Is it Mekkah or Petra?

Prove Islam is from God, why it is the 'One True Religion'.
User avatar
Takeiteasynow
Posts: 786
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 8:24 pm

Re: Is it Mekkah or Petra?

Post by Takeiteasynow »

There is much more circumstantial evidence for the claim that Petra is Mecca. In the nineties of the previous century the Petra Papyri were discovered, together with a charred piece of wood with an Arabic description. The archeological context of this find suggests that inscription dates from the second half of the sixth century of the beginning of the seventh century. Palaeographic analysis postulates the same period.

Now the very interesting part of this discovery is that this is the first use of diacritical signs in pre-Quranic Arabic script. The marking 'nayif' or 'nāyiq' means something as 'elevated' or 'sharp' mind.
The usage of diacritical signs was introduced by the Masoretes, a group of Jewish scribe-scholars who worked between the 6th and 10th centuries CE, based primarily in early medieval Palestine.
Their main center was Tiberias, the center of Jewish learning and religion in the centuries before the rise of Islam. It was here where the Jerusalem Talmud was codified. And remarkably enough, soon after the Arab conquest of Byzantine Tiberias became the main Islamic religious center.

So how did this knowledge arrive in Petra? There are two possibilities:

1) Petra was a main pilgrimage center for Jews from Galilee/Tiberias. The holy mountain Jabal-al-Harun hosts the tomb of prophet Aron/Harun. One of the earliest historical records of Aron's shrine comes from the historian Josephus Flavius who writes in the first century that Aron was buried near Petra. In the fourth century Byzantine historian Eusebius names the mountain Hôr at Petra, in the Old Testament mentioned as the place where Aron was buried. In this scenario pilgrims would have introduced the usage of diacritical signs.

2) The development of Islamic theology is deeply rooted in Jewish eschatology. In the beginning of the seventh century the notion that the end of times would soon arrive was widely spread in the context of a devastating war between the Byzantine and Sassanid empire, climate crisis and epidemics. In this scenario the sudden rise of Qur’anic Arabic is sponsored by the Jewish intellectual community in Galilee as part of movement that reintroduces the Temple Mount tradition in 633 CE, when Jewish/Hagarene/Arab forces conquer Jerusalem (contemporary source: Doctrina Jacobi). Petra would have acted as the starting base for this movement.

This may well indicate that all available circumstantial evidence needs to be chained in order to create a new and consistent view on the rise of Islam.
Abraham= H'ammu'rab(b)i, Historical Muhammad=Benjamin of Tiberias. Islam: Syncretic Israelite Yahwishm Deity: nameless, epithets Dsr, El Qutbay, ʼAlâhâ, Allāh. Ka'ba: Kutha => Samaria => Petra=> Makkah. Hijrah 622: Petra => Kerak

User avatar
Takeiteasynow
Posts: 786
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 8:24 pm

Re: Is it Mekkah or Petra?

Post by Takeiteasynow »

The Language of the Qur’an: Arabia Petraea as only possible origin

PART I: This series of articles is tries to provide more evidence for the Petra-Mecca case by first narrowing down the possible origin of classical Arabic script and language and then try to extend the main conclusions from Dan Gibson's Qur’anic Geography with the results from this research. Finally results from studies on agricultural exploitation of the hinterland of Petra and trade relations in Syro-Palestine shall be used to extend these 'main conclusions'. Using archeology, epigraphy and linguistics to narrow down the origin of the Quran. The latter can only be a product of Hellenistic Syro-Palestine.

When we look at Late Antique Syro-Palestine and Arabia in the early seventh century, the time when Islam is said to have become a religion, an interesting yet complex mosaic of cultures and languages can be observed. Linguistically, various languages were spoken and written. Here we confront a common long-persisting misconception, namely that the Arabs were largely illiterate before Islam. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Roughly speaking, Arabia in Antiquity was divided into three geographical regions: Arabia Felix, Deserta and Petraea.

In the South-western corner (approximately modern Yemen), Arabia Felix, or “Happy Arabia,” various South Arabian Semitic languages were spoken, the most important of which is Sabaean, written in a Semitic script which split off from the Syro-Palestinian alphabetic tradition during the Bronze Age. Ancient Yemen was heavily involved in the spice and incense (later also the silk) trade from which it garnered considerable wealth.

To the North, in what is now more or less Saudi Arabia, was the Classical Arabia Deserta, or “Abandoned Arabia,” home to Mecca and Medina, a region sparsely inhabited by nomadic tribes and various oasis settlements, often caravanserais for the long-distance trade. The contemporary local languages are nowadays designated as Ancient North Arabian: they are interrelated Semitic (oasis) dialects that, however, are not direct ancestors of Classical Arabic. Inscriptions in these languages or dialects are attested roughly from the sixth century BC to the sixth century AD throughout the region into the modern Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The writing culture of Arabia Deserta was borrowed from the South- i.e., they used variants of the Ancient (epigraphic) South Arabian script.

Further to the North, in the geographical area of Syro-Palestine (which includes the Egyptian Sinai, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Southeastern Turkey and North-western Iraq) was Arabia Petraea, or the Provincia Arabia, the Roman border province whose capital was Petra. This region had been exposed to Greco-Roman culture for close to a millennium.
The major written languages here were Greek and various Aramaic dialects, the most important of which was Syriac. Furthermore, much of the population of this region (unlike in Arabia Deserta) had converted to one form or another of Christianity (which was anything but an homogenous, monolithic entity).
The important point that must be noted is that although in Arabia Petraea Aramaic and Greek texts are often attributed to the Nabateans, Palmyrinians and others who were actually neither Aramaean nor Greek, their names and occasional stray words in inscriptions show that they were ethnically Arab. We are dealing with a situation similar to that of medieval Western Europe in which Latin was the written language, while the spoken languages (vernaculars) were the precursors of the languages spoken today.

Before Islam
Briefly summarized, the Arabic language (especially with regard to the primary diagnostic feature, the definite article al-) and script of Arabia Petraea are the precursors of the classical Arabic script and language.

Before Islam, texts in the Aramaic script are hardly attested south of the modern state of Jordan and then only in the extreme North-west corner of modern Saudi Arabia. In Arabia Felix and Deserta other scripts and languages were current. It is in Arabia Petraea that we find occasional Arabic texts in an Aramaic script and even Arabic written in Greek characters. A sixth/seventh century fragment of Psalm 78 found in the Umayyad “Mosque” at Damascus shows just how close this Arabic is to what would later morph into Classical Arabic (e.g., imala). The precursor to Classical Arabic was thus spoken in Syria, not in the Hijaz.

