What's new

Origins of Islam: Mecca vs Petra?

All translations say Mecca.

David King has written a great article refuting the Petra claim. From Petra back to Makka. Some Muslims used astronomy or other similar knowledges for their mosques to point to Mecca, their aim was Mecca not Petra, this is the key. People can interpret these mosques facing Mecca, Petra or other towns. Some of these are directly facing towards Mecca. Read his article, you may learn something.

King never answered why all of earlier Mosques were pointing to Petra. He simply attacked the credibility of Dan Gibson.
Nabateans were expert Star gazers and they know their directions very well as their life depends on it. They would not make the mistake of all of the earlier Mosques direction.
 
Look I understand you point. But I feel that direction is completely tangent to the topic at hand. You want to get into the science and logic of things vs religion and I am not one to tell you whether you are right or wrong. You are entitled to your opinion.

I fail to see how that is related to this discussion.. you want to discuss the historical accuracy of any of the Holy Prophet’s miracles (by the way I can’t seem to recall too many), I suggest you open a different thread.

It's not an opinion unfortunately, if something is unfalsifiable, we can't test for it.

When I mentioned historicity, it was in response to your claims that this thread was a conspiracy. I find that incorrect, as finding new historical information doesn't mean that the previous claims were a conspiracy. I'm not saying it's confirmed that Islam originated in Petra, I even doubt that's the case, but if new evidence arose which proved that it did, it wouldn't be that the previous historical consensus was a conspiracy- it just didn't have all the information.
 
King never answered why all of earlier Mosques were pointing to Petra. He simply attacked the credibility of Dan Gibson.
Nabateans were expert Star gazers and they know their directions very well as their life depends on it. They would not make the mistake of all of the earlier Mosques direction.

You ignore many of those mosques were pointing towards Mecca, they were precise. Others were not a precise, simple as that.

Your wasting your time, Hindus much more intellgent and educated havent been able to justify this absurd claim, reading your posts, you have no chance at all.

Any other claims or just this is?
 
You ignore many of those mosques were pointing towards Mecca, they were precise. Others were not a precise, simple as that.

Your wasting your time, Hindus much more intellgent and educated havent been able to justify this absurd claim, reading your posts, you have no chance at all.

Any other claims or just this is?

Wrong.

Mosques started pointing towards Mecca only after Abbasids took over. All of the early Mosques from 632-690 AD all pointed towards Petra. The city of Petra is the center of Nabatian people. All of their Gods and Goddesses temples and idols were located there.

https://nabataea.net/explore/founding_of_islam/petra-mosques/
 
It's not an opinion unfortunately, if something is unfalsifiable, we can't test for it.

When I mentioned historicity, it was in response to your claims that this thread was a conspiracy. I find that incorrect, as finding new historical information doesn't mean that the previous claims were a conspiracy. I'm not saying it's confirmed that Islam originated in Petra, I even doubt that's the case, but if new evidence arose which proved that it did, it wouldn't be that the previous historical consensus was a conspiracy- it just didn't have all the information.

I am lost. To what are you referring is unfalsifiable?

I don’t know in what words do I make my point clear here.
“The topic of this thread is a conspiracy theory”

Bring me evidence to suggest otherwise. From the sounds of it, you yourself admitted this claim is unconfirmed ... so what is your dispute here with what I said?
 
Wrong.

Mosques started pointing towards Mecca only after Abbasids took over. All of the early Mosques from 632-690 AD all pointed towards Petra. The city of Petra is the center of Nabatian people. All of their Gods and Goddesses temples and idols were located there.

https://nabataea.net/explore/founding_of_islam/petra-mosques/

You need to get your facts straight. Prior to 632, Muslims faced Jerusalem or Masjid Aqsa and after that Makkah.. it’s well documented...
 
You need to get your facts straight. Prior to 632, Muslims faced Jerusalem or Masjid Aqsa

The issue is not about which direction Muslims are facing. It is about which direction Qibla mosques are facing. All of them were facing Petra until Umayyad’s were thrown out by Abbasids. The narrative was shifted to Hijaj from the time of Abdel Malik.
 
Last edited:
I am lost. To what are you referring is unfalsifiable?

I don’t know in what words do I make my point clear here.
“The topic of this thread is a conspiracy theory”

Bring me evidence to suggest otherwise. From the sounds of it, you yourself admitted this claim is unconfirmed ... so what is your dispute here with what I said?

I was referring to the miracles thing from the last post.

And you're the one asserting it is a conspiracy, the burden of proof is on you. Also, the poster only questioned it, saying some people are suggesting it could have originated in Petra. It is wrong to say it's a conspiracy theory as the OP is only suggesting that there many be new evidence. If he was saying 'We have been lied to, the origin was Petra all along', then yes, it would be a conspiracy. That is not the case here.
 
What I find amusing is that athiests seem to care more about Islam, more about God, who they believe doesn't exist.

Maybe they are having second thoughts about bankrupt athiesm.
 
I was referring to the miracles thing from the last post.

And you're the one asserting it is a conspiracy, the burden of proof is on you. Also, the poster only questioned it, saying some people are suggesting it could have originated in Petra. It is wrong to say it's a conspiracy theory as the OP is only suggesting that there many be new evidence. If he was saying 'We have been lied to, the origin was Petra all along', then yes, it would be a conspiracy. That is not the case here.
That’s not how it works. You need irrefutable evidence to prove to me that it’s true. Unless you can do that, I will continue to believe it’s a conspiracy theory. There is no logic or motive for someone to cleverly wipe out history of Muslims to take out Petra, which has no historical significance for us as compared to Masjid Al Qasa and Kabaah.

The mosques that were built were probably flawed in how they all estimated their direction. There can be a number of reasons behind that.
Here is another theory:
https://muslimheritage.com/the-petra-fallacy/

If you are hellbent on believing the left field view out of your own prejudice, I can’t help you.
But it’s ridiculous to suggest that the burden on f proof is on the traditional well accepted, generally accepted history and not the other way around.
 
That’s not how it works. You need irrefutable evidence to prove to me that it’s true. Unless you can do that, I will continue to believe it’s a conspiracy theory. There is no logic or motive for someone to cleverly wipe out history of Muslims to take out Petra, which has no historical significance for us as compared to Masjid Al Qasa and Kabaah.

This is entering DaVinci levels of conspiracy here.

