surah called "the conquest", and allegedly about the conquest of Mecca. It also mentions a sacred msoqus but does not say where it is as such. There is no description of the details of this conquest at all. In the whole surah you get just this one "in the belly of Mecca" comment. No mention of Meccans, Quraish, or anything like that. And Mecca at the time was hardly so big that it had a centre or a "belly" as such... The Kaaba, surrounded by a few houses without roofs.... Not exactly like some big city..... A strange comment....

Some translators, aware of this odd phrase, suggested "valley" as a translation:

"And He it is Who hath withheld men's hands from you, and hath withheld your hands from them, in the valley of Mecca, after He had made you victors over them. Allah is Seer of what ye do. These it was who disbelieved and debarred you from the Inviolable Place of Worship, and debarred the offering from reaching its goal. And if it had not been for believing men and believing women, whom ye know not - lest ye should tread them under foot and thus incur guilt for them unknowingly; that Allah might bring into His mercy whom He will - If (the believers and the disbelievers) had been clearly separated We verily had punished those of them who disbelieved with painful punishment."

Now, while this removes the suggestion of a vast city, it creates another problem: This passage falls short of identifying Mecca as the location of the sacred mosque. It only claims that while in the valley of Mecca there were certain unnamed men who tried to prevent the Muslims from reaching the sacred mosque. If anything, this implies that the mosque was not in Mecca, but that this "Mecca" valley was en route to the location of the mosque....

Then we read about unbelievers and "desert Arabs"... "Desert Arabs" ? Perhaps I can ask you to think about this odd phrase for a second. First of all, as all Arabs are desert people, why "desert Arabs"? Then, the text is supposed to be "revealed" by an Arab and for Arabs. So why referring to the Arab people in a way as if you need to explain what they are to outsiders? If you live in India, you hardly speak of your neighbour next door as the "Indian who like curry and eats with his right hand" or something like that, if you are an Indian yourself. Any description of an Indian would only be used if you are either talking to other people or if some other people are describing you. In fact your would hardly refer to your neighbour even as an "Indian", he would be the man next door, or perhaps you mention his home town or similar...

This odd phrase makes it sound as if the unnamed conqueror the surah speaks of conquest a far distant place in desert and a people that need to be described somehow to the audience.... Not really what you would expect in a text written by an Arab for Arabs.


What do you make of that?

I think this "Mecca" reference does not fit with the rest of the text, and is likely a late addition to the text, possibly in the Uthman recension when the modern version was compiled.


Then we have the Muslim assertion that "Bacca" elsewhere the Qur'an is really "Mecca". So why suddenly "Mecca", if that was the name used at the time? There are supposed to be only a few years between "Bacca" and this "Mecca" reference. Isn't that odd? Why was it renamed, by whom and when?

We have answers to name changes to these Questions.... Bombay to Mumbai, Karl Marx Stadt to Chemnitz, Leningrad to St Petersburg, Augusta Treverorum to Trier , Lutetia to Paris ...

But why not for this one?

[Fernando]

Which is worse - kaaba in Petra or multiple kaabas anywhere? Wouldn't Allah be uncomfortable sitting over more than one at once?

[skynightblaze]

Hi Manfred,
Sorry for the late reply. Lets continue the discussion further..

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.

It is in the surah called "the conquest", and allegedly about the conquest of Mecca. It also mentions a sacred msoqus but does not say where it is as such. There is no description of the details of this conquest at all. In the whole surah you get just this one "in the belly of Mecca" comment. No mention of Meccans, Quraish, or anything like that. And Mecca at the time was hardly so big that it had a centre or a "belly" as such... The Kaaba, surrounded by a few houses without roofs.... Not exactly like some big city..... A strange comment....

I can think of a possibility here. There might be a time gap between 2 events i.e. when this verse was allegedly revealed to muhammad and the time at which it was actually put in the quran say during Uthman's time or some time later. The time period could be around 20 to 40 years which is a decent time for the city to grow. So while putting this verse in Quran during Uthman;s time, the compiler would probably imagine the Mecca at his time and write accordingly instead of visualizing how it might be when the verse was allegedly revealed to muhammad. More ever this verse could also have been altered during Al- Hajjaj's time somewhere in 8th century AD. There is again a huge time gap here. From a small village Mecca might have been changed totally and hence the author may be referring to Mecca as seen by him during his time.