Syro-Palestinian Arab-Semitic dialect
We now have two independent sources of prima facie contemporary evidence- aerial linguistics and script distribution- to show that the language of the Koran must be based on a Syro-Palestinian Arab-Semitic dialect and that the script employed was not that used in Mecca and Medina of the period, but the one used in Arabia Petraea. If the Koran is actually a product of the Hijaz, then we would expect it to be in a different (Ancient North Arabian) Semitic language and written in a different script. That is not the case. The traditional account of the Koran’s origins is not supported by the evidence. The peculiar thing about the Arabic script we are familiar with today is its polyvalence- i.e., it needs diacritical dots (i`jam) to distinguish between otherwise identical consonantal characters (rasm).

In other cases, it is due to the fact that a twenty-two letter Aramaic alphabet was later supplemented to render additional Arabic phonemes (i.e., sounds that Aramaic had lost, but which survived in Arabic) by adding a diacritical dot to the nearest phonetic approximant. This, along with borrowed Aramaic orthographic customs (such as the tāʾ marbūṭah to mark the feminine ending, the alif otiosum, etc.) shows unmistakably that Arabic writing evolved from a long tradition of writing Aramaic and can, therefore, only have occurred in a region where the Arabs had had a long exposure to Aramaic writing culture.

The only place where this could have happened is Arabia Petraea. If the Koran were actually a product of Mecca and Medina, then (besides it being written in a different Semitic language) it would have had been composed in the South Arabian script which unambiguously differentiates each of the twenty eight phonemes of Arabic and which, by this time, had a twelve hundred year tradition in the Hijaz. That this ideally suited script was not used means that it was unknown to the writers of the Koran.

The fact that both the script and language of the Koran point to the Classical Arabia Petraea of Syro-Palestine, and not Arabia Deserta, is further supported by the fact that the Koran’s vocabulary is largely borrowed from Aramaic, especially Syriac, the liturgical language of the local churches. Needless to say, the semantics of the technical-religious vocabulary of the Koran, the spelling of the names of biblical figures, and the often subtle biblical allusions presuppose an intimate knowledge of biblical literature in its Syro-Aramiac tradition. Syro-Palestine was heavily Christianized by the seventh century. Although there is some evidence of Christianity and Judaism in “happy” and “deserted” Arabia during this period, it just does not appear to have the critical mass necessary to launch a new religion. Furthermore, the theological, doctrinal controversies that gave rise to the “heresies” that permeated Late Antique society were largely absent outside of the Roman Empire. Thus, all of the contemporary epigraphical, literary and linguistic evidence points to Islam being a product of Arabs living in Syro-Palestine.

Conclusion
This claim stands in stark contrast to the traditional narrative of a blitzkrieg from the Hijaz into Syro-Palestine. This event has vexed modern archaeologists. There is simply no archaeological support for a quick, violent and destructive invasion of Syro-Palestine as reported by traditional Islamic sources. Instead, excavations reveal a continuity of occupation and culture: the period in question is, archaeologically speaking, quite uneventful and conservative.

The major cultural changes in ceramics and the like (such as the introduction of glazed wares) only occur in the eighth century. There is an uninterrupted settlement continuum through the Umayyad period (in which the mosaic as an art-form reached its peak) into Abbasid times. Even then the change is gradual rather than sudden. Where there was change, it consisted of a tendency towards smaller settlements in the countryside, which became favored over towns.

Archaeologically speaking, then, an Arab or Muslim conquest of Syro-Palestine is invisible. And the reason for this was that the Arabs were already living in the region as evidenced by their language. In the end, archeology, epigraphy and linguistics mitigate against a Hijazi origin of the Koran. The latter can only be a product of Hellenistic Syro-Palestine.

About the author of this article: Robert M. Kerr
Robert M. Kerr read Classics and Semitics at Tübingen and Leiden Universities. At the latter, he received his doctorate on the survival of Punic in Roman North Africa. He currently teaches Hebrew at the University of Waterloo.
Last edited by Takeiteasynow on Fri Aug 17, 2018 4:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Abraham= H'ammu'rab(b)i, Historical Muhammad=Benjamin of Tiberias. Islam: Syncretic Israelite Yahwishm Deity: nameless, epithets Dsr, El Qutbay, ʼAlâhâ, Allāh. Ka'ba: Kutha => Samaria => Petra=> Makkah. Hijrah 622: Petra => Kerak

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Is it Mekkah or Petra?

Post by manfred »

This makes a lot of sense also from another point of view.
You may recall the strange, and quite impossible journey the Qur'an relates that Abrahham and Ishmael have undertaken: From their home to Mecca to build the Kaaba.

This would not have been possible. An very old man travels ON FOOT 1600 km from what today is Israel to Mecca, though the fiercest desert on earth, when camels were not yet domesticated, quite ridiculous.

Even some of Mohammed's followers, many of whom had travelled to the Levant to trade, would have realised that this was a very tall tale. So you would have expected some at least to ask some questions, or even to leave Mohammed for telling silly stories and passing them off as "revelations".

But none did, at least we are not told of any... So this means that they thought this journey was in fact possible even for a frail old man.

Well, for Abraham to make his way to Petra from Hebron is still a big challenge, but at least it is possible, just, because there would be water on the way, and settlements to stay the night. Also, he could take animals for food, as there would be grass for them to eat at least part of the way.

Of course Abraham never made that journey either, but at least Mohammed would not have been laughed at talking about it.

There are also other indications that the account by the German professor has merit: the early qibla in some mosques, the geographical descriptions, and much more.

But we have still one aspect that remains to be cleared up: When was the switch made to the current Mecca, and why? Also why is there no historical record of some kind of this change?
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
Takeiteasynow
Posts: 786
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 8:24 pm

Re: Is it Mekkah or Petra?

Post by Takeiteasynow »

This makes a lot of sense also from another point of view. You may recall the strange, and quite impossible journey the Qur'an relates that Abraham and Ishmael have undertaken: From their home to Mecca to build the Kaaba.
I do. This is very difficult to explain unless the Petra region, not the city itself, is the origin of all Abrahamic religions. This region had been already 6000 years, until it was devastated by earthquakes around 700 CE, an important religious center.
But we have still one aspect that remains to be cleared up: When was the switch made to the current Mecca, and why? Also why is there no historical record of some kind of this change?
This may relate to another Nabatean city south of Petra, Medain Saleh. This city is, according to Islamic tradition, cursed and halal. The city was abandoned shortly after Islam took power. It is, curiously enough, not mentioned in the hadith. Just like Petra and Kerak - still important agricultural and urban centers in the early 7th century.

