PETRA VS MECCA

The Crux Of The Books & Findings Of Those Before Gibson, Gibson Himself And Others Doubting About The Origin Of Islam And Place Of The Sacred Mosque

1. Quranic description and also Hadith description of “Mecca” do not match with the city of Mecca of Saudi Arabia.
2. The Holy City is called “Becca” in Quran Surah Ale Imran 3:95. And we can find Becca also in Bible Psalm 84. And that Becca is not Mecca but Petra.
3. Prophet Muhammad actually migrated from Petra to Medina from North to South instead of Mecca to Medina (South to North). This is also obvious from the pattern their enemies attacked in almost all the battles fought near Medina. As is in the case of Uhad which is on the northern side of Medina and also “Battle of Trench” the trench was made on the northern side of Medina.
4. Petra would be more logical instead of Mecca as a city to be conquered by Muhammad PBUH in 630AD. Muslim armies marched all the way from Medina north to fight at Muta in southern Jordan. Did then over 1200 kilometres back across the burning Nafud Desert to take Mecca? Wouldn’t it make more sense if the Holy City was in Petra instead of being south of Medina?
5. Quran describes Mecca as the “Mother of Cities” while Mecca is absent from almost all the old maps of the World. Thus was not a prominent place at that time, while Petra fulfils this requirement and title.
6. Petra also appears in older maps as a trade route while Mecca does not & also Mecca’s location is not appropriate to be a hub or even part of any trade route.
7. Quran describes foliage, vegetation and cattle fields while Mecca doesn’t have all this.
8. The “Saee” “سعى” of Safa & Marwa a ritual of Hajj & Umrah is described as taking days to complete but it’s just a quick task to complete and the distance is not much between the small rocks.
9. Quran is full of reference to the people of northern Arabia. People of Ad and the people of Thamud all dwelt in northern Arabia in the Petra region.
10. Gibson claims that there is no record of Quranic manuscript found before the 8th century and thus they assert that even Quran was not revealed on Muhammad but written lately, and they conspire Umayyad’s caliph Abd al Malik’s role in it.
11. Gibson by narrating Ibn Zayd’s move to Mecca mentioned in Al Tabari’s history, suggests that this may be the point of relocation of Petra to Mecca
12. Almost all of the early mosques built after the death of prophet Muhammad during the first century Hijrah have their Qibals facing Petra, not Mecca. Until the early eighth century, they all point to Petra and from the time of the Abbasids to Mecca. In between is, what Gibson & others call, a time of confusion.
13. Gibson & opponents of Islam raise questions that why nothing wrote down about Muhammad or Islam in the 600’s and 700’s. For almost two hundred years nothing was written down about this new religion, Muslims and about Prophet Muhammad.

REFUTATION OF CLAIMS OF GIBSON, PATRICIA, JAY SMITH & OTHER’S

Most of the points Gibson raised are answered below, few points he raised are arguments from silence or better I say arguments from ignorance. His claim that Mecca was not mentioned as a city in early historical records is not only wrong but even if we take such type of arguments as true then they are just arguments from silence, which is a well-known fallacy argument. A conclusion that is based on the absence of statements in historical documents, rather than their presence. The absence of proof does not equate to proof of absence.

–

–BECCA IS NOT MECCA

–

٩٦ إِنَّ أَوَّلَ بَيْتٍ وُضِعَ لِلنَّاسِ لَلَّذِي بِبَكَّةَ مُبَارَكًا وَهُدًى لِلْعَالَمِينَ
٩٧ فِيهِ آيَاتٌ بَيِّنَاتٌ مَقَامُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ ۖ وَمَنْ دَخَلَهُ كَانَ آمِنًا ۗ وَلِلَّهِ عَلَى النَّاسِ حِجُّ الْبَيْتِ مَنِ اسْتَطَاعَ إِلَيْهِ سَبِيلًا ۚ وَمَنْ كَفَرَ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ غَنِيٌّ عَنِ الْعَالَمِينَ

Indeed, the first House established for mankind was that at Bakkah – blessed and a guidance for the worlds.
In it are clear signs the standing place of Abraham. And whoever enters it shall be safe. And to Allah from the people is a pilgrimage to the House – for whoever is able to find thereto a way. But whoever disbelieves – then indeed, Allah is free from the need of the worlds. Surah Ale Imran 3:96-97

Gibson also says that Surah Ale Imran verse 96 mentions “Bakkah” not Mecca and that Muslims have no proper logic and explanation translating or considering “Bakkah” as Mecca. He says that Bacca actually is an ancient Semitic word that means to weep or lament as is the Valley of Weeping or the Valley of Tears mentioned in Pslam 84:1-6. He continues and says that because of the meaning of this word Bacca it is most likely associated with Petra as there are a number of tragic events that took place at Petra including the following major earthquakes in 363AD, 551AD and 713 AD.

1 How lovely is your dwelling place, LORD Almighty! 2 My soul yearns, even faints, for the courts of the LORD; my heart and my flesh cry out for the living God. 3 Even the sparrow has found a home, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she may have her young— a place near your altar, LORD Almighty, my King and my God. 4 Blessed are those who dwell in your house; they are ever praising you. 5 Blessed are those whose strength is in you, whose hearts are set on pilgrimage. 6 As they pass through the Valley of Baka, they make it a place of springs; the autumn rains also cover it with pools. Psalms 84:1-6

My reply to this would be that Surah Fath chapter 48 verses 24-25 show a direct connection between Mecca and Masjid al Harram, but because Gibson goes further that this particular verse of Quran is intentionally altered later in the Abbasids period by just changing the “ب” of Bakkah to “م” of Mecca as in attached picture taken from his video.

I will not argue with him on this sheer nonsense as I know the purpose is only to raise so much dust that no one could see anything. And thus creating doubts about the very origin of the Islamic religion.

٢٤ وَهُوَ الَّذِي كَفَّ أَيْدِيَهُمْ عَنْكُمْ وَأَيْدِيَكُمْ عَنْهُمْ بِبَطْنِ مَكَّةَ مِنْ بَعْدِ أَنْ أَظْفَرَكُمْ عَلَيْهِمْ ۚ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ بَصِيرًا
٢٥ هُمُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا وَصَدُّوكُمْ عَنِ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ

He it is Who restrained their hands from you, and your hands from them in the valley of Makkah, even though He had made you victorious against them. Allah was watching all that you did.
They are the ones who disbelieved and obstructed you from al-Masjid al-Haram …… (Surah Fath 48:24-25)

Although the above verses of Surah Fath are adequately enough for us Muslims to counter his argument. But as for Gibson & others whose actual mission is not only limited to Petra & Mecca but to discredit and raise questions on the authenticity of the Quran and on the Prophethood of Muhammad Pbuh, thus they need special treatment in their own way. First of all for Gibson’s assertions to be true several things have to play out. One is, we need to prove that Petra was also known as the valley of weeping secondly the Quran would have to be shown that it has been tampered. In both cases he failed, he just assumed everything.

Now Muslims opinion differs as to what exactly is the root word of Bakkah. Some say that it is from (ب ک ی) Ba-Kaf-Ya and some say that it is from root (ب ک ک) Ba-Kaf-Kaf. But let me tell you that the Miracle of the Quran is that whatever root word you take for “Bakkah” it fulfils the meaning and logic of why God used it for describing the Holy place. I will show you with logic and common sense that no other city other than Mecca pass on this criteria. Please bear with me.

If we take the first root (ب ک ی) Ba-Kaf-Ya then it means Lamenting, Weeping, Shedding of tears, The passionate expression of grief & sorrow, Weeping by reason of tenderness of heart or compassion, Shedding of tears by reason of lamentation. Now let’s look at the 2nd option available which is (ب ک ک) Ba-Kaf-Kaf this word (بَكَّ) means jostling, pressing or crowding, any crowding(or crowds), competition, heaping, piling together, cancellation/dissolution/breaking, it also means pounding or crushing, Breaking of the neck. It even means lacking of water.