People are basically saying that all the Muslims and Arabs are lying about Mecca, God knows what that would actually achieve.

A religion that has been through so many sects and civil wars over the silliest of things at times in it's history yet nobody ever disagreed about about Mecca and Medina. Petra was never in the discussion yet people think there is some grand conspiracy of Muslims quietly revisioning its history without any written records or opposition.
 
This is entering DaVinci levels of conspiracy here.

People are basically saying that all the Muslims and Arabs are lying about Mecca, God knows what that would actually achieve.

A religion that has been through so many sects and civil wars over the silliest of things at times in it's history yet nobody ever disagreed about about Mecca and Medina. Petra was never in the discussion yet people think there is some grand conspiracy of Muslims quietly revisioning its history without any written records or opposition.
We have some wannabe pseudo intellectuals here who have their own ideas... what can you do!
 
Wrong.

Mosques started pointing towards Mecca only after Abbasids took over. All of the early Mosques from 632-690 AD all pointed towards Petra. The city of Petra is the center of Nabatian people. All of their Gods and Goddesses temples and idols were located there.

https://nabataea.net/explore/founding_of_islam/petra-mosques/

lol.

The first ever mosque is called Masjid Al Qiblatyan. I've been there and you've prob never heard of this and never will visit it. But if you do, please check out the 2 Qibla's, meaning 2 directions which are present to this day. The mosques two directions are to Jerusalem and Mecca, not Petra.

Next conspiracy?
 
I respected OP because years ago he made me question believing claims without evidence and not to believe with certainty claims that do not have backing of verifiable evidence.

But now, I believe his anti-religious mission has blinded him from paying heed to his own advice.
 
lol.

The first ever mosque is called Masjid Al Qiblatyan. I've been there and you've prob never heard of this and never will visit it. But if you do, please check out the 2 Qibla's, meaning 2 directions which are present to this day. The mosques two directions are to Jerusalem and Mecca, not Petra.

Next conspiracy?

Most of the Early Mosques now have been demolished and rebuilt. The foundations are still there. So when you look at the Qibla direction, you need to look at the original foundation. Not the one that are altered. Hence you need to be an Archeologist to do that.

Its clear that you did not watch Dan Gibson's video and you are simply using words like 'lol' as a response. Read the wiki of this Mosque. It was rebuilt by Sulieman the Magnificiant to fit the newer narrative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masjid_al-Qiblatayn

Can you explain why the earlier Mosques were pointng towards Petra? Can you explain how Prophet used to walk past Olive trees in Hijaj?
 
Most of the Early Mosques now have been demolished and rebuilt. The foundations are still there. So when you look at the Qibla direction, you need to look at the original foundation. Not the one that are altered. Hence you need to be an Archeologist to do that.

Its clear that you did not watch Dan Gibson's video and you are simply using words like 'lol' as a response. Read the wiki of this Mosque. It was rebuilt by Sulieman the Magnificiant to fit the newer narrative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masjid_al-Qiblatayn

Can you explain why the earlier Mosques were pointng towards Petra? Can you explain how Prophet used to walk past Olive trees in Hijaj?
Which hadith do you keep citing about olive trees in “hijaj”?

Cite it here.

Also reference an authentic source about your claims regarding the foundations of the mosques. I would like to take a serious look at both the mr more time to allay your concerns.
 
Most of the Early Mosques now have been demolished and rebuilt. The foundations are still there. So when you look at the Qibla direction, you need to look at the original foundation. Not the one that are altered. Hence you need to be an Archeologist to do that.

Its clear that you did not watch Dan Gibson's video and you are simply using words like 'lol' as a response. Read the wiki of this Mosque. It was rebuilt by Sulieman the Magnificiant to fit the newer narrative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masjid_al-Qiblatayn

Can you explain why the earlier Mosques were pointng towards Petra? Can you explain how Prophet used to walk past Olive trees in Hijaj?

What exactly are you trying to achieve by trying to prove that Petra is origin of Islam?
 
What exactly are you trying to achieve by trying to prove that Petra is origin of Islam?

Its about history supported by Archeological evidence. Not what was written by people 200 years after the birth of Islam.
There are 2 sides to the story. One is told by Islamic historians like Tabri. The other is told by arheological finds themselves. I believe archeology over what some guy in 10th century writes. Its 200-300 years too late for that.
 
lol at petra, first time hearing the name. on the other hand, Islam is well documented and you can find the early Quranic scripture during the life of Prophet (PBUH) era till this day.
 
the Op created the thread and ran away, without giving any substantial evidence or proof, hes not even interested in cross questioning. lol
 
Petra and madain saleh al hijr were destroyed long before prophet muhammad saw

They were ruins and rasoulllah passed by there whilst on campaign of tabuk to go and fight the Romans. Rasoolullah didn't stay long there and hastened their departure .




Abdullah ibn Umar narrated that when the Messenger of God ﷺ went with his Companions to Tabuk (in northwestern Saudi Arabia today), they passed by the site of al-Hijr. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Do not enter the dwellings of those who were punished by God except while crying. If you are not crying then do not enter their dwellings lest you be afflicted with what afflicted them.’ He then masked his face with his mantle and rode faster until they crossed the valley.’1

In another narration, Ibn Umar told a different part of the story: God’s Messenger found that some of the Muslims who were travelling ahead of him had stopped in the dwellings of the people of al-Hijr in order to draw water from the well there. They drank from this water, refilled their water skins from it, and also used it to mix with their grains and make dough. When he ﷺ heard this, he commanded them to pour out the water in their water skins and to throw away the dough they had made with it.2
 
lol at petra, first time hearing the name. on the other hand, Islam is well documented and you can find the early Quranic scripture during the life of Prophet (PBUH) era till this day.

Islamic history documentation began with Tabari nearly 300 years after Prophet's death. Too late in my opinion. It was written under the influence of Abbasid caliphs.
 
Petra and madain saleh al hijr were destroyed long before prophet muhammad saw

They were ruins and rasoulllah passed by there whilst on campaign of tabuk to go and fight the Romans. Rasoolullah didn't stay long there and hastened their departure .