But first we need to deliver definite proof for the Petra hypothesis. This can be done by further narrowing down the pre-Quranic Arab linguistic development to a distinct Nabatean area. Then finally we shall use Dan Gibson's analysis to pinpoint to Petra. This will take a few more articles - work in progress.
Last edited by Takeiteasynow on Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Abraham= H'ammu'rab(b)i, Historical Muhammad=Benjamin of Tiberias. Islam: Syncretic Israelite Yahwishm Deity: nameless, epithets Dsr, El Qutbay, ʼAlâhâ, Allāh. Ka'ba: Kutha => Samaria => Petra=> Makkah. Hijrah 622: Petra => Kerak

User avatar
Takeiteasynow
Posts: 786
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 8:24 pm

Re: Is it Mekkah or Petra?

Post by Takeiteasynow »

Have a look at this post. I have finished reading this book, and recommend it for reading.

The book states that according to research and archeological evidence Mecca didn't exist in the time of Muhammad, and the whole story was cooked up decades later.
Pete Townsend did a profound job. So how do we explain why the whole story was cooked up decades later? Maybe to hide the Jewish identity and origin of the prophet?
Abraham= H'ammu'rab(b)i, Historical Muhammad=Benjamin of Tiberias. Islam: Syncretic Israelite Yahwishm Deity: nameless, epithets Dsr, El Qutbay, ʼAlâhâ, Allāh. Ka'ba: Kutha => Samaria => Petra=> Makkah. Hijrah 622: Petra => Kerak

User avatar
skynightblaze
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Is it Mekkah or Petra?

Post by skynightblaze »

Takeiteasynow wrote:There is much more circumstantial evidence for the claim that Petra is Mecca. In the nineties of the previous century the Petra Papyri were discovered, together with a charred piece of wood with an Arabic description. The archeological context of this find suggests that inscription dates from the second half of the sixth century of the beginning of the seventh century. Palaeographic analysis postulates the same period.

Now the very interesting part of this discovery is that this is the first use of diacritical signs in pre-Quranic Arabic script. The marking 'nayif' or 'nāyiq' means something as 'elevated' or 'sharp' mind.
The usage of diacritical signs was introduced by the Masoretes, a group of Jewish scribe-scholars who worked between the 6th and 10th centuries CE, based primarily in early medieval Palestine.
Their main center was Tiberias, the center of Jewish learning and religion in the centuries before the rise of Islam. It was here where the Jerusalem Talmud was codified. And remarkably enough, soon after the Arab conquest of Byzantine Tiberias became the main Islamic religious center.

So how did this knowledge arrive in Petra? There are two possibilities:

1) Petra was a main pilgrimage center for Jews from Galilee/Tiberias. The holy mountain Jabal-al-Harun hosts the tomb of prophet Aron/Harun. One of the earliest historical records of Aron's shrine comes from the historian Josephus Flavius who writes in the first century that Aron was buried near Petra. In the fourth century Byzantine historian Eusebius names the mountain Hôr at Petra, in the Old Testament mentioned as the place where Aron was buried. In this scenario pilgrims would have introduced the usage of diacritical signs.

2) The development of Islamic theology is deeply rooted in Jewish eschatology. In the beginning of the seventh century the notion that the end of times would soon arrive was widely spread in the context of a devastating war between the Byzantine and Sassanid empire, climate crisis and epidemics. In this scenario the sudden rise of Qur’anic Arabic is sponsored by the Jewish intellectual community in Galilee as part of movement that reintroduces the Temple Mount tradition in 633 CE, when Jewish/Hagarene/Arab forces conquer Jerusalem (contemporary source: Doctrina Jacobi). Petra would have acted as the starting base for this movement.

This may well indicate that all available circumstantial evidence needs to be chained in order to create a new and consistent view on the rise of Islam.
I am not clear here.

1. If Masoretes introduced diacritical marks and their centre was Tiberias and further if Tiberias became center of islam then we can as well consider Tiberias as the source of current day quran. Why does it have to be Petra? I mean your argument is like this knowledge had to arrive in Petra without which diacritical marks cannot come into quran. This is not true. It may well be Tiberias. Also, this does not mean that people from these areas (Tiberias) never migrated to alleged location of Mecca that muslims claim today. What if some migrated to current day Mecca and had influence in shaping up current day's quran? If people could migrate to Petra then they can also migrate to Mecca and the reason could be as simple as earning bread and butter. It does not have to be strong reasons such as site of pilgrimage.

2. It also does not follow that quran was actually revealed in Petra and islam originated from there because there is still one possibility- that the original quran without diacritical marks was revealed somewhere in current day Mecca and addition of diacritical marks to make quran formalized happened somewhere else. I say this because the hadith state that muhammad allowed variant readings which means diacritical marks were absent from original quran and they were added later. Since they were added later (long time after muhammad;s death), it may well be a different place however it does not mean original islam had nothing to do with current day Mecca.

Also I am not clear on why muslims would want to change from Petra to Mecca (Manfred's question).
Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

User avatar
Takeiteasynow
Posts: 786
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 8:24 pm

Re: Is it Mekkah or Petra?

Post by Takeiteasynow »

“If Masoretes introduced diacritical marks and their centre was Tiberias and further if Tiberias became center of islam then we can as well consider Tiberias as the source of current day quran. Why does it have to be Petra? I mean your argument is like this knowledge had to arrive in Petra without which diacritical marks cannot come into quran. This is not true. It may well be Tiberias.”
Valid argument. Actually the earliest Islamic intellectual centers were Tiberias and Damascus. The close relationship between these two cities if for instance illustrated by the copy of the Great Mosque of Damascus in Tiberias. I shall add this as a third option.
“Also, this does not mean that people from these areas (Tiberias) never migrated to alleged location of Mecca that muslims claim today. What if some migrated to current day Mecca and had influence in shaping up current day's quran? If people could migrate to Petra then they can also migrate to Mecca and the reason could be as simple as earning bread and butter. It does not have to be strong reasons such as site of pilgrimage.”
Migration patterns in 7th century and the centuries that followed run from the Arabian peninsula into the heartland of the Near East and all the way to Mauritania in West-Africa. Cities like Tiberias doubled in size with many migrants from for Yemen. Most likely semi-Jewish tribes that migrated after the collapse of the Himyar empire.
“It also does not follow that quran was actually revealed in Petra and islam originated from there because there is still one possibility- that the original quran without diacritical marks was revealed somewhere in current day Mecca and addition of diacritical marks to make quran formalized happened somewhere else.”
I do not claim that the Quran was revealed in or Islam originated from Petra. The movement of Muhammad, as a signature for a new Semitic state (or foederati or 'People of the Book'), started in Petra. This is a layered process and will hopefully discussed after finalizing the Petra-Mecca case. There is much more material to come.
“I say this because the hadith state that muhammad allowed variant readings which means diacritical marks were absent from original quran and they were added later. Since they were added later (long time after muhammad;s death), it may well be a different place however it does not mean original islam had nothing to do with current day Mecca.”
Agree. Original Islam had nothing to do with current day Mecca or even Petra, the factual Mecca. The intention is publish this material after finalizing the Petra-Mecca case.