Now let me tell you one interesting thing that In Surah Ale Imran the word “بِبَكَّةَ” is not a proper noun but an adjective-noun. You can take it also as a proper noun reason is that sometimes the adjective/attribute and certain characteristics of a thing become so famous that it becomes its name/proper noun. Now, this is the miracle of the Quran that this word Bakkah whether you take it’s one root word or the other, fits as a Jewel on a ring, only on the city of Mecca in this whole world.

Which other city in this world fulfils and falls on these characteristics and meanings. God, in a very simple way, in this verse telling us that Indeed, the very first House established for mankind is that which is in this place of Lamentation, Which is in this place of passionate expression of grief & sorrow, Which is in this place of weeping and shedding of tears, Which is in this place of crowding, Which is in this place of jostling (see during Hajj this happens quite often that your elbows rub & touch with others elbows and arms).

As for Lacking water, breaking of the neck: obviously, it’s lacking of water. Mecca is a desert and the breaking of the neck attributed to the fact that anyone who’s tried to invade Mecca, any tyrant who wanted to attack Mekkah was abolished & his neck was broken or humbled.

God’s words are universal, valid for all times. Gibson and his allies should think that they are considering Petra as Holy city also because of this word Bacca’s meaning as to weep or lament. Just on assumption that because of 2-3 earthquake people of Petra would have cried and wept and that’s why this word may refer to Petra. My question is for how long, maximum of 200-250 years. While look at Mecca for centuries people are coming every day there in multitudes in crowds and lamenting, asking forgiveness from God, expressing their grief & sorrow and shedding tears.

I leave on the common sense of people reading this article that which city fulfils and passes the test of Time- Petra or Mecca?

BAKKAH IS IN JERUSALEM

Otherwise Why Previous Prophets Never Visited Mecca?

Gibson also says that if “Bakkah” is Mecca and built by Prophet Abraham then as mentioned in next verse 97, why none of the prophets from Abraham’s progeny ever visited Mecca as there is no historical, biblical or Quranic record of it. While they should be visiting as this was made obligatory to all human beings as per verse 97. Not only Gibson but also some Muslim scholars think that “Bakkah” in 3:96 actually referring to God’s house in Jerusalem.

Let me clear here few things: the verse 3:96 clearly says that “إِنَّ أَوَّلَ بَيْتٍ وُضِعَ لِلنَّاسِ” “Indeed, the first House established for mankind”, it doesn’t say that “The Only House” It is mentioned as the first house and the word ‘Indeed’ before that is to emphasis on the mere fact that people of the book, Jews and Christians should listen clearly that there pride on themselves as the chosen people of God and as the Leader of this world is not true. The fact is that well before them God had also sown a seed of religion of true monotheism in this area of Hejaz through their forefather Abraham, and this is actually the first house ever built on earth for a true monotheistic worship of God. You can clearly see that the context of these verses also indicating a discourse to the people of the book (Jews).

Now further you can see that when God ask for a Pilgrimage to the House then it is a general commandment to mankind to visit God’s house. It has nothing to do with “which one”. Not only this it also gives relaxation by saying – for whoever is able (afford/manage) to find thereto a way. Quran is such a miraculous book that it is valid for all times. So first it says that this House is the first House of God, then it says indirectly that there are others also. Now please understand the source of all religions is only one God, The Almighty, my Lord and your Lord. With the evolution of mankind, God kept on sending His guidance in different times as per the changing requirements of human evolution and civilization. Then He completed it and stopped sending further revelations. In the Revelations and Scriptures He sent, everything was the same regarding God Himself and His Kingdom (This whole Universe), the differences mainly were in the moral teachings necessary as per that particular time frame of human evolution until that time when it reached to a certain stage of completion.

Now before Quran and Muhammad’s prophethood, the Pilgrimage of God’s house in any major vicinity area like Jerusalem was obligatory for those who could afford it. But after Muhammad’s prophethood all human beings actually should become one nation and therefore the only ultimate place of Hajj would only be Kaaba in Mecca. It does not mean that other God’s Houses will be abandoned. No, but now the main event of Pilgrimage after prophet Muhammad’s prophethood and God’s final revelation would be Mecca. This is the reason why previous prophets not visited Mecca as this area at that time was designated for Bani Ismail, others could visit but not mandatory on them.

BATTLE FOR MEDINA

Attack From The Northern Side

Gibson and his allies also claim that in almost all the battles for Medina Prophet’s enemies attacked Medina from its North Side. They thus reassert that Prophet Muhammad actually migrated from Petra to Medina from North to South instead of Mecca to Medina. And this is the reason why his enemies attacked from the North as they had to come from Petra. Also in the Battle of Trench, the trench was made on the northern side of Medina.

My reply is that in older times it was a normal practice of invaders to attack a city from its weakest side. Gibson & allies ask why the Muslims dug a ditch on Medina’s northern side to defend against Meccans coming from the south. The answer is because the northern side was the only one unprotected from cavalry attack while all other sides have either rocky terrains or orchards.

Please have a look at this drawing showing the Trench Battlefield which itself is quite enough to prove the fallacy of all the assumptions Gibson and others are claiming.

PLEASE DRAG THE HANDLE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PICTURE TO SEE TWO MAPS

–

In the Battle of Trench, as a matter of fact, not all troops came from the south. Some troops came from the northern side. From the north came Jews of Bani Nadir and Bani Qainuqa who after their banishment from Medinah, had settled in the area of Khyber. To the south of Medina, there were many gardens so that it could not be attacked from that side. To the east and southwestern side of Medina were lava rocks which were untraversable for a large army. The attack, therefore, could be made only from the eastern and western sides of the Uhud, which the Muslims secured by digging a trench. Their enemies were not at all aware that they would have to face the trench outside Medina. Thus, they had to lay a long siege in winter for which they had not come prepared.

Also look at the animation below, the route troops might have taken because of the rocky terrain in-between Mecca & Medina and to arrive at the the eastern and western sides of the Uhud they had to arrive from above the city, that is from the north of Medina.

If whatever I said above is not true, then my counter question to Gibson & his allies is that why during the siege of Medina the allied forces did not try to attack from somewhere else and why they kept waiting there in severe weather conditions (Assuming they came from Petra from North thus they faced the Trench side…but what forced them to keep sitting there and not attacking from the south side of Medina) considering it was a very small city that time and going to its opposite side should not be much travelling.

Again the purpose of Gibson, Jay Smith and their allies is only is to raise so much dust that no one could see anything. And thus creating doubts about the very origin of the Islamic religion.

CLICK THE IMAGE TO OPEN IN BIGGER SIZE

The Order Of The Battle For Mecca

Here Gibson comes out with strange reasoning and almost like an acrobat tried to prove Petra as the Holy City of Islam thru totally irrelevant and absurd logic. He picked three expeditions of the Muslim army and thru a nonsense sort of reasoning established that Petra would be more logical instead of Mecca as a city to be conquered by Muhammad PBUH in 630AD. The reasoning he gave along with the diagram is mentioned below and then you will find my answer to this.

He says,

Consider these two options. First, we know the Muslim armies march all the way from Medina north to fight at Mu’tah in southern Jordan. Did then over 1200 kilometres back across the burning Nafud Desert to take Mecca? Wouldn’t it make more sense if the Holy City was in Petra instead of being south of Medina?

–

Now let me reply to this, the timeline of all three battles is that in May/June 628 Battle of Khyber, then Sep 629 battle of Mu’tah then in Dec 629/Jan630 conquest of Mecca happened. Gibson looked very naive when he mentioned under the left side map “Then Muhammad decides to take Mecca, and marches all the way back south”. I said “naive” because even a school level student of Islamic history knows that there is a difference between Ghazwas & Sariyas. An expedition in which the Prophet personally participated is called a Ghazwa and the one he ordered but didn’t personally participate in it and rather appointed others to lead is called a Sariyah. Battle of Mu’tah was A Sariya led by a companion of the Prophet.

