The Temple of Dushares in Petra
Some opponents of Islam have dug deep into revisionist history. One of them is Jay Smith who has been working with Dan Gibson in developing a theory that the real Mecca is actually Petra. Do I accept this theory? Right now I don’t because there is simply not enough evidence. Now, they seem to bring more and more evidence every time they present but in my opinion it’s still insufficient.
The theory seems to have some archeological evidence going for it. It seems that most of the early mosques did actually face Petra. It does seem that the opponents of Muhammad in the Quran have a more in common with Northern Arabia and the Levant than they do with the Hijaz. This evidence includes the tribes mentioned such as Ad, Thamud, and Midian. The reference to olive trees indicates that it’s further north as well. This is where the decent evidence stops.
Muslims don’t have any early Islamic sources for their religion. The only early sources of Islam are references by chroniclers, monks, and others. However, all of the late Muslim evidence points to Mecca. Now, Gibson and Smith simply say that they’ve been edited and redacted. There are a few things that might raise an eyebrow but I don’t know how one can make a wholesale redaction as complete as that. To be honest, they sound like Muslim apologists saying that the Bible has been edited and redacted when there is no evidence that it was.
Smith and Gibson need to examine how things go from Petra to Mecca so they say that there was an Earthquake in Petra in 713 AD and the black stone had to be moved from Petra to Mecca. I was curious about this so I sent an email to Pfander which is Jay Smith’s group. Here’s my email:
I have a question about the Mecca Petra theory. What is the evidence that an earthquake happened in Petra in 713 AD. What documents mention this?
They were kind enough to respond; my emphasis on the key part.
Hi Allan,
Thank you for your email.
This is a great question!
Dan Gibson’s work is a good place to start. He has done a lot of work on Petra. If you research him and his work online you should be able to find the answers you are looking for. If you manage to find any documentation that provides evidence of the earthquake please do email us back and let us know, as we would love to add it to our records.
All the best,
Name censored by Allan Ruhl
So they have no documentation. Without documentation this is only speculation. I’m the kind of person that needs documentation. If I’m asking a Muslim to leave Islam based on this evidence then he would probably want to see some documents that record the earthquake. Remember, an earthquake is a secular act in history. There is no reason that a Roman citizen or Arab Muslim wouldn’t have recorded it. Perhaps we haven’t found that documentation yet but until we do, this theory is seriously lacking.
My analysis may seem harsh but I look at this same data in the same way I look at Muslim sources. The Quran says the following in Surah 61:6:
And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: “O Children of Israel! I am the apostle of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad.” But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, “this is evident sorcery!”
Since we have no records of this statement, I therefore conclude that it’s ahistorical. If we had a document between the first and sixth century saying that Jesus said this then they’d have an argument. If that’s a true statement of Jesus Christ, it’s not unreasonable to demand such evidence. However, we need to respect the Muslims as well. Smith and Gibson should provide evidence instead of just assuming there was an earthquake.
I’m going to need a lot more evidence before I start believing this theory. The Muslims will need even more.
I lean to Petra being the original location, but your point is very valid – Muslims will need a LOT of hard evidence to ever consider this alternative!
Personally I take the many facets of archaeology, history, textual studies and geography all together.
The cumulative case does not look good for the traditional Islamic account:
– Many variations and editing of early Qurans (didn’t Uthman send a perfect copy to every Muslim province by 650AD?).
– Early Islamic buildings facing Petra/between Petra & Mecca/parallel to Petra-Mecca (didn’t the qibla switch to Mecca by 624AD, and again shouldn’t every Muslim province know this from Uthman’s Qurans by 650AD?).
– The total lack of references to Mecca until the late 7th-century.
– Mecca doesn’t appear on early maps until allegedly the 9th-century, if anyone knows WHAT 9th-century map this refers to I would very much like to know! (I did an overlay of some early maps against Google Maps, and Mecca is clearly absent… While Iathrib = Medina can be found)
– The total lack of mention of Mohammad/Quran/Muslims/Islam in early literature/coins/inscriptions until 690AD.
Whether Gibson/Smith are correct about Petra, there is a huge discrepancy between the claimed Islamic history and the actual evidence.
It’s like if World War 2 only exists in our history books, but none of the physical evidence of Nazi swastikas, Nazi eagles, photos or videos of Hitler, burned out Panzer tanks, crashed Stukas, the sunken Bismarck, etc can be found.
The lack of corroboration is even more striking when contrasted against the same criteria that the Bible passes with flying colours. A poor quality meal tastes bland on its own, but its inferiority becomes much clearer when you have a three-star Michelin course to compare it to!