A note on traditional sources: there is a serious issue with Islamic sources and scholar Stephen Humphreys has accurately and concisely described the problematic character of the Islamic sources.
“If our goal is to comprehend the way in which Muslims of the late 2nd/8th and 3rd/9th centuries understood the origins of their society, then we are very well off indeed. But if our aim is to find out what really happened, to develop reliably documented answers to modern questions about the earliest decades of Islamic societies—then we are in trouble.

The Arabic narrative sources represent a rather late crystallization of a fluid oral tradition. These sources can become an adequate foundation for 'scientific' history only when we have learned a great deal more than we presently know about this oral tradition: its origins, the social and cultural institutions by which it was shaped and transmitted, the variations and transformations it underwent in the course of transmission, the circumstances in which it was first committed to writing, the degree of alteration suffered by early written versions before they at last achieved their definitive form in the mid-3rd/9th century, etc. Questions of this kind have been discussed over and over by modern scholars, but so far their conclusions remain more in the realm of speculation than of demonstration.

The evidence is such, in fact, that reasonable certainty may be beyond our grasp. . . . The first seventy years of Islamic history command our attention, therefore, not only because of the enormous interest of this period, but also because of the extraordinary methodological problems posed by our principal sources for it.”
Abraham= H'ammu'rab(b)i, Historical Muhammad=Benjamin of Tiberias. Islam: Syncretic Israelite Yahwishm Deity: nameless, epithets Dsr, El Qutbay, ʼAlâhâ, Allāh. Ka'ba: Kutha => Samaria => Petra=> Makkah. Hijrah 622: Petra => Kerak

User avatar
Takeiteasynow
Posts: 786
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 8:24 pm

Re: Is it Mekkah or Petra?

Post by Takeiteasynow »

THE PETRA- MECCA CASE PART II

Introduction
This series of articles is tries to provide more evidence for the Petra-Mecca case by first narrowing down the possible origin of classical Arabic script and language and then try to extend the main conclusions from Dan Gibson's Qur’anic Geography with the results from this research. Finally results from studies on agricultural exploitation of the hinterland of Petra and trade relations in Syro-Palestine shall be used to extend these 'main conclusions'.

Part I showed that, with the usage of archeology, epigraphy and linguistics the origin of the language of the Qurʾān can be narrowed down to Hellenistic Syro-Palestine. The Arabic language (especially with regard to the primary diagnostic feature, the definite article al-) and script of Arabia Petraea are the precursors of the classical Arabic script and language. This of course does not necessarily mean that the language of the Arab or Hagarene invaders in that of the Qur’an.

In this part conclusions from research on Arab papyri from Hellenistic Syro-Palestine in late Antiquity are used to further narrow down possible origin of classical Arabic script and language. All material used is compiled from multiple dissertations and journal articles.

Nessana Papyri
A large number of papyrus scrolls dating from the fifth to seventh century was discovered in Nessana there during excavations in the 1930's. This Nabatean city, is easily reached as it is very close to the Israel-Egypt border. These finds of intrinsic importance included a number of documents of economic and literary character from the late Byzantine and early Arabic periods but also early Arabic texts – some of the earliest examples of Arabic writing dating to a few decades of the 'Hijra'.

Citizens of Nessana operated in a multilingual environment: among the Nessana papyri Latin, Greek, Arabic, Nabatean writing systems or scripts are found that have left, to a greater or lesser extent, a mark on the Nessana community. This section will focus especially on the interaction of Greek and Arabic. The Greek papyri contain what are frequently described as ‘barbarisms’ – to such an extent that this is often the first characteristic to excite comment. Many of the papyri deviate substantially from standard Greek spelling, grammar and syntax and are probably written by members of a vibrant society - Cyril Mango has demonstrated the vitality of Greek culture in Palestine in the early eight century, showing that this was ‘the most active centre of Greek culture’ at the time.

Three main linguistic terms are used to describe the languages of the inhabitants of Palaestina Tertia: Aramaic (specifically Christian Palestinian Aramaic), Arabic or proto-Arabic, and Nabataean. Though there is a recognizable and distinct writing system which is commonly called Nabataean, there is no evidence that Nabataean was ever an independent spoken dialect.

Greek versus Arabic
The most obvious instance of Arabic infiltration into the Greek text comes in the form of place names. The use of Arabic words, and not just proper names, to identify sections of land, implies that Arabic served in daily life, particularly when discussing elements of agricultural life such as the fields. This use is paralleled in the papyri from Petra where we find over 100 Arabic toponymns and oikonyms embedded in otherwise Greek texts.

Here, too, the unavoidable implication is that Arabic served in daily life, particularly when discussing elements of agricultural life such as the fields.1 Both in Petra and in Nessana, though the documents disposing of the fields and naming heirs were written in Greek, the business of farming appears to have been conducted in the Arabic vernacular, the language or variety of a language used in everyday life by the common people of a specific population.

How Greek interacts with written Arabic This is particularly apparent in the post-conquest papyri, written well into Arab rule, in contracts such as Papyri Nessana 56 and in government communications such as Papyri Nessana 73. This papyri shows that people who seem to have spoken a version of Arabic in daily life nicknamed their fields in that language, chose to resort to Greek when drawing up various contracts (Papyri Nessana 16 and 30, for instance).

This division of languages according to their connotations continues in the Nessana papyri after the Muslim conquest, when in fact we can see it even more clearly. Papyri Nessana 92, a record of accounts involving orders from Damascus and Egypt, represents the highest levels of Umayyad authority, including the governors of Egypt and Palestine and Umayyad ruler Abd al-Malik, mentioned as commander of the believers, himself.

Written at the very end of the seventh century – probably around 690 – the document is entirely Arabic in content; in fact, it is nothing but a memo internal to the Umayyad administration. All the names and titles mentioned are transliterated from Arabic . The institutions and administrative habits are all Arabic as this record deals with payment for an Umayyad army. And yet, this detailed and formal text is composed entirely in Greek. It does not even have a translation into Arabic appended to it.