Abdullah ibn Umar narrated that when the Messenger of God ﷺ went with his Companions to Tabuk (in northwestern Saudi Arabia today), they passed by the site of al-Hijr. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Do not enter the dwellings of those who were punished by God except while crying. If you are not crying then do not enter their dwellings lest you be afflicted with what afflicted them.’ He then masked his face with his mantle and rode faster until they crossed the valley.’1

In another narration, Ibn Umar told a different part of the story: God’s Messenger found that some of the Muslims who were travelling ahead of him had stopped in the dwellings of the people of al-Hijr in order to draw water from the well there. They drank from this water, refilled their water skins from it, and also used it to mix with their grains and make dough. When he ﷺ heard this, he commanded them to pour out the water in their water skins and to throw away the dough they had made with it.2

The issue is where the original Kaba was. Arheological evidence points towards Petra. Mecca of Hijaj yielded no archeological evidence of any major city prior to 7th century. Evidence is needed to back up the claims.
 
Islamic history documentation began with Tabari nearly 300 years after Prophet's death. Too late in my opinion. It was written under the influence of Abbasid caliphs.

lol at petra, first time hearing the name. on the other hand, Islam is well documented and you can find the early Quranic scripture during the life of Prophet (PBUH) era till this day.

read again what i wrote.

 
The original qibla was Jerusalem towards what is called sham in Islam masjid aqsa.

You can see the original qibla seal in masjid qiblateen and the 2 seals one facing makkah and the other Jerusalem. I have prayed in the mosque .

It is near a mountain where the battle of trench is and there are various forts defences from prophrts era and mosques are on rocky hilltops , several mosque complexes .

The qibla was then made towards kaba and idols demolished in prophets era .

There is ample proof of makkah and kabah being a trading route town and place of pilgrimage

Surah fil mentions the Ethiopian King on an elephant coming to attack the kabbah the pilgrimage where the arabs went , where they had their Olympic games mela as well. And did tawaf naked etc worshipped idols
 
Ive posted one link, you rubbished it. Lets move on.

You are more than capable of debating unlike 'guna' who has already embarrased himeself on this.

Please name her strongest point in regards to this topic. Just one for now.

thats not the point, whether you agree with her points or not, all i was asking for is credible refutation of her.
 
The issue is where the original Kaba was. Arheological evidence points towards Petra. Mecca of Hijaj yielded no archeological evidence of any major city prior to 7th century. Evidence is needed to back up the claims.

Makkah was a village inhabited by the quraysh there is very little left since huge skyscrapers hotels have been built and the original sites demolished concreted by the najdis they have destroyed whole mountains including safa and Marwa . It wasn't some super archelogical site since the houses were mud dwellings and dug out mudlike caves in the hillsides.

Makkah was a trading stop and place of pilgrimage it was built on trade by the quraysh crops came from madina taif yemen Syria even dates came from madina since nothing grows in makkah . And the outskirts were desert where the bedouin lived makkans would sent their children to be raised 100s miles away in the desert to grow strong and learn pure Arabic its there the bedouin lived a pastoral hunter warrior life and the tribes that then became Muslim, rasoolullah Foster tribe halima sadia whose milk he drank were the banu Saad. This tribe was north of makkah between madina where prophet lived and was raised by halima sadia and prophet was a shepherd before going back to makkah after his childhood.

You can see the original cave like mud houses above the library embedded in the hill side just above the library rasoullah saw house in makkah. There were trees there all that has been destroyed by Saudi goverment who razed all that area alongside any ottoman era buildings dwellings and earlier era during muslim ummayads abbasid.


Petra is called al raqim and is mentioned in the quran surah kahf it was a trading town on the caravan route to yemen through hejaz into Jordan Syria.

And the hejaz region went up all the way to the gulf of aqaba in the North to the borders of yemen what where najran meets yemen.
Gulf of aqaba is the hejaz including the city of al hijr the second city after petra for nabateans which is located in madina divsion these people were destroyed prior to rasoolullah saw ive given the hadith of rasoullah saw crossing these ruins tombs when they were on their expedition of tabuk against the Romans.

The New Saudi city of neom is geographically and historically being built in the region of hejaz near gulf of aqaba.

Since the quraysh were traders and in summers went to Syria and winters went to yemen I don't see what the problem is .

The historical Jewish sites villages farms like khaybar are in madina hejaz not petra.

There are many farm areas in hejaz like tabuk , madina, taif .

Historical ports in hejaz are yanbu and jeddah
Clear links of trade towards Africa.
Yanbu is in madina and is close to the battle of dhul ushayra where prophet led an army .

And jeddah is in makkah and historical sites have been found there and includes the tomb of eve bibi hawa since she landed from heaven in jeddah.

Also hazrat uthman the third caliph made jeddah the main port of makkah after transferring it from al shoaiba

Hazrat uthman was one of prophets companion and did not come 300 yrs afterwards

Proof they were living in makkah area .


And also authentuc hadith of the beached whale near yanbu coast and Sahaba bringing and eating its meat . This was part of the caravan raids by the Muslims against the qurayshi caravans of abu sufyan hugging the hejaz coast .

And the biggest proof of makkah being a trading stop and place of pilgrimage is surah fil and also the Wells of zam zam .
 
Makkah is not a small village bro. It is the mother of all cities (Umm-ul-Qura). The trading center of the world from time immemorial which was established by Prophet Abraham himself. Why are you downplaying the city as though it was just inhabited by a few dozen people who had no idea of what they are doing?
 
Most of the Early Mosques now have been demolished and rebuilt. The foundations are still there. So when you look at the Qibla direction, you need to look at the original foundation. Not the one that are altered. Hence you need to be an Archeologist to do that.

Its clear that you did not watch Dan Gibson's video and you are simply using words like 'lol' as a response. Read the wiki of this Mosque. It was rebuilt by Sulieman the Magnificiant to fit the newer narrative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masjid_al-Qiblatayn

Can you explain why the earlier Mosques were pointng towards Petra? Can you explain how Prophet used to walk past Olive trees in Hijaj?

This is why I said you should visit the mosque. Dan Gibson himself has never set foot in this mosque, however even he conceeds the original qibla is facing Jerusalem.

He says(I quote) "During the construction process, the old foundation was revealed and they discovered , that it did have a qibla wall, that did indeed faced north, generally towards Jerusalem".

This is the first mosque, as the Prophet(pbuh) prayed on his journey to Madina. Because he is a prophet of God, he knew which way to face, he wasnt known for astronomy.