Scott, I would like to correct some of your claims. It’s not true that we don’t have mentions of Muhammad before 690 AD. “Doctrina Jacobi” is dated to 634-635 AD, and it mentions that the Arab armies, invading the Byzantine empire, are alead by a prophet, who “was proclaiming the advent of the anointed one, the Christ who was to come”. We don’t know the name of the prophet, but we can be fairly certain it was Muhammad (or whatever his name was, since “Muhammad” may have started as his title).
Whoops, thanks for the correction! I conflated the various Islam-affiliated terms in my run-on sentence.
https://youtu.be/MaK_Lu5FSWM
the moving of the black stone from petra to mecca was as a result of war between the muslim faction. in general the quran is a government publication by uthman. If mohammed died in 632 how then can you fairly conclude that it was mohammed based on (“Doctrina Jacobi” is dated to 634-635).
Hello gg’
It’s an early source and it refers to a prophet. If Muhammad died in 632 according to traditional sources, then we have a contradiction.
God bless,
Allan
Watch Dan Gibson’s video
https://youtu.be/MaK_Lu5FSWM
Watch his full video where he fleshes out the possible reason for the Kabaa change https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOnGvzVceVo
And then fund him at https://www.patreon.com/dangibson and get his books as a reward!
While evidence for Petra may be circumstantial at present, there is zero evidence tha Mecca even existed in the 7th century or earlier. It isn’t even on the insense trade routes and the golden years of the frankinsense trade from Yemen were long gone. No archaeology and the entire city now being covered in concrete.
I did a comparison overlay of Ptolemy’s map of the region (two different interpretations) vs modern satellite maps.
You can swap back and forth and clearly see that while Medina exists, Mecca does not: https://twitter.com/scottthong/status/1032922597330059265
I am very much impressed by watching vedios of Dan Jibson. Being I am a Muslim and Quran alone follower I want to know the birth place of Prohet Muhammad (puh) whether it is present Macca in Soudi or Bakka said to be in Petra which is now in dilapidated condition, so as to get satisfied myself whether the Petra and its surroundings are with reference to Quranic references. I, therefore, request to send me a Booklet, if any, is awailable to my Mail address: snasar@usa.com, for which act I shall be more thankful to you.
Shaik Nasar
Shaik Nasar, if you donate to Dan Gibson’s Patreon, he will send you his books in PDF format.
https://www.patreon.com/dangibson
Two years ago when I started listening to Eamonn Gearon’s “Turning Points in Middle Eastern History” and without knowing anything of this debate, it struck me as odd that if Muhammed and his followers moved from Mecca to Yathrib because they were being threatened why did they move so relatively close. Petra to Yathrib seems more plausible
Your observation is further backed up by the ‘odd fact’ that when the alleged Meccans attack Yathrib, they do so from the north. Hence why the Battle of the Trench has the defensive trenches built on the north of Yathrib.
It’s odd because Mecca is south of Yathrib. Why loop around the entire city instead of coming direct from the south? Why did Muhammad expect the ‘Meccans’ to do that long detour?
This and other spatial anomalies (e.g. seeming too short distance between Mecca and Damascus during the Second Fitna wars) are covered in Dan Gibson’s documentary.
Kenneth W. Russell, “The Earthquake Chronology of Palestine and Northwest Arabia from the 2nd Through the Mid-8th Century A. D.”
In: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 260 (Autumn, 1985), pp. 37-59 (23 pages)
(https://www.jstor.org/stable/1356863?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents)
does not mention 713… The most likely might be the one in 748/9?
Cfr. also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/749_Galilee_earthquake
Neither does mention 713: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_the_Levant …
I am a muslim who doesn’t believe much of anything, but I was impressed by Gibson’s research. In fact Mecca was called Um el kora, which should have mean a big city for that time. The fact that it was not on the caravan road is in itself a big issue. One issue that I always had in my mind is the fact that the Kaaba was supposed to be the house of Ibraham as well, which always caused me confusion. How can Ibraham be so far south in Mecca? That never made sense to me. The fact that Petra is much closer to Jerusalem is a huge plus for Gibson’s theory. One major issue I still have is with the Hijra from Mecca (or Petra) to Medina. Such a significant event in Islamic history should have left some evidence or at least an indication to where is the original Becca? I mean if lots of people traveled from Mecca or Petra to Medina (everybody seems to agree on Medina), then some detail of how long it took them, what kind of provision were necessary, must have been recorded? Based on this we can know with some certainty where is the original birthplace of Mohamed.
I must say that my true belief is that all religions are BS. I mean we all know that deep inside. You die, there is nothing after that, and for most of us there is nothing before that even!