Arabic documents in Nessana testify to a transitional stage in the development of Arabic script; alif appears often–though not always–as a mater lectionis; and h is consistently used for noting the ta marbuta.

Clues on the origin of the Hagarene invaders
Language use in the Nessana papyri was determined by context and situation; and that languages were used to make claims of power, rather than ethnicity. In other words, the same man might well use Greek in one context and Arabic in another, depending on the message he wishes to convey to his interlocutors and on the content of the communication. It is obvious that the Nessana Papyri show evidence of a changing society and this may provide us with essential information on the origin of the Hagarene invaders.

And indeed, this important corpus of non-literary which contains a substantial amount of Arabic in Greek transcription does provide a vital clue. The native inhabitants of Nessana seem to have spoken a variety of Arabic related to the dialect spoken at Petra. Their personal names belong to the tradition of northern naming conventions, as found in the Safaitic (Palmyra) and Nabatean inscriptions.

But then, after 640 CE, Arab conquests introduced a new set of Arabic onomastica, previously unattested in the north, such as 'abd er-rahman'. Names common to both the old northern dialects and the dialect of the conquests can be distinguished in pronunciation. This is exemplified by the theophoric name of Abd'allah, slave of Allah, which is widely attested in the Safaitic and Nabatean inscriptions. 1 Allah is also associated in other theophoric names that occur in numerous Nabatean graffiti. Some of the Nabataean names were: 'Aush'allah (Allah's faith), 'Amat-'allahi (she is a servant of Allah), Hab-allahi (beloved of Allah), Han-allahi (Allah is gracious), Abd'allah (slave of God), and Shalm-lahi (Allah is peace). The name Wahab-allah, gift of Allah, is found throughout the entire Nabataean region

Remarkable is that in the post-conquest period the Safaitic-Nabatean pronunciation of 'Abdallah' is used among the new population of Nessana while the indigenous inhabitants continue to use the local pronunciation of Abdallah. This indicates that the invaders originate from the Nabatean heartland and may have collaborated with with new arrived Arab tribes from Yemen, introducing a new set of Arabic onomastica from the south of the Arabian Peninsula and pronunciations that were before 640 only common in the Petra-Palmyra area.

Petra Papyri
More than 150 carbonized papyrus scrolls, now known as the Petra Papyri, were recovered from a storeroom adjoining a 6th century church in 1993. Documents published so far date from 537 to 593 and mainly relate to the family of a local clergyman, Theodorus, son of Obodianos. These scrolls preserve much information relating to private affairs, disputes within the church in the fifth century and tensions between Christians and pagans.

Archeological excavations and the Petra Papyri both reveal a gradual decline starting in the mid-4th century while the papyri still remember the grand role the city once had as the Arab center for trade, culture and religion. The following honorary titles are attested: 'Holy', 'Mother of [all] cities', ‘Imperial Colony Antoniana', 'Distinguished', 'Hadriana Petra', and 'Metropolis of Tertia Palaestina Salutaris’. It is not too much to state that, like Rome, all Arab roads lead to Petra between the second century BCE and mid-3th century CE.

In late antiquity Petra functioned as a provincial capital with a local government dominated by local notables, clergy and landlords. There is no archeological evidence of disruptions during Sassanid invasions at the beginning of the early seventh century nor from the 'Arab invasion'. But then suddenly, in the mid-seventh century Petra suddenly loses its standing as a regional capital and its status as a metropolitan city. Petra is not mentioned in Umayyad sources nor in early Islamic literature about the 'conquest' of Byzantine Palestine. This is rather strange as combined evidence from archeology and papyri suggests that around 600 CE Petra shared in the trends of urbanism that have been observed in other cities (like Tiberias). The city of Petra builds monumental structures mainly financed by its land-owning elite while its agricultural hinterland expanded rapidly in the direction of Ma'an and many abandoned towns were resettled.

The surrounding territories of Petra were under control of a 'Byzantinized' ethnic Arab foederati, the Ghassanids. This close relationship is well illustrated in Petra Papyrus, Roll 83, which records a request to the Arab Ghassanid phylarch Abu Karib to arbitrate a dispute between two Arab families in Petra.

Arabic-Aramaic bilingualism
Metropolises such as Petra would have probably been unlikely places to find monolingual people, and indeed, the Petra Papyri, seem to preserve traces of Arabic-Aramaic bilingualism. The names of two plots of land in Petra Papyri 17 are derived from the Semitic root qsb. But one name carries the Arabic definite article 'al-qeseb' while the other has the Aramaic suffixed article -a, qisba. A similar situation is found across the documents when a farm (al-nasba) appears to be he Arabic equivalent of nasbata. Both cases reflect an ability to draw a grammatical equivalence between the Arabic definite article 'al- and the Aramaic suffix -a, a fact which points towards active bilingualism.

Aramaic loans into the local Arab dialect also preserve their Aramaic morphology. For instance the word kaffat, perhaps the equivalent of the Greek word for grain depository, seems to be of Aramaic origin and forms its plural according to Aramaic morphology, kaffi. As in the Nessana papyri, some fields are not just named after people but also given names with specific Arabic meaning (e.g. gannath al-salam, garden of peace, P.Petra 10).

Arabic-Greek bilingualism
The Semitic material occurring in Papyri Petra scroll 10 is dominantly Arabic. Apart from few exceptions in vocabulary, the main features of the language are Arabic. This us manifested mainly by the definite article -al, the broken plurals and the genitive constructions. The fact that the few words carrying features of Canaanite or Aramaic were Arabaized only stresses the Arabic identity of the vernacular in the 6th century CE in Petra.

The material in Papyri Petra 10 exhibits linguistic features that are assigned by Arab and modern grammarians to the proto-Arabic dialect knows as 'Hijaz'. These involve the dropping of hamza, the e phoneme, the occurrence of the vowel u instead of a in some nouns and the insertion of vowels in others. The Arabic vocabulary of Papyri Petra scroll 10 might have other characteristics of the 'Hijazi dialect', such as the voiced pronunciation of q, yet the orthography does not allow for verifying this.

The absence of case endings in the Arabic language of Papyri Petra 10 brings additional information about the linguistic situation in pre-Islamic Arabia, geographically as well as diachronically. The conventions for the transliterations of Arabic words as revealed in Papyri Petra 10 are those in Nessana, and to a large extend at those in Bostra. This emphasizes the already existing impression of a uniform bureaucratic training for writers throughout the former Nabatean heartland in areas now under control of the Ghassanid Arab federation.