To understand why many mosques dont face Jerusalem exactly, you need to undersand the principles of Islam. The only reason Muslims pray towards Mecca, is so everyone in a mosque prays in the same direction, not to cause arguments. If you dont know , you can pray in any direction.

Many mosques face North, South or all sorts of directions. Not all Muslims had knowledge of using astronomy to build their mosques exactly towards Jerusalem, it was a rough calcualation for them using the Sun and other methods.

This is such a weak argument, nobody in the academic Muslim world bothers to refute it.

Your other point of Olive Trees comes from a hadith, not even a hadith of the Prophe(pbuh). The Quran clearly states Mecca is a not a lush land, the Quran always comes first which again this person forgets to acknowledge.

Gibson is poor, he didnt even visit most of those mosques and clearly has an agenda.
 
read again what i wrote.


A small parchment of Holy Quran in Birmingham does not prove that Islamic history is well documented :facepalm:

Islamic history is completely unknown for the first 100 years. We only have what people 200 years after Prophet's death wrote and we have to take it for granted what they wrote. Even in that, there are so many disagreements and no one knows what the truth is. But Archeology does not lie.
 
Guna still hasnt cited the hadith where it mentions Olives. Also what about Khadija, Ghar e hira (which physically exists) and Makkah being mentioned in the Holy Quran (whose authenticity is unquestionable as compared to Hadith)

Also what about the graves of Holy Prophet, Umer, Abu Bakar - are they part of some grand conspiracy?
 
A small parchment of Holy Quran in Birmingham does not prove that Islamic history is well documented :facepalm:

Islamic history is completely unknown for the first 100 years. We only have what people 200 years after Prophet's death wrote and we have to take it for granted what they wrote. Even in that, there are so many disagreements and no one knows what the truth is. But Archeology does not lie.

This Quran is carbon dated at the least 645ad, its accurate as it is today. Its totally idiotic to say nothing was known for 100 years when you have this evidence in front of you. You are really embarrasing yourself now.
 
This is why I said you should visit the mosque. Dan Gibson himself has never set foot in this mosque, however even he conceeds the original qibla is facing Jerusalem.

He says(I quote) "During the construction process, the old foundation was revealed and they discovered , that it did have a qibla wall, that did indeed faced north, generally towards Jerusalem".

This is the first mosque, as the Prophet(pbuh) prayed on his journey to Madina. Because he is a prophet of God, he knew which way to face, he wasnt known for astronomy.

To understand why many mosques dont face Jerusalem exactly, you need to undersand the principles of Islam. The only reason Muslims pray towards Mecca, is so everyone in a mosque prays in the same direction, not to cause arguments. If you dont know , you can pray in any direction.

Many mosques face North, South or all sorts of directions. Not all Muslims had knowledge of using astronomy to build their mosques exactly towards Jerusalem, it was a rough calcualation for them using the Sun and other methods.

This is such a weak argument, nobody in the academic Muslim world bothers to refute it.

Your other point of Olive Trees comes from a hadith, not even a hadith of the Prophe(pbuh). The Quran clearly states Mecca is a not a lush land, the Quran always comes first which again this person forgets to acknowledge.

Gibson is poor, he didnt even visit most of those mosques and clearly has an agenda.

Gibson visited all of the early mosques in person. He lived in Arabia for 25 years and visited all of the early mosques.

You are still stuck on the narrative of what people wrote 200 years After Hijra. Nabateans were expert in directions and they have to be if they want to reach home without getting lost in the desert.

So all of the Mosques in the first 100 years are pointing to Petra because they got it wrong? You claim that nobody in Muslim world believes it. That is because it goes against their Eeman.

You seem to be giving excuses without giving any evidence. You are throwing what ever stone you can find hoping that this thread will be abandoned by naysayers.

It was actually in the Seerah of Prophet where it said that Prophet used to walk by Olive trees and they used to bow down to the Prophet and say - Assalumu Alaikum.

If you are talking about Quran, even in Holy Quran Allah swt swears by the Fig and olive trees. If Prophet Muhammed was preaching people in Hijaj, it would not make any sense to the audience who would have never seen an olive tree. Clearly showing that all of this was happening in Jordan/Syria area and the northern areas.

Also, there are no artifacts found in Makkah in 6th/7th century suggesting that Jews ever lived that far down south in Hijaj.
 
This Quran is carbon dated at the least 645ad, its accurate as it is today. Its totally idiotic to say nothing was known for 100 years when you have this evidence in front of you. You are really embarrasing yourself now.

Nothing was known for 100 years. Only a small parchment of Quran written was found and that does not prove that all of the history of Quran we know is correct. Makkah has nothing to support that it was the mother of all cities and all the 100's of caravans ever started and went to all parts of middle east. Nothing was ever found.

You are the one embarrassing yourself now.
 
Gibson visited all of the early mosques in person. He lived in Arabia for 25 years and visited all of the early mosques.

You are still stuck on the narrative of what people wrote 200 years After Hijra. Nabateans were expert in directions and they have to be if they want to reach home without getting lost in the desert.

So all of the Mosques in the first 100 years are pointing to Petra because they got it wrong? You claim that nobody in Muslim world believes it. That is because it goes against their Eeman.

You seem to be giving excuses without giving any evidence. You are throwing what ever stone you can find hoping that this thread will be abandoned by naysayers.

It was actually in the Seerah of Prophet where it said that Prophet used to walk by Olive trees and they used to bow down to the Prophet and say - Assalumu Alaikum.

If you are talking about Quran, even in Holy Quran Allah swt swears by the Fig and olive trees. If Prophet Muhammed was preaching people in Hijaj, it would not make any sense to the audience who would have never seen an olive tree. Clearly showing that all of this was happening in Jordan/Syria area and the northern areas.

Also, there are no artifacts found in Makkah in 6th/7th century suggesting that Jews ever lived that far down south in Hijaj.

Bowing down to Prophet?! Bowing down to anyone is Haram, and which Sirah are you talking about? First it was hadith and now its Sirah?

And you seem quite confident about all mosques pointing to Petra - is there any evidence to back that up?
 
Guna still hasnt cited the hadith where it mentions Olives. Also what about Khadija, Ghar e hira (which physically exists) and Makkah being mentioned in the Holy Quran (whose authenticity is unquestionable as compared to Hadith)

Also what about the graves of Holy Prophet, Umer, Abu Bakar - are they part of some grand conspiracy?