They are different expeditions sent at different times reacting to the events as they happened. All battles were reactions towards events that were unfolding and not planned as Gibson thought. Further Prophet was not with the army for the battle of Mu’tah, while for Mecca Conquest he was with them. So technically what Gibson assumed is totally on the wrong foundation as Muhammad did not attack Mecca all the way from Mauta but he attacked Mecca from Medina as he never left Medina after the Battle of Khyber in May 628. He continuously stayed in Medina during the in-between time and not left Medina even for a single campaign or expedition.

Again the purpose of Gibson is only to raise so much dust that no one could see anything. And thus creating doubts about the very origin of the Islamic religion.

Change Of Qibla Commandment

Please have a look at the animation and the slides below which are quite enough to prove the fallacy of all the assumptions Gibson and others are claiming. I presented here two scenarios in line with the history of Islam and the commandment of the Quran regarding Qibla direction change. Gibson and his fellow also accept that this Qibla change happened.

Some Muslims also have confusion as to why this happened, for them also let me explain. From the very beginning, Prophet knew the sanctity of these two places Masjid Al Haram & Jerusalem. So in Mecca, he used to pray in a way that mostly he would be facing Kaaba Masjid Al Haram and at the same time facing Masjid Aqsa Jerusalem. In Mecca he could face both, but when he moved to Medina that became impossible as Medina is in-between both these places. If he faces towards one place his back would be towards the other. Personally, he had more affiliation with Masjid Al Haram Mecca as this was built by his Grand Grandfather Ibrahim and Ismail PBUH. He was hesitant to forsake Aqsa Mosque and turn only towards Mecca while there were Idols of polytheists still there. Prophet kept praying & waiting for a clear guidance from God on this and then after 16-17 months of his migration to Medina he got this revelation of God. This not only solved the issue but also marked and indicated the end of Imamate Of Jews and the coming of this status of Imamate and leadership of humanity to the Muslims.

CLICK THE IMAGE TO OPEN IN BIGGER SIZE

Now I assume two scenarios one by taking Original Qibla as God’s House/Scared Mosque in Mecca and the other scenario as God’s House in Petra. The interim Qibla in both these scenarios is Jerusalem as accepted by Gibson and his allies. The only dispute is on either Petra Or Mecca was the original Qibla. So starting from these two scenarios and keeping in mind the Quranic verses for Changing back the Qibla direction to the Masjid Al Haram the Sacred Mosque, as quoted below

١٤٤ قَدْ نَرَىٰ تَقَلُّبَ وَجْهِكَ فِي السَّمَاءِ ۖ فَلَنُوَلِّيَنَّكَ قِبْلَةً تَرْضَاهَا ۚ فَوَلِّ وَجْهَكَ شَطْرَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ ۚ وَحَيْثُ مَا كُنْتُمْ فَوَلُّوا وُجُوهَكُمْ شَطْرَهُ ۗ وَإِنَّ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ لَيَعْلَمُونَ أَنَّهُ الْحَقُّ مِنْ رَبِّهِمْ ۗ وَمَا اللَّهُ بِغَافِلٍ عَمَّا يَعْمَلُونَ

We have certainly seen the turning of your face, [O Muhammad], toward the heaven, and We will surely turn you to a qiblah with which you will be pleased. So turn your face toward al-Masjid al-Haram. And wherever you [believers] are, turn your faces toward it [in prayer]. Indeed, those who have been given the Scripture well know that it is the truth from their Lord. And Allah is not unaware of what they do. Surah Baqarah 2:144

In the first Scenario we consider that the original Qibla was in Mecca, the prophet mostly used to pray both towards Kaaba & Jerusalem direction or simply in the direction of Jerusalem. When he migrated to Medina this continued in the direction of Jerusalem as I discussed above.

Now here in Medina, the situation becomes interesting when we consider the 2nd scenario along with Qibla direction change commandment as in Surah Baqarah 2:144. You can clearly see that the Quran says “turn your face towards the Sacred Mosque” which is in agreement in the case of Mecca as it literally needs a turning of direction from Jerusalem to Mecca but in the case of 2nd scenario we assumed Petra as the original place of Kaaba how could this be logically convincible. At those times when there was no GPS coordinate systems in practice, leaving in Medina and facing Jerusalem is the same as facing Petra. They both are in the same direction from Medina that is north and also in the same vicinity. There is no need for any request & prayer of the Prophet to God nor there is any need for God’s commandment to intervene in this and solving this issue.

Again the purpose of Gibson, Jay Smith and allies is only to raise so much dust that no one could see anything. And thus creating doubts about the very origin of the Islamic religion.

Mecca, Mother Of Cities? But absent from Maps & Trade Routes

–

٧ وَكَذَٰلِكَ أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ قُرْآنًا عَرَبِيًّا لِتُنْذِرَ أُمَّ الْقُرَىٰ وَمَنْ حَوْلَهَا وَتُنْذِرَ يَوْمَ الْجَمْعِ لَا رَيْبَ فِيهِ ۚ فَرِيقٌ فِي الْجَنَّةِ وَفَرِيقٌ فِي السَّعِيرِ

And thus We have revealed to you an Arabic Quran that you may warn the Mother of Cities and those around it and warn of the Day of Assembly, about which there is no doubt. A party will be in Paradise and a party in the Blaze. Surah Shura 42:7

Then they raise the objection that the Quran describes Mecca as “Mother of Cities” while Mecca is absent from almost all the old maps of the World. Thus was not a prominent place while Petra fulfils this requirement and title. Petra also appears in older maps as a trade route and was a big trading hub while Mecca does not & also Mecca’s location is not appropriate to be a hub or even part of any trade route.

Please Click The Image To See In Bigger Size

This particular objection actually first raised by Patricia Crone that Mecca was a very unlikely place from which to build a trading empire. My reply to that is all the written material about Mecca’s significance in trade is not from the Quran. It might be based on traditions and hadith, which were compiled many hundred years after the advent of the Quran. Muslims have segregated hadiths and not every hadith is considered authentic. Some are considered as “Zaif” weak and some are false especially in cases where they contradict with the Quran. Many times these Ahadith are decorative and exaggerated. Moreover, hadith related to the magnificence and splendour of Mecca and about its agriculture and greenery are greatly in disagreement also from each other. Quran itself mentioned Mecca as a barren land as I mentioned in the section below and mostly mentioned that the main source of provision for Mecca is thru the activity of visits of God’s house by the people around. Trade is just a part-time profession of a few of them like we also know from history that Muhammad’s grand father’s major responsibility was as custodian of Kaaba. Meccan’s were entrusted with religious services from which they significantly Earned their provisions. No Islamic text claims that Mecca was a trade hub where people from all over the world used to come for trading. It is just that the Meccan’s go to other places for trading to get their needed items.

٥٧ وَقَالُوا إِنْ نَتَّبِعِ الْهُدَىٰ مَعَكَ نُتَخَطَّفْ مِنْ أَرْضِنَا ۚ أَوَلَمْ نُمَكِّنْ لَهُمْ حَرَمًا آمِنًا يُجْبَىٰ إِلَيْهِ ثَمَرَاتُ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ رِزْقًا مِنْ لَدُنَّا وَلَٰكِنَّ أَكْثَرَهُمْ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ

And they say, “If we were to follow the guidance with you, we would be swept from our land.” Have we not established for them a safe sanctuary to which are brought the fruits of all things as provision from Us? But most of them do not know. (Surah Qasas 28:57)

Then they say that Quran mentions Mecca as أُمَّ الْقُرَىٰ Mother of Cities so how could this place be the mother of cities with not much significance proven from history before and at times of Prophet Muhammad PBUH. This argument is also quite shallow as what history proved is against them. Gibson and his fellow just talking about few years of the past before Islam and the early days of Islam while from that time till now which city fulfils and passes the test of Time- Petra or Mecca? Which city meets this criteria to be called “Mother of Cities” Petra Or Mecca?