Thanks for your input. You sound like a very thinking person.
God bless,
Allan
A point should be noted here, conflict between believes is a fact, otherwise all humanity will be on one single mind, with no differences. More like robots.
also free of choice is a permanent characteristic emerged out of the human nature and will prolong for the last man on Earth.
I’m curious of these noble-minded discussion. My contribution here for now is about the (Hijra) trip from Mekka to Meddina. Is there any records of this trip and if there is any details on the rout been taken?
Actually, yes there is detailed Islamic records of this trip, with description of place and people Mohammed and his companions met in the road.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzJkZQqnVE4
this is another example, a series on this particular trip
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXdCIcW7O0A
it’s easier to watch on a clip than going into reading in books, yet scripts of the trip in details naming the places, eye witnesses and the rout in hundreds are available in the Islamic records of Bukhari, Muslim and many other.
Just makes you wonder, how they missed the rout from Petra, which is three times longer than 320 KM distance from current Mekka to Medina?
Not easy to come up with a theory, but it’s always harder to prove it.
Salam
–Just makes you wonder, how they missed the rout from Petra, which is three times longer than 320 KM distance from current Mekka to Medina?
Not easy to come up with a theory, but it’s always harder to prove it.–
Dan Gibson’s theory as explained in the latter part of his documentary is simple.
Just add a single pen stroke, and Bakkah (Petra) becomes Makkah (Mecca).
Voila! Easy to redact all mentions of Bakkah – except that it was overlooked in Sura 3:96,, so Muslims just claim it is another name for Mecca. (On what evidence, though?)
The actual Garden of Eden was Tarpon Springs ,Florida where as Ponce was one who visited here in 1520 with the first European colony in the North American continent. The original and only garden that a god {Poseidon} was based in the Atlantis Continent called the Garden of the three Hesperides {PARADISE} easily seen by turning the sat map of Tarpon up side down and see the 4 figures of Eden . The godfather marrying Atlas and Hesperis while Laden the garden guarding Dragon off of Atlas’ buttocks!
this means that all muslams of Islamic faith should be facing Tarpon Springs 5 times a day!
Surah 61:6, Yusuf Ali, Meaning of the Holy Quran, refers to Gospel of John 14:16, 15:26, 16:7, and the greek word Periclytos, and its corrupted version Paracletos, which he associates with Ahmad.
As for Bible being corrupted, I remember seeing in one of the gospels, Jesus accusing Jewish elite corrupting the Bible. Jesus never saw the Bible himself, so its authenticity is questionable.
If Petra were the place, Muslims would follow it without any questions. Since nobody raised a question like this, apparently there was no dispute. Anyway, most likely some people from Petra area visited Mecca, and they are being addressed in Quran. There is a huge amount literature on these matters and context and circumstances can not be ignored in the interpretation of various versus. Proper interpretation issue is also addressed in Quran..
“As for Bible being corrupted, I remember seeing in one of the gospels, Jesus accusing Jewish elite corrupting the Bible. Jesus never saw the Bible himself, so its authenticity is questionable.”
Reference please.
Sorry, it was some 30 years ago when I last read it. It is there though. Irrespective of that
there are numerous gospels contradicting each other. They are not authorized by Jesus himself.
So they can not be authentic.
Can I ask how you interpret Surah 5:68?
I am not qualified to make interpretation of Quran. My superficial interpretation is that
it looks like Prophet was engaged in some conversation with some Christians who has not been following the laws and requirements of their religion as they are asked to do some sacrifices which they are not willing to do. I suppose
he was distressed over their behavior, and he is being comforted. Islam views Jesus and Jewish prophets as Muslims, but their message has been corrupted. There were some small Christian communities, non-orthodox, who may have sought safety in the desert. They may have come to Mecca for shopping and conversed with Prophet. Of course I may be totally off the mark.
Name a contradiction.
So you are qualified to criticize the Bible but when confronted with YOUR quiran……….well forget about that.
–Surah 61:6, Yusuf Ali, Meaning of the Holy Quran, refers to Gospel of John 14:16, 15:26, 16:7, and the greek word Periclytos, and its corrupted version Paracletos, which he associates with Ahmad.–
You DO realize that arguing the ‘Periclytos’ is Muhammad results in a horrible conclusion for Islam?
1) The ‘Periclytos’ is Muhammad, you are claiming.
2) Muhammad was sent as a prophet by Allah.
3) In John 15:26, Jesus is the one who sends the ‘Periclytos’.
4) Therefore, Jesus is Allah.
Mehmet, bow down and worship the True God, Jesus!