Also we are assuming when we say that Mecca was a just few houses without roofs because we don't have the exact historical details. It could may have been a small village but I certainly agree it was not a well known city as we know it today.

Some translators, aware of this odd phrase, suggested "valley" as a translation:

"And He it is Who hath withheld men's hands from you, and hath withheld your hands from them, in the valley of Mecca, after He had made you victors over them. Allah is Seer of what ye do. These it was who disbelieved and debarred you from the Inviolable Place of Worship, and debarred the offering from reaching its goal. And if it had not been for believing men and believing women, whom ye know not - lest ye should tread them under foot and thus incur guilt for them unknowingly; that Allah might bring into His mercy whom He will - If (the believers and the disbelievers) had been clearly separated We verily had punished those of them who disbelieved with painful punishment."

Now, while this removes the suggestion of a vast city, it creates another problem: This passage falls short of identifying Mecca as the location of the sacred mosque. It only claims that while in the valley of Mecca there were certain unnamed men who tried to prevent the Muslims from reaching the sacred mosque. If anything, this implies that the mosque was not in Mecca, but that this "Mecca" valley was en route to the location of the mosque....

I am not sure if it follows that mosque was not in Mecca. If I say I was stopped in the London (may be I was on the north side of river Thames) preventing me from reaching London's eye, would that mean London's eye is not in London?

Then we read about unbelievers and "desert Arabs"... "Desert Arabs" ? Perhaps I can ask you to think about this odd phrase for a second. First of all, as all Arabs are desert people, why "desert Arabs"? Then, the text is supposed to be "revealed" by an Arab and for Arabs. So why referring to the Arab people in a way as if you need to explain what they are to outsiders? If you live in India, you hardly speak of your neighbour next door as the "Indian who like curry and eats with his right hand" or something like that, if you are an Indian yourself. Any description of an Indian would only be used if you are either talking to other people or if some other people are describing you. In fact your would hardly refer to your neighbour even as an "Indian", he would be the man next door, or perhaps you mention his home town or similar...

This odd phrase makes it sound as if the unnamed conqueror the surah speaks of conquest a far distant place in desert and a people that need to be described somehow to the audience.... Not really what you would expect in a text written by an Arab for Arabs.

What do you make of that?

Is this missing in the english translation? Where does it say desert arabs? Am I missing something?

Anyway, if it is addressing the arabs as desert arabs then it would appear that the audience being addressed are non arabs as you suggest which would support Petra-Mecca theory but then we should see such a consistency in the quran and not just have one off beat verse. If it's just one offbeat verse then it could be mistake made by authors of quran. The reason I say this is somewhere else quran makes a reference to Quraish. If quran was formed in a setting outside arabia there should be plenty of verses indicating that. Now a question here might be- can anybody be so dumb to make mistakes of such magnitude? I think the answer is yes at least when we are talking about authors of quran. They were not scholars but illiterate desert bandits. After reading the quran, I sincerely believe that they were capable to stoop down to any level of stupidity no matter how impossible it appears.

In short, I think it's a mistake to use quran as a source to determine historical Mecca (either positive or negative) because we know shabily the quran was collected. It's not even from the author that Muhammad approved to start with and its clear that it was edited across generations so we are bound to found out of sync references.

I think this "Mecca" reference does not fit with the rest of the text, and is likely a late addition to the text, possibly in the Uthman recension when the modern version was compiled.

It could as well be later than Uthman. Al- Hajjaj is reportedly to have changed some portions of quran in 8th century.

Then we have the Muslim assertion that "Bacca" elsewhere the Qur'an is really "Mecca". So why suddenly "Mecca", if that was the name used at the time? There are supposed to be only a few years between "Bacca" and this "Mecca" reference. Isn't that odd? Why was it renamed, by whom and when?

We have answers to name changes to these Questions.... Bombay to Mumbai, Karl Marx Stadt to Chemnitz, Leningrad to St Petersburg, Augusta Treverorum to Trier , Lutetia to Paris ...

But why not for this one?

I think Bacca has nothing to do with Mecca. A drowning man will even clutch to a straw to save his life. That could be the reason why muslims assert that Bacca is Mecca.