No one knows about Petra while Mecca is the central place for billions of people for 1500 years. God does not look and see a particular time He sees all the events and happenings in past & future. Quran is full of such instances, that whenever God speaks, that thing either happened at once or it implies as to be destined to happen, coz it is intended, commanded and decided by God. Go and read  verses from the Quran where God says that we established Joseph in the land while at that time he was just a slave. But God here talked about the seed which was sown and had all the potential to become a powerful tree. Same as in the case of Abraham when God says that I will make you and the righteous among your progeny as the Imam & leader of this world. At that time Abraham was an old man and his wife was a barren old lady. The same goes as with the case of Adam when God said that we taught Adam the names of all things (Knowledge) that is the potential that God put in the human race to which all other creatures would surrender. Please read Quran Miracle: Adams Knowledge & Vicegerency

Here I am trying to counter them with the simplest method with logic and common sense. For scholarly debates on archaeology, they have already received many counter-arguments from other people of their field.

As also mentioned above these are such sort of arguments from Gibson which are arguments from silence or better I say arguments from ignorance. His claim that Mecca was not mentioned as a city in early historical records is not only wrong but even if we take such type of arguments as true then they are just arguments from silence, which is a well-known fallacy argument. A conclusion that is based on the absence of statements in historical documents, rather than their presence. The absence of proof does not equate to proof of absence.

Gibson and others, brought proofs from a small number of traditions and Ahadith to prove their point but at the same time, they do not admit and accept a hundred times more traditions and Ahadith that mentions Mecca as the city of Sacred House. Again the purpose is only to raise so much dust that no one could see anything. And thus creating doubts about the very origin of the Islamic religion.

Mecca Had Greenery & Agriculture

–

Then their objection is on the geological features of Mecca. They say that Quran frequently mentions various herbs, fruits and lush green lands either related to this world or as in the depiction of Paradise. How come that mention sound reasonable if the audience was of Mecca where none of these present and, thus must be for the habitants of Petra. The answer is people of Mecca even in times of Prophet PBUH were not in any way limited and bound to the limits and borders of Mecca or even Hejaz. They travel for trade and were well aware of various types of fruits and vegetation.

Furthermore, Quran’s audience is not limited to Mecca as is evident by the Hijrah/migration of prophet and his settlement in Medina and also by the mere fact that the Quran itself says that this revelation of God is not limited to some specific time and region but its message is universal and for all of humanity. To be very clear even Quran’s direct audience was all residents of Hejaz and not only of Mecca.

Medina is quite green and full of agricultural lands. Also, the city of Taif that Muhammad Pbuh went to seek refuge before his Hijrah to Medina is quite different from Mecca and had agriculture and vegetation. Both these places are quite near to Mecca and Meccan’s were well aware of all the fruits and vegetation mentioned in Quran thru these nearby cities and by travelling to distant regions and countries like Syria during their trade expeditions.

The plea Gibson & others give for Petra also not logically correct as even Petra is not in any way an agricultural region. It receives a minimal amount of annual rain and as also mentioned by Gibson, the Nabataeans (early habitants of Petra) build dams and water channels to control and preserve this small amount of rain for later use. But their water systems were destroyed by an earthquake in 363 AD well before prophet Muhammad’s lifetime.

PETRA DRONE VIEW SHOWING FAR LESS NATURAL GREENERY THAN TAIF CITY WHICH IS NEARBY MECCA

In his video the sacred city, Gibson also quoted a portion of a hadith from Bukhari book 56 Narrated by Abu Huraira about a Muslim prisoner Khubaib-al-Ansari and his situation as depicted by the daughter of Al-Harith, whose brother purchased Khubaib as a slave.

“By Allah, I never saw a prisoner better than Khubaib. By Allah, one day I saw him eating of a bunch of grapes in his hand while he was chained in irons, and there was no fruit at that time in Mecca.”

Gibson goes on creating a whole scenario from these words although it simply means that there are no fruits in Mecca. This could only happen in a non-agricultural city of old times when there was no organized supply-chain and imports management system. That simply means that the stores & markets were empty. Furthermore, Taif is very near to Mecca and it has everything from crops to fruits especially grapes. So Gibson for your kind information the grapes & fruits could have also come from Taif. It is just 90 Km from Mecca the same distance that Gibson considers so small that he assumed a morning and an evening trip possible from Petra to the ruins of Sodom Valley, in case of proving his point for Petra’s favour.

TAIF CITY MOUNTAINS AND GREENERY

Dan Gibson also relies on few other Ahadith & traditions to prove his claim that the greenery and vegetation mentioned in the Quran specifically related to the birthplace of Prophet Muhammad (acc. to him Petra) and not to the nearby regions. He even picked a saying of the father of Prophet Muhammad PBUH. He should be aware that Muslims have segregated traditions, Ahadith, and not every hadith is considered authentic. Some are considered as “Zaif” weak and some are false especially in cases where they contradict with the Quran. He claims from these ahadith that the city where the House of God located was a lush valley that is described as having trees and grass and fruits and grapes and fields and streams.

This is completely contradictory to the Quran. Now see how does God describe the location of the sacred House in the Quran Surah Ibrahim verse 37, where prophet Ibrahim praying to God when he settled his son Ishmail and wife Hajrah in Mecca.

٣٧ رَبَّنَا إِنِّي أَسْكَنْتُ مِنْ ذُرِّيَّتِي بِوَادٍ غَيْرِ ذِي زَرْعٍ عِنْدَ بَيْتِكَ الْمُحَرَّمِ رَبَّنَا لِيُقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ فَاجْعَلْ أَفْئِدَةً مِنَ النَّاسِ تَهْوِي إِلَيْهِمْ وَارْزُقْهُمْ مِنَ الثَّمَرَاتِ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَشْكُرُونَ

“Our Lord! I have made some of my offspring settle in a barren valley near Your Sacred House! Our Lord! I did so that they may establish Prayer. So make the hearts of people affectionately inclined to them, and provide them with fruits for their sustenance that they may give thanks. (Surah Ibrahim 14:37)

Mecca Has Fruits As Provision- Surah Qasas 28:57

–

They also take the below verse from Surah Al Qasas as a piece of supporting evidence for their claim as this verse states that in Mecca fruits of all things come. This is again a gross misunderstanding of the verse. First of all the verse does not mention here “Fruits” that we eat but “the benefits” of all things. In Arabic, the word “ثَمَرَ “ actually means Reward, Wealth or Benefit especially in this context it means benefits of all things reach to Mecca as provision for its inhabitants. Fruit is also called fruit because we get it after labour and hard work done on the land. Now we all know that even before the birth of Prophet Muhammad PBUH till now people from Hejaz and all around from distant places reach to Mecca for Pilgrimage which also brings wealth, trade and much economical provision for its inhabitants.

٥٧ وَقَالُوا إِنْ نَتَّبِعِ الْهُدَىٰ مَعَكَ نُتَخَطَّفْ مِنْ أَرْضِنَا ۚ أَوَلَمْ نُمَكِّنْ لَهُمْ حَرَمًا آمِنًا يُجْبَىٰ إِلَيْهِ ثَمَرَاتُ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ رِزْقًا مِنْ لَدُنَّا وَلَٰكِنَّ أَكْثَرَهُمْ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ

And they say, “If we were to follow the guidance with you, we would be swept from our land.” Have we not established for them a safe sanctuary to which are brought the fruits of all things as provision from Us? But most of them do not know. Surah Qasas 28:57

Mecca Was Near To The Valley Of Sodom- Surah Saffat 37: 137

–

They also take the below verse from the Quran pointing in relation to the story of Prophet Lut Pbuh as a piece of supporting evidence and claim that Muhammad’s audience was living close enough to the ancient city of Sodom. As one cannot pass by that place morning and evening from a distant place like Mecca which is more than a thousand kilometres from the Dead Sea region.