That is very crooked thinking. Periclytos was not around to be sent by Jesus. Anyway, you seem to acknowledge that Jesus is secondary to Periclytos. Islam does not care about what John says, it is for your benefit. John may have been mistake, but that is your problem. You asked evidence, you got it in your format.
–That is very crooked thinking.–
If my thinking is ‘very crooked’ it is merely because it is the logical end conclusion of your own very crooked twisting of facts and Scripture to make Muhammad the ‘Periclytos’.
So you are now caught in a dilemma. Either your argument that Muhammad is the ‘Periclytos’ is wrong and you must admit it, or else you must accept the logical conclusion that Jesus is Allah (re-read my four logical points).
–Periclytos was not around to be sent by Jesus.–
Sure, not in the First Century AD.
But if Jesus is Allah, then Jesus was around in the Seventh Century AD to send Muhammad.
–Anyway, you seem to acknowledge that Jesus is secondary to Periclytos.–
You misread my comment. As I stated clearly:
1) The ‘Periclytos’ is Muhammad, you are claiming.
YOU ARE CLAIMING.
Hence I do not acknowledge that Jesus is secondary to the ‘Periclytos’, if you notice I also always put quotations marks around ‘Periclytos’ because no scholar accepts that as the original reading over Paracletos.
In conclusion, I suggest you start doing actual scholarly research instead of parroting highly inaccurate polemics from Ahmed Deedat, Zakir Naik or other dishonest dawagandists.
Aren’t Muslims supposed to value the truth, right?
I just referred you to John. You seem to prefer to change the subject to me. If you disagree what Periclytos is
you should state what you think it is. Looks like some people agree with Yusuf Ali’s interpretation, some
may disagree. If Jesus is god, I suppose he can do anything, waiting 700 years, 500 years, -700 years or not wait at all. So when you talk logic and God, you are the one pretending to be god. I don’t have anything to do with the people you mentioned. Stop attacking, and do you your home work, find out what Periclytos is or call a council or your elders and have them remove it from John’s gospel.
–I just referred you to John. You seem to prefer to change the subject to me. If you disagree what Periclytos is
you should state what you think it is.–
How am I changing the subject? I have limited my discussion to the issue of ‘Periclytos’.
Straightforwardly, I think ‘Periclytos’ is a fake and baseless attempt by Dawagandists to try and find Muhammad in the Bible.
The word attested to in ALL reputable ancient manuscripts is Parakletos. The only corruption that is here is Dawagandists trying to fake the word into becoming ‘Periclytos’.
And back to my point again, EVEN IF THE WORD WERE PERICLYTOS AND THAT IS MUHAMMAD, it would still make Jesus = Allah. Because John clearly states that Jesus is the one who sends the ‘Periclytos’, and according to Islam it is Allah who sends Muhammad.
————————-
–find out what Periclytos is or call a council or your elders and have them remove it from John’s gospel.–
Unlike Caliph Uthman collecting, editing then burning all the Quranic material… It was never possible to do something like this to the Bible.
This even links back to your baseless ‘Periclytos’ claim, since all documentary evidence points to Paracletos – and it was never possible for anyone (whether church coincils or emperors) to find all the manuscripts and change them.
Jesus never saw the Bible himself? We can dispute the historical Jesus, but if we accept the New Testament account then we accept that as a young man Jesus was “left” in Jerusalem, later to be found by his anxious parents amazing the biblical scholars with his deep understanding. Also there are the several accounts of his recitation of scripture, the last being while on the cross, succumbing to death and reciting the first lines of Psalm 22. Could you have acquired his ready recall of scripture by oral tradition? Possibly. But it is just as possible that he actually read it. You simply have no evidence to establish that he didn’t see the Bible. Again, all of this existing in the overarching question about the authenticity of the historic Jesus.
You have too many bibles. You are referring to the old one. He never saw the new one. Old and new and some other writings were compiled into one book 300 years after his death, to unify all roman religions. Constantine was not even a Christian himself.
He knew the Bible which was the Old testament at the time.
You have at least 26 different quorans even today.
https://www.islamic-awareness.org/history/islam/dome_of_the_rock/qibla
I don’t consider the theory inherent Anit-Muslim, inf act I’ve seen some Shia explicitly support it. Gibson himself seems not hostile to Islam at all, it’s not his fault Islamaphobes keep trying to hijack it. There is disagreement about the traditional sites we Christians revere too. I don’t think Solomon’s Temple was on the modern “Temple Mount” and I think Jesus was Crucified and Buried East of Jerusalem.