Introduction of diacritical signs in proto-Arabic script
Together with the discovery of the Petra Papyri a charred piece of wood with an Arabic description was found. The archeological context of this find suggests that inscription dates from the second half of the sixth century of the beginning of the seventh century. Palaeographic analysis postulates the same period.

Now the very interesting part of this discovery is that this is the first use of diacritical signs in pre-Quranic Arabic script. The marking 'nayif' or 'nāyiq' means something as 'elevated' or 'sharp' mind.
The usage of diacritical signs was introduced by the Masoretes, a group of Jewish scribe-scholars who worked between the 6th and 10th centuries CE, based primarily in early medieval Palestine.

Their main center was Tiberias, the center of Jewish learning and religion in the centuries before the rise of Islam. It was here where the Jerusalem Talmud was codified. And remarkably enough, soon after the Arab conquest of Byzantine Tiberias became a main Arab intellectual center.

Conclusion
Examination of Arab papyri from Hellenistic Syro-Palestine indicates that the Arab dialects from Bostra, Petra and Nessana were developing into Classical Arabic, a language which refers primarily to the language of the Qur'an, and secondarily to the various texts and works that are directly inspired by both its form and content. Writers from these cities were working together in an effort to standardize certain features of the Arabic script, a trend that started in the 6th century.

Nessana was not part of the original Hagarene sphere of influence. After the Hagarene conquests of Palaestina – 'the nearest land' – new citizens used Safaitic-Nabatean pronunciation for theophoric names, mostly used in areas between Petra and Palmyra. The introduction of new sets of South-Arabian onomastica after 640 in Nessana indicates that migrated Yemeni tribes were part of the Hagarene forces. For instance, Islamic tradition writes about the migration of the Banu Himyar from current Yemen to Kerak in Jordan.

The discovery of the first use of diacritical signs in pre-Quranic Arabic script in Petra indicates some kind of relationship between 'proto-Arabic' and the Masorete tradition that originates in the city of Tiberias. The oldest calligraphic form of the various Arabic scripts, 'Kufic', consists of a modified version of the old Nabataean script, introduces vowels and diacritical mark and was from early 8th century the main script used to copy the Qur'an.

The honorary titles of Petra, such as 'Holy' and 'Mother of all cities' refer to the qualification of Muhammad's Makkah in the ahadith. As there is no archeological, linguistic or contemporary evidence for the existence of Makkah as a city before 900 CE the only reasonable hypothesis is that Muhammad's city is situated in Hellenistic Syro-Palestine, in an area familiar with both the Safaitic and Nabatean script - roughly between Petra and Palmyra.
Abraham= H'ammu'rab(b)i, Historical Muhammad=Benjamin of Tiberias. Islam: Syncretic Israelite Yahwishm Deity: nameless, epithets Dsr, El Qutbay, ʼAlâhâ, Allāh. Ka'ba: Kutha => Samaria => Petra=> Makkah. Hijrah 622: Petra => Kerak

User avatar
Hombre
Posts: 3741
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 3:18 am

Re: Is it Mekkah or Petra?

Post by Hombre »

Takeiteasynow wrote:The holy mountain Jabal-al-Harun hosts the tomb of prophet Aron/Harun. One of the earliest historical records of Aron's shrine comes from the historian Josephus Flavius who writes in the first century that Aron was buried near Petra. In the fourth century Byzantine historian Eusebius names the mountain Hôr at Petra, in the Old Testament mentioned as the place where Aron was buried. In this scenario pilgrims would have introduced the usage of diacritical signs..
Your theory of Aron (Brother of Moses) indeed may be buried there. Every Jordanian tour guide to Petra does point out to that mountain as Aron's burial place.

User avatar
Hombre
Posts: 3741
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 3:18 am

Re: Is it Mekkah or Petra?

Post by Hombre »

Takeiteasynow wrote:THE PETRA- MECCA CASE PART II
The honorary titles of Petra, such as 'Holy' and 'Mother of all cities' refer to the qualification of Muhammad's Makkah in the ahadith. As there is no archeological, linguistic or contemporary evidence for the existence of Makkah as a city before 900 CE the only reasonable hypothesis is that Muhammad's city is situated in Hellenistic Syro-Palestine, in an area familiar with both the Safaitic and Nabatean script - roughly between Petra and Palmyra.
The obvious question is - when the Ka'aba was built, and when did it become the central point to Islam?

User avatar
Takeiteasynow
Posts: 786
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 8:24 pm

Re: Is it Mekkah or Petra?

Post by Takeiteasynow »

Your theory of Aron (Brother of Moses) indeed may be buried there. Every Jordanian tour guide to Petra does point out to that mountain as Aron's burial place.
Indeed, but it is of no importance. The introduction of Aron is as he plays a key role in Samaritan, Jewish and Islamic eschatology.
The obvious question is - when the Ka'aba was built, and when did it become the central point to Islam?
It is of no importance. Does Muhammad have anything to with the Ka'ba? Maybe if you try to explain 7th century events with Islamic traditions from the 9th century. That's the ultimate time waster. I would like to prioritize a conclusive case for Petra-Mecca hypothesis so we can start looking for the real 'Medina'.
Abraham= H'ammu'rab(b)i, Historical Muhammad=Benjamin of Tiberias. Islam: Syncretic Israelite Yahwishm Deity: nameless, epithets Dsr, El Qutbay, ʼAlâhâ, Allāh. Ka'ba: Kutha => Samaria => Petra=> Makkah. Hijrah 622: Petra => Kerak

User avatar
Fernando
Posts: 4949
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 1:27 pm

Re: Is it Mekkah or Petra?

Post by Fernando »

Takeiteasynow wrote:I would like to prioritize a conclusive case for Petra-Mecca hypothesis so we can start looking for the real 'Medina'.
And that, as they say, will be a whole new ball game! Thanks for your posts, keep them coming! But please keep Hombre's question on the back burner: there are a lot of tails to be twisted with an answer to that one. :-)
‘Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literary traditions. They neither intermarry nor eat together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions.’ Muhammad Ali Jinnah

User avatar
Takeiteasynow
Posts: 786
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 8:24 pm

Re: Is it Mekkah or Petra?

Post by Takeiteasynow »

Fernando wrote:
Takeiteasynow wrote:I would like to prioritize a conclusive case for Petra-Mecca hypothesis so we can start looking for the real 'Medina'.
And that, as they say, will be a whole new ball game! Thanks for your posts, keep them coming! But please keep Hombre's question on the back burner: there are a lot of tails to be twisted with an answer to that one. :-)
Well then they should chill and take it easy; that's preciously what Takeiteasynow does. Actually I can briefly answer Hombre's question although I prefer to ignore theological related questions or issues. Not always possible of course, but still.