[MENTION=154070]guna[/MENTION] pls answer this, thx
 
Nothing was known for 100 years. Only a small parchment of Quran written was found and that does not prove that all of the history of Quran we know is correct. Makkah has nothing to support that it was the mother of all cities and all the 100's of caravans ever started and went to all parts of middle east. Nothing was ever found.

You are the one embarrassing yourself now.

It's you who is embrassing yourself.

Look up the meaning of the word Qu'ran - it means the recital.

The Qu'ran was not meant to be tabulated, it was meant to be memorised so that the infallible word of God couldn't be tampered with like the Bible (old and new Testament).

Everything about Islam in the Qur'an was known from day dot.

Move on.
 
Last edited:
Gibson visited all of the early mosques in person. He lived in Arabia for 25 years and visited all of the early mosques.

You are still stuck on the narrative of what people wrote 200 years After Hijra. Nabateans were expert in directions and they have to be if they want to reach home without getting lost in the desert.

So all of the Mosques in the first 100 years are pointing to Petra because they got it wrong? You claim that nobody in Muslim world believes it. That is because it goes against their Eeman.

You seem to be giving excuses without giving any evidence. You are throwing what ever stone you can find hoping that this thread will be abandoned by naysayers.

It was actually in the Seerah of Prophet where it said that Prophet used to walk by Olive trees and they used to bow down to the Prophet and say - Assalumu Alaikum.

If you are talking about Quran, even in Holy Quran Allah swt swears by the Fig and olive trees. If Prophet Muhammed was preaching people in Hijaj, it would not make any sense to the audience who would have never seen an olive tree. Clearly showing that all of this was happening in Jordan/Syria area and the northern areas.

Also, there are no artifacts found in Makkah in 6th/7th century suggesting that Jews ever lived that far down south in Hijaj.

You have failed to address my points. Try again.

1. Your hero admits the first mosque ever has a qibla facing Jerusalem.

2. The hadith you are reffering to is not from the Prophet(pbuh), Quran is always first, clearly states Mecca is not a lush land.

You have no leg to stand on, so please refrain from more allegations until you accept you are wrong on these two first.
 
Nothing was known for 100 years. Only a small parchment of Quran written was found and that does not prove that all of the history of Quran we know is correct. Makkah has nothing to support that it was the mother of all cities and all the 100's of caravans ever started and went to all parts of middle east. Nothing was ever found.

You are the one embarrassing yourself now.

It does prove it lol. You cannot have an accurate text from latest 645ad and then claim nothing was known for 100 years. Your argumetns are embarrasing now.
 
[MENTION=154070]guna[/MENTION] pls answer this, thx

I thought it was Hadith. Hadith's only has the mention of Olive oil which Prophet says. Talking about olive oil to people living in Hijaj is noteworthy.

Abu Asid said: "The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Eat the oil and use it on your hair and skin, for it comes from a blessed tree." (Reported by al-Tirmidhi, 1775; see also Sahih al-Jami’)

There were no Olive trees in the Hijaj. Why would he tell something like this to a man in Hijaj?
 
It does prove it lol. You cannot have an accurate text from latest 645ad and then claim nothing was known for 100 years. Your argumetns are embarrasing now.

Unfortunately for you, that was the only parchment ever to be found of the first 100 years.

But what has been found is that for the first 60 years after the death of Prophet Muhammed, the Caliphs were using Christian crosses and Zoroastrian Fire alters on their coins. Something is very fishy. Until Abdel Malik bin Marwan came and changed the coinage and instead printed the shahada on his coins, Islam was never started to take its final shape that we see today.

The Ta'yi tribe which was a buffer kingdom between the Persians and Romans were Nabateans. They were a big Arab tribe which ceased the opportunity when Persians lost to Romans and conquered a severely weakened Persians. They also inflicted heavy losses on Eastern Romans and conquered many of their lands. This is what Archeology and contemporary literature tells us.
 
Unfortunately for you, that was the only parchment ever to be found of the first 100 years.

But what has been found is that for the first 60 years after the death of Prophet Muhammed, the Caliphs were using Christian crosses and Zoroastrian Fire alters on their coins. Something is very fishy. Until Abdel Malik bin Marwan came and changed the coinage and instead printed the shahada on his coins, Islam was never started to take its final shape that we see today.

The Ta'yi tribe which was a buffer kingdom between the Persians and Romans were Nabateans. They were a big Arab tribe which ceased the opportunity when Persians lost to Romans and conquered a severely weakened Persians. They also inflicted heavy losses on Eastern Romans and conquered many of their lands. This is what Archeology and contemporary literature tells us.

Quran is a recitation, millions know it from heart including little children. Its survived intact, word for word since day 1.

You are wrong, there are numerous manuscripts and texts less than a 100 years old.
 
I thought it was Hadith. Hadith's only has the mention of Olive oil which Prophet says. Talking about olive oil to people living in Hijaj is noteworthy.

Abu Asid said: "The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Eat the oil and use it on your hair and skin, for it comes from a blessed tree." (Reported by al-Tirmidhi, 1775; see also Sahih al-Jami’)

There were no Olive trees in the Hijaj. Why would he tell something like this to a man in Hijaj?

You have failed to answer any of my questions about Cave of Hira, the graves of Holy Prophet, the graves of the rightly guided caliphs.

Buddy, you have done your research but its fortunately for my own faith, quiet on a surface level.

Let me answer each and everything one by one,

You keep on harping about Olive Trees - firstly,

Now read this verse below:

"Our Lord, I have settled some of my descendants in an uncultivated valley near Your sacred House, our Lord, that they may establish prayer. So make hearts among the people incline toward them and provide for them from the fruits that they might be grateful." (14:37)

It literally calls Makkah an uncultivated valley. Makkah didnt have any water source until Zam Zam came up. Also, it mentions Olives, not Olives trees being in Makkah LOL. See Verse below that mentions fruits being brought to the barren land through trade

As for implication of trade rather than natural resources:

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 (yujbaa ilayhi thamaraat) of all things as provision from Us? But most of them do not know



Your whole theory of coins is answered quite aptly here: https://coinweek.com/ancient-coins/coinage-first-caliphate/
 
Nabateans were Ishmael arabs and the kedarites were the ancestors of the quraysh who in turn were decended from Ishmael.
Nabit and kedar were brothers.