First of all, again I need to mention that Muhammad’s audience is not at all limited to the residents of Mecca but of the whole Hejaz from the very beginning and also Quran’s message as the last revelation, not at all limited to any specific time and place. But even then for the sake of argument how can then the people of Petra (as per Gibson’s assumption) can pass by the ruins of Sodom morning and evening while the direct distance (not the actual travelling distance, which is much more than this) between Petra and the region where the ancient city of Sodom likely be is around 86 Km. There were no modern vehicles at that time that could make this possible.

This verse of the Quran only refers to the going and coming back of caravans and travellers from their journeys and passing by that place sometime in the early part of the day and sometimes in the latter part of the day.

١٣٧ وَإِنَّكُمْ لَتَمُرُّونَ عَلَيْهِمْ مُصْبِحِينَ
١٣٨ وَبِاللَّيْلِ ۗ أَفَلَا تَعْقِلُونَ

And indeed, you pass by them in the morning
And at night. Then will you not use reason? Surah Saffat 37: 137-138

Safa Marwa Height & Distance

–

Gibson raised doubts on Mecca also by questioning Safa & Marwa’s height and their in-between distance. He based his claim mainly on two things. He says that the “Saee” “سعى” of Safa & Marwa (a ritual of Hajj & Umrah) is described as taking days to complete but it’s just a quick task to complete and the distance is not much between the small rocks. The trip between Ṣafa and Marwa was so strenuous that some people could not do the seven crossings in one day. This he tried to prove thru the following narration:

The author of Al-Mughni observes:

“Aḥmad says there is no harm in delaying the Sa’i after performing ṭawaf until one is rested, or postponing it until evening. ’Aṭa’ and Al-Ḥasan also see no harm in someone making ṭawaf early in the day and postponing the Sa’i between Ṣafa and Marwah until evening. Al-Qāsim and Sa’īd bin Jubair followed this, because the continuity of Sa’i is, as such, not a condition, much less the continuity of ṭawāf and Sa’i. Sa’īd bin Manṣūr reported that Saudah, the wife of ’Urwah bin al-Zubair performed Sai in between Ṣafa and Marwah and because she was a big and heavy woman, she completed it in three days. (Fiqh-us-Sunnah 5:88a)

Secondly, Gibson states that Safa and Marwa were tall mountains, that needed “climbing”. He says that Safa Marwa in Mecca are just two small rocks inside the mosque building and they do not look like mountain that needs climbing. Also, there is no way to climb these rocks, so pilgrims no longer climb them. This he tried to prove thru the below hadith from Bukhari volume 6, book 60 no. 495. He also added that Petra has two mountains exactly as mentioned in traditions of Muslims and a road leading directly from one mountain to another for Tawaf between the two mountains. He says that since Abraham wandered throughout the mountains, from Israel down to Egypt, it would not come as a surprise that Abraham and Ishmael may have stopped in the Petra Valley and built some sort of altar or structure there to worship the Lord. The Quranic accounts fit the Petra valley far better than the barren Mecca valley in Saudi Arabia.

Bukhari 6:495

When the Verse: ‘And warn your tribe of near kindred.’ (26:214) was revealed. Allah’s Apostle went out, and when he had ascended As-Safa mountain, he shouted, “O Sabahah!” The people said, “Who is that?” “Then they gathered around him, whereupon he said, “Do you see? If I inform you that cavalrymen are proceeding up the side of this mountain, will you believe me? They said, “We have never heard you telling a lie.” Then he said, “I am a plain warner to you of a coming severe punishment.” Abū Lahab said, “May you perish! You gathered us only for this reason?” Then Abū Lahab went away. So the Sūrat: “Perish the hands of Abū Lahab!” was revealed.

Now let me dissect Gibson’s claims one by one. Please keep in mind that Gibson used to quote that all his claims and findings should be taken all together and they all together support his Petra theory. This is the reason that I am replying to every single issue he raised regardless of how absurd it is.

Starting from the first claim “The trip between Ṣafa and Marwa was so strenuous that people could not do the seven crossings in one day” First of all no tradition or hadith says this fact. It is just that Gibson tried to twist the words in favour of his claims. All these above-mentioned traditions and sayings of Fiqh-us-Sunnah, just mentioning things only in one perspective and that is the issue of “Continuity of Sa’i Between Safa and Marwah” and if it is permitted to take a break or not?. The main cause of discussing this issue is not that human beings cannot do this ritual in one go but of the sheer fact that city of Mecca is very hot and they were discussing about making ’Tawaf’ early in the day and postponing the Sa’i until evening to avoid the peak hours of sun. For health issues, one can also take a rest. As for Saudah, wife of Urwah bin al Zubair who completed it in three days (because she was a big and heavy woman), one should not be surprised reading this as all of us may know some people who get tired even by walking few yards.. few meters. The distance between Safa and Marwa is approximately 450 m (1,480 ft), therefore, seven trips back and forth amount to roughly 3.6 km. The narration already saying that she was a big and heavy woman, so she just took the advantage of relaxation and decided to roughly travel 1.2 km a day. Also keep in mind, that time period, the extreme climate of Mecca and the unavailability of all the modern facilities that we have nowadays.

As for the prophet performing Sa’i sometime on his ride, that was only because of the fact that when the overcrowding increased and he found that the people wanted to know more about their religion, he rode his mount so that they could see him and ask him and can distinguish him from the crowd. This reason already mentioned in the Islamic books.

Now let’s come to Gibson’s other claim that Safa and Marwa were tall mountains, that needed “climbing”. I do not know how he assumed this and how he calculated the height that would be appropriate for verifying Safa and Marwa authenticity. Actually, this argument goes against his claim. He supported his claim thru a hadith where the prophet climbed on Safa mountain and talked to his tribe. For this particular situation, I ask your common sense that what type of height you think is suitable for a person to converse with his audience. A tall mountain or a small Rock. Every sane person will say a small rock. How can you communicate if you climb on a tall mountain and without a modern system of sound amplification convey your sound to people below in the valley? Does that make sense Mr. Gibson & Mr. Jay Smith!

Also, Gibson either did not bother to see the Arabic text of the hadith or he intentionally skipped it. The English translation mentioned Safa as a mountain “The (prophet) had ascended As-Safa mountain” while the Arabic texts doest not say this “خَرَجَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم حَتَّى صَعِدَ الصَّفَا فَهَتَفَ” which is “Allah’s Apostle went out, and when he had ascended As-Safa, he shouted” so nowhere the Arabic text mentions Safa as the mountain. But even if it would be mentioned as a mountain, then my explanation would be that Safa is a small mountain located at the bottom of the Abu Qubais Mountain, about 130 meters southeast of the Kabah and that explains the next part of the hadith where prophet exactly says “Do you see? If I inform you that cavalrymen are proceeding up the side of this mountain, will you believe me?” Now it looks like that the Safa mountain was big enough that people cannot see the other side and thats why Prophet was asking this question. But here the mountain that Prophet was talking about was Abu Qubais mountain. Safa is at the bottom of the Abu Qubais Mountain so the prophet was just asking his tribesmen “أَرَأَيْتُمْ إِنْ أَخْبَرْتُكُمْ أَنَّ خَيْلاً تَخْرُجُ مِنْ سَفْحِ هَذَا الْجَبَلِ أَكُنْتُمْ مُصَدِّقِيَّ” look at the words “هَذَا الْجَبَلِ” just a common-sense matter that asking someone standing on a rock exactly in the bottom of a tall mountain (Abu Qubais) the other side of which is not visible and questioning his audience “Do you see? If I inform you that cavalrymen are proceeding up the side of this mountain, will you believe me?”. Does it now make sense Mr Gibson & Mr Jay Smith!