1) Built of centralized Kaba: The Continuatio Byzantia Arabia, a contemporary source from 741 CE locates Makkah in Iraq. Makkah first appears on maps around 900 CE. So anywhere between 741 and 900.

2) When does the Makkah-Kaba become the central point to Islam? With the publication of the As-Sunnah doctrine or dogma in the 9th century.

So why did the religious Arab Management move the show to Makkah? Well what would you do if your former holy city is built upon layers of mud - without foundations - in a funnel shaped valley that is frequently hit by floods and earthquakes? Probably move it to a location that matches the descriptions and out of reach of the Rudi-Thamud-Desert-Rivals.
Abraham= H'ammu'rab(b)i, Historical Muhammad=Benjamin of Tiberias. Islam: Syncretic Israelite Yahwishm Deity: nameless, epithets Dsr, El Qutbay, ʼAlâhâ, Allāh. Ka'ba: Kutha => Samaria => Petra=> Makkah. Hijrah 622: Petra => Kerak

User avatar
SAM
Posts: 4353
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:31 pm
Location: Arasy

Re: Is it Mekkah or Petra?

Post by SAM »

Takeiteasynow wrote:
So why did the religious Arab Management move the show to Makkah? Well what would you do if your former holy city is built upon layers of mud - without foundations - in a funnel shaped valley that is frequently hit by floods and earthquakes? Probably move it to a location that matches the descriptions and out of reach of the Rudi-Thamud-Desert-Rivals.
So you buy Dan Gibson's theory that true Mecca is actually Petra.

Gibson said that there was an Earthquake in Petra in 713 AD and black stones had to be removed from Petra to Mecca.

Is there evidence that an earthquake took place in Petra in 713 AD. Has any historical document mentioning this?
Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion.
Say: "The Guidance of Allah,-that is the (only) Guidance."
(2:120)

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Is it Mekkah or Petra?

Post by manfred »

There is surprisingly good evidence for the earthquake:
Theophilus of Odessa
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Caa ... 13&f=false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Theophanes the confessor
http://www.syriawide.com/earthquakesI.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Theophanes writes:
A violent earth-quake struck Syria in 713, 28 February. On 28 February, 713 there was a tremorand severe earthquake causing many villagesand towns to collapse on their inhabitants, some houses, villages and cities were swallowed up in the region of Antioch and district of Sidqa and Ksyut, and the whole coast and the islands...
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
SAM
Posts: 4353
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:31 pm
Location: Arasy

Re: Is it Mekkah or Petra?

Post by SAM »

manfred wrote:There is surprisingly good evidence for the earthquake:
Theophilus of Odessa
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Caa ... 13&f=false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Theophanes the confessor
http://www.syriawide.com/earthquakesI.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Theophanes writes:
A violent earth-quake struck Syria in 713, 28 February. On 28 February, 713 there was a tremorand severe earthquake causing many villagesand towns to collapse on their inhabitants, some houses, villages and cities were swallowed up in the region of Antioch and district of Sidqa and Ksyut, and the whole coast and the islands...
YAWN!!! If Petra is located in Syria. :yuk: Don't just blurt it out. :lol:
Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion.
Say: "The Guidance of Allah,-that is the (only) Guidance."
(2:120)

User avatar
Takeiteasynow
Posts: 786
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 8:24 pm

Re: Is it Mekkah or Petra?

Post by Takeiteasynow »

So you buy Dan Gibson's theory that true Mecca is actually Petra.
Of course I buy that. But that are some issues with his research. Circular argumentation, opinionated research.
Criticism
Gibon's book was received with great reluctance by Islamologists and historians and indeed, there are valid reasons to critize Gibson's scholarship: the book contains methodical errors, lacks fundamental research and is sometimes opiniated, for instance when the book states that 'Dr. John Healy was convinced that the Thamuds and the Nabateans were one and the same people' as the Nabateans may have used two different scripts in parallel, one for religious purposes and one for clear text proto-Arabic, Safiaitic. But for more important is the sensitivity of this topic Gibson addresses. In a review of Qur'ānic Geography Professor Michael Lecker writes: “This book’s imaginative writing may have its followers, perhaps even in academic circles. But the study of early Islamic history is better served by small steps, one at a time.”


Qur'ānic Geography tries to build the history of the Arab people with the help of the Old Testament to draw the historical path of the relevant tribes that are part of the new Semitic empire and tries to reconcile the Biblical view with Islamic traditions. This may be problematic as there is evidence that (Arab) tribes adopted adopted lineages in Biblical locations when opportune (as nobleman did in medieval times – after eliminating your rivals you would create a new genealogical tree with a great preference for King Arthur as ancestor). Lineages were ‘sorted out’ under Nehemiah ben Hushiel from Isfahan allied with Sassanid general Shahrbaraz in 614 AD when invading Palaestine.

Secondly, it is always problematic to use religious texts as these are open to many different interpretations, may use faulty time lines or associate historical figures with the wrong event. As with the Quran, researchers have to be careful not to fall into the trap of confirming Biblical stories with archaeology when the possibility is at hand that the stories themselves have been inserted into real history or borrowed from other people’s histories – a process known as circular argumentation.

Review methodologies
The controversial claims in Qur'ānic Geography have been named food for lovers of conspiracy theories with little learning. But that is way to easy: there is a serious amount of circumstantial evidence that could explain the role of Petra and has yet to be integrated.

In order to build a conclusive case for the Petra-Mecca hypothesis we need to say goodby to questionable methodologies from Qur'ānic Geography:

1) The main argument of change in direction of prayer or change in qibla: there is no or not enough evidence that the Umayyad empire ever controlled territories outside Egypt and Syro-Palestine or as a secular state enforced the building of mosques directed to Petra. That being said, Gibson may have a strong case for change in direction of prayer when he narrows down to Transjordan and starts building his case with archeological research on open mosques in the Negev.

2) Building the history of the Arab people through the Old Testament: there is evidence that tribes in the Near East adopted lineages in biblical places when opportune. This behavior is better explained with the observations of Sozomen, a church historian. Sozomen, describes how the Arabs had deviated from their traditional prescribed root, their Abrahamic monotheism. Sozomen observed how Arab tribes in the Negev heard once more of their true from the Jews and returned to the observance of Jewish laws and customs up until the 'present day'.