But during prophet muhammad saw time the nabatean kingdom was extinct they were ancients the ruins of al hijr in hejaz are mentioned there was no one dwelling there.

As for petra it's not mentioned in islamic sources
Although some people try to link it to al raqim in surah kahf Allah swt knows best there is no conclusive evidence so its best not to deal with assumptions.


. But petra was uninhabited during prophets era and a ruin. It was destroyed in the 4th century by an earthquake. As we know prophet salahs people were destroyed by earthquakes and lightning bolts like al hijr .

As for makkah it was nothing lavish or huge population or big city like guna is portraying

The kaba itself was made of mud bricks and had no roof and was destroyed many times from floodwaters

The houses were simple mud bricks with date palms as a roof . Go and Google prophets house in makkah you will see the old picture before it was razed and a library built, the houses are similar to what you see in Afghanistan and pskistan pathan areas .

It wasn't an international city

Basically makkah was a pilgrimage site for the adnani bedouins, the quraysh were the settled adnanis and aws khazraj were Yemeni qahtani arabs in madina farming alongside the Jews.

Quraysh controlled the caravans and holy city and formed tge alliance with the bedouins who bought they products to quraysh who traded in summer in Syria and in winter in yemen who in turn bought products from these areas .
The qurayshi mainly traded animal products leathers for dates barley wheat of madina and then in turn took the products to bring other products from yemen Syria it was barter trade .
Cloths spices etc

The Jews controlled the farms in madina and acted as the money lenders.


Guna is trying to portray makkah as some huge city that one would find in the fertile crescent or Egypt like babylon or something or thebes in Egypt.

Well no because makkah and its surroundings could never support a large population due to the barren nature of the region
Even during the 4 caliph era madina was the centre before it was shifted to Syria and Iraq as centres for Islamic world and then Egypt as well .

No outside power could attack makkah due to the desert and barren region .


If makkah was petra why didn't the Romans or Persians destroy islam straight away since petra was under roman control so why wouldn't the Romans nip Islam in the bud instead if a new religion becoming a threat .

The petra region was inhabited by the Christian ghassanids who were part of the byzantine empire a vassal state .

How could a ruin of petra be makkah right in roman territory there is clear historical reference of ghassanids being attacked by bedouins from the south and ghassanuds being a buffer for the Romans.

These same ghasanids and Romans were destroyed in battle of Yarmouk by khalid ibn Walid from madina no mention of khalid being from petra .
 
And if there is some conspiracy

Explain madina

The original masjid qibla
The seven mosque complex the trench
Mount uhud site
The graves
The farms Wells
Settlement of khaybar where the Jews lived
Wells of badr and site of first Muslim battle

Is this a conspiracy as well
 
Gibson and others also make the claim, the Kaaba was also in Petra.

Its astounding the lack of intelligence from such people as the structure they claim to be the Kaaba has STAIRS.
 
Gibson and others also make the claim, the Kaaba was also in Petra.

Its astounding the lack of intelligence from such people as the structure they claim to be the Kaaba has STAIRS.

Its absurd since petra was under control of the ghassanids a ruin in quraysh times.

and if there was any such city there professing another religion like Islam the Christian ghassanids with the byzantine empire behind them would have razed the city to the ground .

The pagan quraysh arabs were independent there is no historical proof of them being controlled by the Romans or being under their rule.
 
This is the conspiracy theory to end all conspiracy theories and is easily debunked. Fringe revisionist theory nonsense.
 
Its absurd since petra was under control of the ghassanids a ruin in quraysh times.

and if there was any such city there professing another religion like Islam the Christian ghassanids with the byzantine empire behind them would have razed the city to the ground .

The pagan quraysh arabs were independent there is no historical proof of them being controlled by the Romans or being under their rule.

Not to mention Byzantine empire would not be allowing paganism/idol worshipping on their lands. Petra, after being conquered by the Byzantines, was the capital of the province an converted to Christianity, and not to mention the Nabateans slowly disappeared thereafter. The Empire was also anti-pagan and discriminated against them, its a delusion if people think they were cool with Arabs idol-worshipping the Kaaba if located at Petra.

Its also common knowledge Muhammad (pbuh) lived among Pagans and Idol worshippers which would not be possible if it was Petra under Byzantine Christian rule.
 
Last edited:
I wonder how could someone transfer qibla from petra to Makkah that no muslim at that time raised objection and no sect was created which will visit petra for hajj. How smooth was that ? Or, petra wasnt anything at all like that.
 
I few things that need to be cleared up

The findings of Crone and her team haven’t been debunked. The findings are factual. It was the hypothesis put forward in Hagarism that was disputed. It was disputed by the authors themselves because they feel there isn’t enough evidence to propose a definitive conclusion. That’s how academia works.

However, this doesn’t change the fact that, the findings went against the traditional narrative.

No trade routes, no contemporary records, no archeological remnants of the described past. No contemporary record of the Islamic Muhammad (his honorific title) or his real name, some have suggested it to be Qasim. Especially for the time he was meant to be alive.

They suggested Hagarism because even that seemed more plausible than the traditional Islamic account, which they found no evidence for.


Quran is not a historical document. It hasn’t even been preserved which is widely known even outside of the academic world

The findings about the qibla add more weight but is not the core of the findings.
 
It seems that the likes of you and others are desperate to prove to yourself that you are right in being a Kaffir. The fact is that those of us who believe don't care for your personal anguish. Its your loss, not ours. Ultimately, it's matter of faith and my faith is strong and so is the faith of a billion others. We are not perfect and make mistakes. I feel blessed to be born as a Muslim, and may my last words on this journey( whenever it comes) be the Kalima

Āmin ya rabbal ālamīn...May Allah SWT keep us steadfast and grant guidance to the misguided.
 
And if there is some conspiracy

Explain madina

The original masjid qibla
The seven mosque complex the trench
Mount uhud site
The graves
The farms Wells
Settlement of khaybar where the Jews lived
Wells of badr and site of first Muslim battle

Is this a conspiracy as well

All of the mentioned are explained in Dan Gibson's documentary. Give it a watch.
 
This is the conspiracy theory to end all conspiracy theories and is easily debunked. Fringe revisionist theory nonsense.