Quran’s Focus On Northern Arabia

–

Gibson also says that Quran mentions Ad and Thamud many times. The people of Ad (Edomites) and the people of Thamud (Nabataeans) all dwelt in northern Arabia in the Petra region. He wrote that there had been three times in the past when Arabia was great. First time in 2nd millennium BC under the tribal confederacy led by Edom, known as Ad. Second time around the 12 century BC under the leadership of the Midianites who oppressed and raided the settled peoples to the north. Third time around 200 BC – 200 AD, under the leadership of the Thamudic people who established what we know today as the Nabataean empire. Gibson asserted that they were all significant people in the minds of his listeners. Thus this leads us to believe that Muḥammad was addressing an audience in North Arabia, the homeland of Ishmael, Ad, Thamud, and Midian.

Now let me reply to all this. Quran is full of reference to the people of northern Arabia. Gibson himself mentioned that this Nabataean empire of Thamudic people controlled not only all of Arabia, but also lands all the way to Damascus in the north, and the entire Negev to the west. So this goes against his argument, as if this empire once controlled all of Arabia then it should be very relevant for people living in Mecca to discuss them as an example.

Quran is full of stories of past prophets and their nations for the purpose of teaching. It has nothing to do with the distance they happened to be from Mecca. Gibson admitted and mentioned in his book that the city of Medina was in the heartland of Midian which was Prophet Shuayb’s dwelling place. Now, look at what prophet Shuayb says in Surah Hud verse 11 below “the people of Lot are not from you far away”. So in this scenario, we are not dealing with Petra or Mecca but Medina & Midian but still prophet Shuayb talks about people of Lut as they are very near. The reason is simple it is just a normal way of conversation when the purpose of the talk is not geographical distances but moral lessons and examples from the deeds of past generations.

٨٩ وَيَا قَوْمِ لَا يَجْرِمَنَّكُمْ شِقَاقِي أَنْ يُصِيبَكُمْ مِثْلُ مَا أَصَابَ قَوْمَ نُوحٍ أَوْ قَوْمَ هُودٍ أَوْ قَوْمَ صَالِحٍ ۚ وَمَا قَوْمُ لُوطٍ مِنْكُمْ بِبَعِيدٍ

And O my people, let not [your] dissension from me cause you to be struck by that similar to what struck the people of Noah or the people of Hud or the people of Salih. And the people of Lot are not from you far away. Surah Hud 11:89

In Surah Ahqaf verse 21 Quran mentioned the location of people of Aad “وَاذْكُرْ أَخَا عَادٍ إِذْ أَنْذَرَ قَوْمَهُ بِالْأَحْقَافِ” “And mention, [O Muhammad], the brother of ‘Aad, when he warned his people in the [region of] al-Ahqaf” In Arabic Ahqaf is “Sand Dunes” or “the winding sand tracts”. So the area where they lived most probably would be in modern-day Saudi Arabia, Yemen or Oman. Most scholars are of the opinion that the Valley of Ahqaf was the name of the valley, located today in Yemen (again South of Arab)

In contrast to what Gibson thinks Quran’s focus is not only on Ad and Thamud but on almost all the nearby generations of various nations, their deeds and their end. From Adam, his sons to the mention of Abraham/Ibrahim, Issac/Ishaq, Jacob/Yaqub, Joseph/Yusuf, Moses/Musa, Solomon, John/Yahya, Jesus/Isa all stories are there in the Quran for moral and teaching purposes. Queen Saba in Solomon’s story is considered from the southern part of the Arabian peninsula. Modern historians identify Sheba with the South Arabian kingdom of Saba in present-day Yemen.

Look at the below verses of the Quran and see yourself that in one single verse Quran mentions people of Nuh, Ad, Thamud, Abraham and Midian and then in another verse Pharaoh and Thamud together and then Nuh, Ad and Pharaoh together, just as they belonged to one same locality or one geographical region. The only similarity Quran finds in them is not their geography or their demography but their deeds and transgression that they did towards God and His messengers. Hope it now makes sense… Mr Gibson & Mr Jay Smith!

٧٠ أَلَمْ يَأْتِهِمْ نَبَأُ الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِهِمْ قَوْمِ نُوحٍ وَعَادٍ وَثَمُودَ وَقَوْمِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَأَصْحَابِ مَدْيَنَ وَالْمُؤْتَفِكَاتِ ۚ أَتَتْهُمْ رُسُلُهُمْ بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ ۖ فَمَا كَانَ اللَّهُ لِيَظْلِمَهُمْ وَلَٰكِنْ كَانُوا أَنْفُسَهُمْ يَظْلِمُونَ

Has there not reached them the news of those before them – the people of Noah and [the tribes of] ‘Aad and Thamud and the people of Abraham and the companions of Madyan and the towns overturned? Their messengers came to them with clear proofs. And Allah would never have wronged them, but they were wronging themselves. Surah Tawbah 9:70

١٧ هَلْ أَتَاكَ حَدِيثُ الْجُنُودِ
١٨ فِرْعَوْنَ وَثَمُودَ

Has there reached you the story of the soldiers –[Those of] Pharaoh and Thamud? Surah Buruj 85:17-18

١٢ كَذَّبَتْ قَبْلَهُمْ قَوْمُ نُوحٍ وَعَادٌ وَفِرْعَوْنُ ذُو الْأَوْتَادِ

The people of Noah denied before them, and [the tribe of] ‘Aad and Pharaoh, the owner of stakes. Surah Sad 38:12

No Record Of Quran’s Old Manuscripts

–

All opponents of Islam including Gibson claim that there is no record of Quranic manuscript found before the 8th century and thus they assert that even Quran was not revealed on Muhammad but written lately and they conspire Umayyad’s caliph Abd al Malik’s role in it. If that is the case then Quran should have mentioned some of the issues, events, jurisprudence debates of Umayyad’s time or should have discussed personalities of that time. But there is nothing in the Quran that mentions even a single event of that time period, although there were so much internal division and controversies in the Muslim community and the party in the rule had a better chance to put few verses against their opponents. It ultimately shows that Quran was already a closed body of text well before the time of Umayyad caliphate’s peak time period.

Further, the discovery of Sana Manuscripts of the Quran brings a clear proof for the origin of the Quran well before that time period. The Sana palimpsest is one of the oldest Quranic manuscripts in existence. Discovered in Yemen during a 1972 restoration of the Great Mosque of Sanaa. Before this Sana manuscript, the opponents of Islam claimed that the Quran evolved over a century or two after the death of Muhammad, but this manuscript makes the traditional dating of the Quran very authentic. A radiocarbon analysis has dated the parchment to between 578 AD/44 BH (BH: Before Hijrah) and 669 AD/49 AH (AH: After Hijrah) with a 95% accuracy.

The opponents of Islam also completely forget that Islamic text is different from other religion’s text as it is double packed with security and safety features. Quran has a parallel system of safety & protection since the very beginning it revealed, and that is its transmission by hundreds and thousands of its sincere, dedicated memorizers called the “Hufaz” The opponents of Islam want to dismiss the oral testimony of the majority of an entire community just because of their bias. Questions and objections on the Quran’s authenticity and its unaltered nature and on the location of Muslim’s Qibla, are simply against reason, logic and common sense.

Objections On Sana Manuscript and Reply

–

Now as usual there are also objections raised on Sana manuscript of the Quran. This manuscript is written on parchment and comprises two layers of text. The upper text conforms to the Uthmanic Quran in text and the order of Surahs is also the same while the lower text (the original text that was erased and written over by the upper text but can still be read with the help of ultraviolet light and computer processing) contains many variations from the Uthmanic text, and the sequence of its chapters corresponds to no known Quranic order.

As usual, all opponents of the Quran start rejoicing as although their previous claim of no record of older Quranic manuscript failed but they got another case to claim and challenge the secure/unaltered characteristic of the Quran. And to claim that the Quran no longer is original as given by prophet but has changed and evolved with time.