3) Reconciling the Biblical view with Muslim traditions: this methodology leads to circular argumentation as both religions claim ownership of certain ideas or concepts applied in the other religion.
Nevertheless Qur'ānic Geography does provide one excellent methodology. The examination of literal descriptions of Islam's holy place in the Qur’an and ahadith can provide a city profile or baseline that can be attested against Nabatean cities in an area that is part of the Hellenistic Syro-Palestine sphere of influence and has direct access to Nabatean and Safaitic script and culture (see previous parts for more information).
Last edited by Takeiteasynow on Tue Aug 21, 2018 7:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Abraham= H'ammu'rab(b)i, Historical Muhammad=Benjamin of Tiberias. Islam: Syncretic Israelite Yahwishm Deity: nameless, epithets Dsr, El Qutbay, ʼAlâhâ, Allāh. Ka'ba: Kutha => Samaria => Petra=> Makkah. Hijrah 622: Petra => Kerak

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Is it Mekkah or Petra?

Post by manfred »

SAM wrote:YAWN!!! If Petra is located in Syria. :yuk: Don't just blurt it out. :lol:
SAM, at the time the whole region was called "Syria". And earthquakes do not respect borders in any case.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
Hombre
Posts: 3741
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 3:18 am

Re: Is it Mekkah or Petra?

Post by Hombre »

SAM wrote:So you buy Dan Gibson's theory that true Mecca is actually Petra.

Gibson said that there was an Earthquake in Petra in 713 AD and black stones had to be removed from Petra to Mecca.

Is there evidence that an earthquake took place in Petra in 713 AD. Has any historical document mentioning this?
Yah Ahmar, Unlike Muhammad - the only one who's word are the sole authorities about Islam, western scholars like Dan Gibson base their theories on thorough research before they write their findings.
The more one reads your gublbaba here the more it is believed you are a troll - masquerading as a Muslim though not a real one.

User avatar
SAM
Posts: 4353
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:31 pm
Location: Arasy

Re: Is it Mekkah or Petra?

Post by SAM »

Takeiteasynow wrote:
So you buy Dan Gibson's theory that true Mecca is actually Petra.
Of course I buy that. But that are some issues with his research. Circular argumentation, opinionated research.
Criticism
Gibon's book was received with great reluctance by Islamologists and historians and indeed, there are valid reasons to critize Gibson's scholarship: the book contains methodical errors, lacks fundamental research and is sometimes opiniated, for instance when the book states that 'Dr. John Healy was convinced that the Thamuds and the Nabateans were one and the same people' as the Nabateans may have used two different scripts in parallel, one for religious purposes and one for clear text proto-Arabic, Safiaitic. But for more important is the sensitivity of this topic Gibson addresses. In a review of Qur'ānic Geography Professor Michael Lecker writes: “This book’s imaginative writing may have its followers, perhaps even in academic circles. But the study of early Islamic history is better served by small steps, one at a time.”


Qur'ānic Geography tries to build the history of the Arab people with the help of the Old Testament to draw the historical path of the relevant tribes that are part of the new Semitic empire and tries to reconcile the Biblical view with Islamic traditions. This may be problematic as there is evidence that (Arab) tribes adopted adopted lineages in Biblical locations when opportune (as nobleman did in medieval times – after eliminating your rivals you would create a new genealogical tree with a great preference for King Arthur as ancestor). Lineages were ‘sorted out’ under Nehemiah ben Hushiel from Isfahan allied with Sassanid general Shahrbaraz in 614 AD when invading Palaestine.

Secondly, it is always problematic to use religious texts as these are open to many different interpretations, may use faulty time lines or associate historical figures with the wrong event. As with the Quran, researchers have to be careful not to fall into the trap of confirming Biblical stories with archaeology when the possibility is at hand that the stories themselves have been inserted into real history or borrowed from other people’s histories – a process known as circular argumentation.

Review methodologies
The controversial claims in Qur'ānic Geography have been named food for lovers of conspiracy theories with little learning. But that is way to easy: there is a serious amount of circumstantial evidence that could explain the role of Petra and has yet to be integrated.

In order to build a conclusive case for the Petra-Mecca hypothesis we need to say goodby to questionable methodologies from Qur'ānic Geography:

1) The main argument of change in direction of prayer or change in qibla: there is no or not enough evidence that the Umayyad empire ever controlled territories outside Egypt and Syro-Palestine or as a secular state enforced the building of mosques directed to Petra. That being said, Gibson may have a strong case for change in direction of prayer when he narrows down to Transjordan and starts building his case with archeological research on open mosques in the Negev.

2) Building the history of the Arab people through the Old Testament: there is evidence that tribes in the Near East adopted lineages in biblical places when opportune. This behavior is better explained with the observations of Sozomen, a church historian. Sozomen, describes how the Arabs had deviated from their traditional prescribed root, their Abrahamic monotheism. Sozomen observed how Arab tribes in the Negev heard once more of their true from the Jews and returned to the observance of Jewish laws and customs up until the 'present day'.

3) Reconciling the Biblical view with Muslim traditions: this methodology leads to circular argumentation as both religions claim ownership of certain ideas or concepts applied in the other religion.
Nevertheless Qur'ānic Geography does provide one excellent methodology. The examination of literal descriptions of Islam's holy place in the Qur’an and ahadith can provide a city profile or baseline that can be attested against Nabatean cities in an area that is part of the Hellenistic Syro-Palestine sphere of influence and has direct access to Nabatean and Safaitic script and culture (see previous parts for more information).
Abraham and Ishmael made the Ka'bah, in preparation for the arrival of the last messenger (Muhammad). After the building of the Kaaba was finished, Abraham told his followers to make practical rituals to circumambulate the Kaaba.

Thus, circumambulate the Kaaba and the Ka'bah built by Abraham and his son, Ishmael, is a symbolic significance of the existence of Allah. And the task of Muhammad is to achieve and accomplished this mission, Abraham's faith called Islam.

In the Quran says,

Remember Abraham said: "O my Lord! make this city one of peace and security: and preserve me and my sons from worshipping idols. "O my Lord! they have indeed led astray many among mankind; He then who follows my (ways) is of me, and he that disobeys me,- but Thou art indeed Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. "O our Lord! I have made some of my offspring to dwell in a valley without cultivation, by Thy Sacred House; in order, O our Lord, that they may establish regular Prayer: so fill the hearts of some among men with love towards them, and feed them with fruits: so that they may give thanks.

My question is:

Did Abraham build Petra?
Is Zam Zam's water in Petra?
Is there Safa and Marwa in Petra?

There is no excerpt about Petra in the Quran?
Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion.
Say: "The Guidance of Allah,-that is the (only) Guidance."
(2:120)

Post Reply