The only conspiracy here is done by Abbasid Caliphs. The Caliphs before him were still following Christianity and Zoroastrianism. There was no mention of Shahada until Caliph Abdel Malik in 692 and he made inscriptions on the dome of the rock after conquering Jerusalem.
 
The only conspiracy here is done by Abbasid Caliphs. The Caliphs before him were still following Christianity and Zoroastrianism. There was no mention of Shahada until Caliph Abdel Malik in 692 and he made inscriptions on the dome of the rock after conquering Jerusalem.

That sounds like an even bigger conspiracy. Islamic historic is reasonably well documented. An alleged coin with a cross on it doesn't show that there was Christian caliphs lol.
 
That sounds like an even bigger conspiracy. Islamic historic is reasonably well documented. An alleged coin with a cross on it doesn't show that there was Christian caliphs lol.

Can you please share these reasonably well documented sources?

Thanks
 
I few things that need to be cleared up

The findings of Crone and her team haven’t been debunked. The findings are factual. It was the hypothesis put forward in Hagarism that was disputed. It was disputed by the authors themselves because they feel there isn’t enough evidence to propose a definitive conclusion. That’s how academia works.

However, this doesn’t change the fact that, the findings went against the traditional narrative.

No trade routes, no contemporary records, no archeological remnants of the described past. No contemporary record of the Islamic Muhammad (his honorific title) or his real name, some have suggested it to be Qasim. Especially for the time he was meant to be alive.

They suggested Hagarism because even that seemed more plausible than the traditional Islamic account, which they found no evidence for.


Quran is not a historical document. It hasn’t even been preserved which is widely known even outside of the academic world

The findings about the qibla add more weight but is not the core of the findings.

What is so horrific? Explain yourself.
 
That sounds like an even bigger conspiracy. Islamic historic is reasonably well documented. An alleged coin with a cross on it doesn't show that there was Christian caliphs lol.

Coins do not lie. A Muslim Caliph will never have Cross and Fire Altars on his coins. Caliph Marwan is not a believer. Nabateans followed all kinds of religions. Some were Ishmaelites, some were Christians, some were Polythiests, some were Manicheans and in between some were Jews. They all Co-existed. Even in Christianity, many followed heretic sects.
After Abdel Malik in 692, Islam was firmly established in Arabia and all the lands Arabs conquered.
 
Which neutral unbiased sources are there against patricia crone? The one posted by kingkhan is just a case of confirmation bias of a frustrated mullah.

If patricia Crone is a fruad how does one end up as a professor in oxford, cambridge, SOAS and princeton,

That is 3 of the worlds leading educational institutes and the leading institute in middle east studies

According to many on this forum Imran Khan is a fraud... He went to Oxford...
 
All of the mentioned are explained in Dan Gibson's documentary. Give it a watch.

Surely if Mr Gibson can explain all the things the poster you quoted mentioned, he has the answer to the universe or something.

You keep chirping about unbiased sources and the lot but then you come back to this Gibson bloke like he’s the most objective thing.
 
Did you guys know how qualified this Dan Gibson is? As in how many academic qualifications he has in this field?

Big fat zero! He is a hobbyist historian and archaeologist.
David King, an actual expert on the topic blasted him to bits. You should watch that too.
 
I few things that need to be cleared up

The findings of Crone and her team haven’t been debunked. The findings are factual. It was the hypothesis put forward in Hagarism that was disputed. It was disputed by the authors themselves because they feel there isn’t enough evidence to propose a definitive conclusion. That’s how academia works.

However, this doesn’t change the fact that, the findings went against the traditional narrative.

No trade routes, no contemporary records, no archeological remnants of the described past. No contemporary record of the Islamic Muhammad (his honorific title) or his real name, some have suggested it to be Qasim. Especially for the time he was meant to be alive.

They suggested Hagarism because even that seemed more plausible than the traditional Islamic account, which they found no evidence for.


Quran is not a historical document. It hasn’t even been preserved which is widely known even outside of the academic world

The findings about the qibla add more weight but is not the core of the findings.

what are crone's findings? All your stories are based upon them
 
Coins do not lie. A Muslim Caliph will never have Cross and Fire Altars on his coins. Caliph Marwan is not a believer. Nabateans followed all kinds of religions. Some were Ishmaelites, some were Christians, some were Polythiests, some were Manicheans and in between some were Jews. They all Co-existed. Even in Christianity, many followed heretic sects.
After Abdel Malik in 692, Islam was firmly established in Arabia and all the lands Arabs conquered.

😆 those gold coins or Old antiques were not minted by the Muslims they were acquired through trade and loot in wars . The Muslims also acquired Greek artifacts books libraries which later were translated and ideas studied and developed by Muslim scientists theologians later on in levant Iraq persia.

Arab silver mints coins have been found all they way in Scandinavia in Sweden. Were the vikings Muslims

Some of my family members in pakistan have British pound notes are they worshipping queen Elizabeth


Also petra did not exist in prophet muhammad saw time and neither did the nabatean people or empire which had been destroyed long ago by the byzantine.

Petra was a ruin the area of levant was controlled by the ghassanids who were Christians and part of the byzantium and also murdered the Muslim ambassador sent by rasooulsh saw from madina .

Petra was destroyed in the 300s and even before was not a functioning city that had declined and became a uninhabited ruin well before the time prophet muhammad came 300+ yrs later.


It is well known the Muslim armies came through the South and attacked the ghassanids and battle of yarmouk and conquest of levant .

Why would the ghassanids allow Muslims to live in a rubble in petra with the pagan quraysh right in their territory who in turn come out the rubble and then conquer their territory.

Do you understand how absurd your idea is that petra is Mecca because petra didn't even exist and was long abandoned. And to think there was a kabba with idols and a place of pilgrimage with independent pagan quraysh and Muslims roaming around and fighting quraysh and Muslims fighting each other
in byzantine territory and the byzantines would allow that is crazy
 
Which neutral unbiased sources are there against patricia crone? The one posted by kingkhan is just a case of confirmation bias of a frustrated mullah.

If patricia Crone is a fruad how does one end up as a professor in oxford, cambridge, SOAS and princeton,

That is 3 of the worlds leading educational institutes and the leading institute in middle east studies

The moment someone starts glorifying credentials as a way to prop up an argument, it betrays an inherent weakness. All those institutions are just as prone to confirmation bias and downright incompetence as any bureaucratic organization or indeed any seemingly primitive religious body to which those frustrated mullahs profess allegiance.
 