The answer to all these objections and claims is again from logic and common sense. The manuscript of the Quran found in Sana is just a personal copy of the Quran. Caliph Othman and companions of the prophet were aware of these personal copies. Therefore when Uthman compiled Quran under the supervision of senior Sahabas from the original manuscripts of Hazrat Hafsa (wife of the prophet), then at the time of distribution of one copy to each province, he ordered to burn all those personal copies. But some of these copies survived. Sana copy might be one of those, as its dating also suggests.

–

–

حَدَّثَنَا هَدَّابُ بْنُ خَالِدٍ الأَزْدِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا هَمَّامٌ، عَنْ زَيْدِ بْنِ أَسْلَمَ، عَنْ عَطَاءِ بْنِ يَسَارٍ، عَنْ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ الْخُدْرِيِّ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏ “‏ لاَ تَكْتُبُوا عَنِّي وَمَنْ كَتَبَ عَنِّي غَيْرَ الْقُرْآنِ فَلْيَمْحُهُ وَحَدِّثُوا عَنِّي وَلاَ حَرَجَ وَمَنْ كَذَبَ عَلَىَّ – قَالَ هَمَّامٌ أَحْسِبُهُ قَالَ – مُتَعَمِّدًا فَلْيَتَبَوَّأْ مَقْعَدَهُ مِنَ النَّارِ ‏”‏ ‏.‏

Abu Sa’id Khudri reported that Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said:

Do not write down anything from me, whoever has written anything from me other than the Quran, let him erase it and narrate from me, for there is no harm in it and he who attributed any falsehood to me-and Hammam said: I think he also said:” deliberately” -he should, in fact, find his abode in the Hell-Fire. Sahih Muslim 3004 In-book reference: Book 55, Hadith 92, USC-MSA web (English) reference: Book 42, Hadith 7147

Considering the hadith above it is more logical to think that the owner of Sana’s manuscript of Quran did some mistakes writing Surahs for his personal copy which he later understood and replaced with the Uthmanic copy of the Quran.

Ibn e Zubyr Moved The Black Stone To Mecca

–

They blame Ibn e Zubyr for the destruction of Kaaba and the moving of Black Stone to the new place of Mecca and changing Qibla & Sacred Mosque from Petra To Mecca. All opponents of Islam, Muslim Apostates and characters like Al Yamani also speak about Petra as True Kaaba so must be a part of this game created thru Dan Gibson. And the similarity of their agenda is so much that all of them say that Ibn e Zubyr destroyed the first Kaaba. Instead it was Hajjaj Bin Yusuf.

Gibson by narrating Ibn Zayd’s move to Mecca as mentioned in Al Tabari’s history, suggests that this may be the point of relocation of Petra to Mecca as Ibne Zayd brought with him much baggage on camels and horses. But my question is that why after his defeat his enemies had not reversed the location of the Holy city back to Petra, especially when there was so much animosity and division in various fractions of the Muslim society.

Early Mosques Qibla Issue

–

Started with Patricia Crone, Michael Cook and then Gibson claimed that almost all of the early mosques built after the death of prophet Muhammad during the first century Hijra have their Qiblas facing Northern Arabia more precisely Petra, not Mecca. Until the early eighth century, they all point to Petra and from the time of the Abbasids towards Mecca. In between is, what Gibson & others call, a time of confusion. It narrowed down to Four Qibla directions, as shown by below picture taken from Gibson’s book.

–

Patricia Crone and Gibson both are wrong in their assumptions. Below are the key points to consider

1. Qibla of early mosques was not determined from geographical data, but was inspired by tradition.
2. We first just have to learn how the People of that time dealt with the need to align mosques towards Kaaba in Mecca. It is not something one can only investigate with the help of modern technology.
3. Thus you should not in the first place expect the early mosques to be aligned with Kaaba in mecca as you think it should be for today and label them as incorrect.
4. Modern directions based on modern coordinates are totally irrelevant to the study of early mosques.
5. Qibla is towards the Kaaba, and not towards Makka
6. Qibla of early mosques was not wrongly directed nor they were precisely pointing to Mecca, but they were following the astronomical alignments for example mosques in Iraq to winter sunsets and mosque in Egypt to the rising sun at the winter solstice. Diagram taken from David King’s book The Petra fallacy. 
   
7. Mosques in the East of Hejaz generally face due West And mosques in the West of Hejaz generally face due East.
8. Gibson merely to prove his claim took each and every building that sort of in the direction of Petra, as evidence. This includes many buildings that are as far off as 10° and more or even 30°.
9. Earlier Mosques did not have a “Mehrab” prayer niche indicating the qibla, that should points exactly towards Kaaba as in the case of Modern Mosques, but it was the longest wall of the mosques that considered as the face or front of the mosque facing Kaaba and a whole wall’s direction cannot be precise in any sense.
10. Gibson and others are just talking about the direction of the longest wall of the early mosques.
11. Gibson and others just talking about the remanents of the mosques and not the actual mosques.
12. Without digging down each & every mosque we cannot make sure what orientation the original foundation was built.
13. An early mosque remanent orientating toward Petra could also confirm as a non-Muslim structure.
14. The reliability of Gibson’s claims cannot be simply checked by using the satellite imagery of early mosques through Google Earth, it will be unreliable because many early mosques have multiple foundations, representing various qibla orientations.
15. Spherical trigonometry provides the shortest path from any point on earth to the Kaaba, even though the indicated direction might seem counterintuitive when imagined on a flat world map. It can result in a dramatic difference in some places; for example, in some parts of North America, the flat map shows Mecca in the southeast while the great circle calculation shows it to the northeast.
16. David A. King who retired as a Professor of the History of Science and an expert in the field dealing with the early Islamic mosques Commented on Gibson as someone with 1- no qualifications to correctly interpret the available data, 2- has no understanding of the fact that MODERN directions from one place to another cannot be used to investigate the reasons underlying the orientation of PRE-MODERN architecture, 3- has no understanding of how mosques were laid out over the centuries, 4- Unaware to the fact that there is a well-established discipline called archaeoastronomy, 5- Gibson’s book, at first sight, looks like a monument to what can be achieved by an eager and innovative amateur in Islamic history, even without serious knowledge of classical Arabic and without critical training in Islamic Studies.

Why Nothing Wrote Down about Muhammad Or Islam in 600’s and 700’s

Answer Is Civil Wars & Then Umayyad’s Rule & Their Historical Animosity With Muhammad

–

Gibson & other opponents of Islam raise questions that why nothing wrote down about Muhammad or Islam in the 600’s and 700’s. For almost two hundred years nothing is written down about this new religion, Muslims and about Prophet Muhammad. The answer is all because of the biggest Fitna/Trial that struck this newborn Islamic community. Civil wars and then Umayyads rule & their historical animosity with Muhammad PBUH and his family.

That was not a normal political rivalry or competition, but it was a deep-rooted tribal rivalry that started many generations even before the birth of the prophet Muhammad. This was between the clans of Banu Hashim and Banu Umayyah. It started over custodianship of Kaaba and continued generations after generations until after Muhammad’s declaration of prophethood a new aggression added in it that reached its peak after the death of prophet Muhammad PBUH and then after the killing of his grandson Hussein. Nothing was Banu Hashim’s fault, it was a one-sided jealousy and enmity of Banu Umayyah towards Banu Hashim just because God has chosen Banu Hashim and given them the honour of custodianship of Kaaba and after that the great honour of Prophethood in their family.