To me the identification should be considered good for Islam since I also strongly believe Petra is Kadesh (I haven’t made up my mind if there are two Kadesh or not, so what I certainly believe in Numbers 20 takes place at Petra).
You should take a look at Mt Sinai in Arabia too, the evidence is quite compelling!
I have seen a lot on Jabal El Lawz and am still undecided, I’m looking for more videos about other Arabia theories.
the site description of the coran fit with petra but not mekka the early qibla fit with petra not mekka.
What do you need more?
Can’t you admit that it’s possible that some human being greeding to justify and keep their authority and mandate it by heaven like it happened in many other places, changed the Coran and the qibla and burn the other coran?
ooh wait that’s what happen the other early coran were but by muslim to prevent schism like it happened in the christianity.
Can’t you admit that it’s possible that those who ruled over that empire at that time decided to alter thing for their own good.
True muslim should believe in Allah and seek the truth, if some men edited and corrupted the book of muhammad the truth must be sought.
When I learned of those archeological fact it really made me angry I felt betrayed, but the sad truth is that probably nobody today is responsible for this treason, it’s somethings that predate so far ago that we almost forgot and would never know without those things, personnaly I studied languages,
Semitic aramaic arabian mostly all those languages and hearing about those things made me want to learn sabbatean.
I fell even more compelled now that it seams that we’ve been strayed from the truth for so long, the Coran is right when he warn us about infidels who change the qibla and seek decieve beliver and bring them away from Allah.
This is serious matter and shoudl really be taken seriously, writing can be conterfeit not building foundations.
When one has discovered that they may have misplaced their understanding of something they fervently need to be true, one does not let go of that easily. Ego.
I would think that people would want the truth and if they learned that they have been misled, set about to rectify that and carry on.
Any schisms in Christianity had nothing to do with any variances in the Bible.
For the Quraish to take their caravan from Makka(south of Madina) all the way to Syria and back within the time stated in Islamic records is very incomprehensible. Remember the muslims laid siege for Abu Sufyan’s caravan on its way to Syria and the siege failed but few days latter, on the caravan’s return from Syria, the muslims attacked the caravan and this led to the battle of Badr. The short time given to the “to and fro” of this caravan, from Makka to Syria and back puts Makka very close to Syria and not all the way south of Madina.
Whether Petra or Mecca ,it does not make much difference since that faith has been established.
No, Petra being original birth place of Islam does not stand real for many reasons even if we limit our selves to the documentary of Mr. Dan(iel) Gibson only quoted below.
1. He talks about the direction of 1st century’s mosques but ignores ‘Masjid e Nabvi’ of Madina, the second holiest place of Muslims, which points towards Makkah and not towards Petra, almost in opposite directions.
2. He talks about battles of 2nd civil war of muslims and quotes of reference of 40 days Ummaiyad’s regime around which 1st of its series was in progress when ruler of Ummaiyad’s die and Ummaiyad had to return but he ignores the reason and series of event which can make situation very clear. He argues that distance between Makkah and Damascus is 1400km and with speed of 20 miles per day the Ummaiyad’s army could not reach less than 40 days. Here he ignores that as per reference of the book quoted in his documentary by him tells that before invading Makkah, the army settled and secured Madina and when they return to Damascus on hearing death news of their ruler they again passed Madia. Now Madina is not in route between Petra and Damasus but it does come in route between Damascus and Makkah if army is in hurry to reach Damascus as soon as possible. His assumption of speed of 20 miles per day was taken from large heavy slow moving armies of Greeks and Romans ignoring the speed of 40 (some books 46) miles per day of Alexendar in his Asia’s expedition relatively more matching composition than Greeks. Mr. Dan Gibson ignores culture, history, practices and traditions of Muslims during the whole documentary, he ignores technologies, practices, techniques, conventions of that era / period and ignores than in spite of invention of compass around 10BC-10Ad but its navigation purpose started near 10th century. Details of these arguments can be found at https://www.academia.edu/s/18b1da231d
Mecca didn’t even exist at the time.
Mecca didn’t even exist at the time.
The earthquake issue is actually of less importance to me. The bigger and more relevant issue is the entire timeline of events prior to the blackstone being relocated in their theory. If the ” Petra” story is to gain any legitimate traction, the entirety of the hijra needs to be satisfied. Explain Medina ( yathrib) , taiif and other geographic elements that are essential to the birth of Islam. Christianity needs the passion ,the crucification and the resurrection to be established. Virtually none of those events have a shred of proof they actually occurred. However millions of Christians take it on faith alone that they happened as per the Gospels. Their theory is well researched and presented , but until more answers come forward , converting the Muslim population is a moot point.