It is not a bookish thing but proven by history that all generations of Umayyads were directly in confrontation with Hashim’s progeny. Umayyah s/o Abd Shams confronted with Hashim and challenged his position as custodian of Kaaba. Then in times of Prophet grandfather Abdul Muttalib, Harb s/o Umayyah once again claimed over the custodianship of the Kaaba. The dispute was so aggressive that they requested the king of Habsha to become an arbitrator in their dispute but he refused then the matter was brought to Umar ibn Al Khattab’s grandfather Nufayl ibn Abdul Uzza who gave his verdict in favour of Abdul-Muttalib by saying these words to Harb s/o Umayyah “Why do you pick a quarrel with a person who is taller than you in stature; more imposing than you in appearance; more refined than you in intellect; whose progeny outnumbers yours and whose generosity outshines yours in luster?” Thus the custodianship of Kaaba remained with Banu Hashim but this deepens the gulf of rivalry between Umayyah and Hashim’s.

After Prophet Muhammad’s declaration of prophethood, Abu Sufyan s/o Harb s/o Umayyah led all the major wars against prophet. Then after prophet’s death and after the death of three caliphs, Mauwiyah s/o Abu Sufyan s/o Harb s/o Umayyah fought the deadliest war against Ali son in law and cousin of the prophet. Then after that Yazid s/o Mauwiyah, s/o Abu Sufyan s/o Harb s/o Umayyah fought with Prophet Muhammad’s grandsons and Ali’s son Hussein and Martyred him. And thus started the long and cruel kingship of Umayyah’s dynasty.

So what do you think with such a background would they be promoting Muhammad, his family or his religion. They did everything just to make strong their oppressive rule. They could not be able to make changes in Quran because it was already in the hearts of Muslims and much of them knew it by heart and also it was already compiled. Otherwise, they would also have changed its text.

EVEN MORE REFUTATION OF CLAIMS OF GIBSON, JAY SMITH & OTHER’S

Mecca’s Description In The Quran

Now See How Does God Describe The Sacred House In The Quran

–

Quran Describes Mecca As A Barren Valley- Surah Ibrahim 14:37

Only this single verse rejects the whole assumptions of Gibson & others trying to prove that the Holy city had Greenery & Fruits and agriculture. Here prophet Ibrahim praying to God when he settled his son Ishmail and wife Hajrah in Mecca.

٣٧ رَبَّنَا إِنِّي أَسْكَنْتُ مِنْ ذُرِّيَّتِي بِوَادٍ غَيْرِ ذِي زَرْعٍ عِنْدَ بَيْتِكَ الْمُحَرَّمِ رَبَّنَا لِيُقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ فَاجْعَلْ أَفْئِدَةً مِنَ النَّاسِ تَهْوِي إِلَيْهِمْ وَارْزُقْهُمْ مِنَ الثَّمَرَاتِ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَشْكُرُونَ

“Our Lord! I have made some of my offspring settle in a barren valley near Your Sacred House! Our Lord! I did so that they may establish Prayer. So make the hearts of people affectionately inclined to them, and provide them with fruits for their sustenance that they may give thanks. (Surah Ibrahim 14:37)

Quran Describes Mecca As A Secure Sanctuary- Surah Ankabut 29:67

٦٧ أَوَلَمْ يَرَوْا أَنَّا جَعَلْنَا حَرَمًا آمِنًا وَيُتَخَطَّفُ النَّاسُ مِنْ حَوْلِهِمْ ۚ أَفَبِالْبَاطِلِ يُؤْمِنُونَ وَبِنِعْمَةِ اللَّهِ يَكْفُرُونَ

Have they not seen that We made [Makkah] a secure sanctuary, while people are being taken away all around them? Then in falsehood do they believe, and in the favour of Allah they disbelieve? Surah Ankabut 29:67

Surah Ankabut verse 67 describes a very specific characteristic of the Holy City that it is a secure place and even if all around it, in the whole world people are being taken away by the invaders and conquerors this place remained and would remain safe. This is what is proved by history. Mecca was never Colonized by any empire before Muhammad’s birth, during the early days of Islam till now. This means that no other nation would settle and establish political control over the indigenous people of this area, the native people. That is what the expression while mankind is snatched away, being taken away all around, actually mean. This characteristic of the Holy city also further strengthened by verse 3 of Surah Tin where it is in a form of an Oath/ a solemn promise a swear by this characteristic of the Holy city

٣ وَهَٰذَا الْبَلَدِ الْأَمِينِ

And [by] this secure city

It does not mean that there cannot be internal political ups & downs, civil wars etc but point is that the possession remained always with the original people and residents of Mecca. The same thing happened during the colonization of the nearly whole world by the British, French, Spanish and Portuguese empires. Not only this but the Mongol Empire at its peak when it conquered almost the whole world, could not be able to conquer Mecca. Not only this but the first time they had been defeated and retreated back from their expansion expeditions were during the battle of Ein Jalut which if they succeeded, their next target would have been Mecca.

If we try to examine Petra or Jerusalem on the basis of this characteristic they failed as both these cities were attacked, conquered and colonized many times by people of other countries and other nations.

Quran’s Mention Of Idolatry

Quran in various verses condemns Meccan’s for their Idol worship. Quran never discussed that they altered their Monotheism and followed wrong practices as in the case of people of the Book. This also strengthens that the city must be remote from the Byzantine’s influence where they already had forbidden idol worship long before Muhammad’s birth. The region of Petra was under their influence and Christianity already had its root there.

Petra Claim At Odds With Facts & Reality

Gibson and others they just cherry-picked a few traditions, hadith and verses of the Quran to prove their claim. I have already replied to almost all of the objections based on those few verses and traditions. And they are really few. But what if we accept Petra. Changing Islam’s birthplace outside Hejaz may satisfy Gibson and his allies, but it creates more problems than it solves. Then you have to discard the whole of traditions, hadith, historical record and Quranic verses, as everything revolving around Mecca. From Prophet Muhammad’s visit to the city of Taif and various stories on Mecca and its nearby regions to migration and various expeditions surrounding Mecca and nearby cities and towns mentioned by name in the Quran, Ahadith and traditions. Quran’s talking about the bedouin tribe, Quran’s mentioning of Mecca and Yathrib (the ancient name of Medina) by name in the context of the prophet Muhammad’s life.

Mecca Was The Perfect Place For The Security Of A New Religion- Byzantine Issue

Mecca is also the perfect place for the establishment and flourishing of a new religious movement. As opposed to Mecca, Petra was very near to the influence of two major powers Byzantines and Persians. If Muhammad had to face these powers in the early days of his preaching, these mighty powers would crush this new movement in its very beginning without any doubt.

Also Petra was an important city of the Byzantine empire and if it was the birthplace of Muhammad and Islam why there was no effect of the Persian-Byzantine war on it. Also why Byzantines did not fight to help Petra when Muhammad attacked Petra (Mecca) from Medina and conquered it. Why only Quraysh defended and then surrendered, there was no clue of any Byzantine troops for their aid in that war although it was an important city of the empire. Similarly, there was no record of any aid from Byzantine troops during all the wars that Quraysh imposed on Muhammad in Medina.

Migration To Ethiopia

Migration to Habsha / Ethiopia is also a proof that Mecca was the birthplace of Islam. If it would be Petra then Prophet’s companions would have more chances of moving to Egypt or any other nearby region. Ethiopia is geographically nearer to Southern Hijaz than Petra.

١٤٥ وَلَئِنْ أَتَيْتَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ بِكُلِّ آيَةٍ مَا تَبِعُوا قِبْلَتَكَ ۚ وَمَا أَنْتَ بِتَابِعٍ قِبْلَتَهُمْ ۚ وَمَا بَعْضُهُمْ بِتَابِعٍ قِبْلَةَ بَعْضٍ ۚ وَلَئِنِ اتَّبَعْتَ أَهْوَاءَهُمْ مِنْ بَعْدِ مَا جَاءَكَ مِنَ الْعِلْمِ ۙ إِنَّكَ إِذًا لَمِنَ الظَّالِمِينَ

145 Even though you may show every kind of sign to the people of the Book, they will not adopt your qiblah, nor are you going to adopt their qiblah; nor will any of them adopt the qiblah of the other; therefore if, after the knowledge you have received, you follow their desires, you will certainly be counted among the transgressors. Surah Baqarah 2:145