Islamic history documentation began with Tabari nearly 300 years after Prophet's death. Too late in my opinion. It was written under the influence of Abbasid caliphs.

No jt didn't documentation was during time of hazrat uthman ibn affan

and the earliest biographer was ibn ishaq who was born in medina some 70 yrs later after prophets passing

Ibn ishaq grandfather met the early muslim companions since he was an iraqi Christian captured by khalid ibn walid in Iraq and taken to medina , not fred flintstones petra .
 
A quick google search shows that this theory has definitely been debunked and is still very much contested by neutral sources. If you have time to post these theories you have time to check their validity.

In any case, I find it very interesting that ex-Muslims despite leaving Islam are still obsessed with it after they’ve left it. Seems to be a lot of obsession to try and defame it to validate their decision of leaving it. I could be wrong but I’ve also come across a lad with a YouTube channel who does live streams of why he’s left Islam etc etc and all his viewers seem to be other ex Muslims or nationalities of people whose countries are in conflict or have been in conflict with Muslim countries. He’s left Islam and apparently wants nothing to do with it, yet is making money off it on YouTube :13:

I do think it’s possible you’ve been exposed to very extreme viewpoints as a kid growing up like through parents, guardians or mullahs, then this could drive you away potentially, and those caretakers should 100% be held accountable if that is the case and no kid should be exposed to that kind of upbringing. So I’m very sorry if that was you.
 
There is mounting archeological evidence that suggests that the traditional narrative of the origins of Islam has little to no factual evidence.

I’ve been following this since the late 90s but it has really ramped up over the last few years.

What I find intriguing is that Islamic world seems oblivious to these findings.

The OP mentioned did not contain any link, or proof of mounting evidence.

From what i can see the person who created this theory of Islam originating in Mecca is a self-published Canadian author . And credible historians have debunked this joker's work.
 
A quick google search shows that this theory has definitely been debunked and is still very much contested by neutral sources. If you have time to post these theories you have time to check their validity.

In any case, I find it very interesting that ex-Muslims despite leaving Islam are still obsessed with it after they’ve left it. Seems to be a lot of obsession to try and defame it to validate their decision of leaving it. I could be wrong but I’ve also come across a lad with a YouTube channel who does live streams of why he’s left Islam etc etc and all his viewers seem to be other ex Muslims or nationalities of people whose countries are in conflict or have been in conflict with Muslim countries. He’s left Islam and apparently wants nothing to do with it, yet is making money off it on YouTube :13:

I do think it’s possible you’ve been exposed to very extreme viewpoints as a kid growing up like through parents, guardians or mullahs, then this could drive you away potentially, and those caretakers should 100% be held accountable if that is the case and no kid should be exposed to that kind of upbringing. So I’m very sorry if that was you.

I have seen the same. I believe they think they are doing a favor to other Muslims, in trying to help them leave Islam. These militant atheists are similar to the mullahs they despise.
 
The moment someone starts glorifying credentials as a way to prop up an argument, it betrays an inherent weakness. All those institutions are just as prone to confirmation bias and downright incompetence as any bureaucratic organization or indeed any seemingly primitive religious body to which those frustrated mullahs profess allegiance.

Let me guess, you also believe the earth is flat and the moon landings were faked.

In academic circles, credentials are glorified because everything is built there on evidence and facts, in todays world its quite easy to make up lies and fool a whole load of people, which is why conspiracy theories sell and make its sellers millions, arguments are built on evidence not personal bias, clearly you wouldn't understand that. You've used the word confirmation bias without even knowing what it means.
 
You have failed to answer any of my questions about Cave of Hira, the graves of Holy Prophet, the graves of the rightly guided caliphs.

Buddy, you have done your research but its fortunately for my own faith, quiet on a surface level.

Let me answer each and everything one by one,

You keep on harping about Olive Trees - firstly,

Now read this verse below:

"Our Lord, I have settled some of my descendants in an uncultivated valley near Your sacred House, our Lord, that they may establish prayer. So make hearts among the people incline toward them and provide for them from the fruits that they might be grateful." (14:37)

It literally calls Makkah an uncultivated valley. Makkah didnt have any water source until Zam Zam came up. Also, it mentions Olives, not Olives trees being in Makkah LOL. See Verse below that mentions fruits being brought to the barren land through trade

As for implication of trade rather than natural resources:

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 (yujbaa ilayhi thamaraat) of all things as provision from Us? But most of them do not know



Your whole theory of coins is answered quite aptly here: https://coinweek.com/ancient-coins/coinage-first-caliphate/

Who is this guy commenting on coin week? Is he a historian or an archeologist or just a guy interested in collecting coins, buys and sells them? Can you provide info from a historian or an archeologist?

Coming to the graves of Prophet Muhammad, Sahaba and houses of other notable people, you have to take it with a grain of salt. Not too difficult to put fake graves when Abbasids were making up fake narratives 200 years after the prophet.
You do know that there is a grave of Prophet Adam in Middle East too. It is 90 foot long too. Do you believe that it is real too?

You are again parroting story to me that Abbasids have given to the world 200 -300 years after the death of Prophet.

Watch this video on Zam Zam by Dan Gibson. Bacca is a valley in Petra.

https://youtu.be/Xa7Co7GupfA
 
I have seen the same. I believe they think they are doing a favor to other Muslims, in trying to help them leave Islam. These militant atheists are similar to the mullahs they despise.

Anybody can make the claims like the standard Islamic narrative told by Abbasid caliphs. You need to back up claims by showing evidence. Hijaj Mecca has nothing there prior to 7the century. Nothing was found about any bustling city that flourished there before 690 AD. No Artifacts were found. Not even basic pottery to prove that people lived there.
 
Anybody can make the claims like the standard Islamic narrative told by Abbasid caliphs. You need to back up claims by showing evidence. Hijaj Mecca has nothing there prior to 7the century. Nothing was found about any bustling city that flourished there before 690 AD. No Artifacts were found. Not even basic pottery to prove that people lived there.

Well you are lying madain saleh al hijr is in madina division north of medina in wadi ula and is part of hejaz

Archelogical sites have been found in jeddah in makkah division

Hegra (Ancient Greek: Ἔγρα),[1][2] also known as Mada’in Salih[3] (Arabic: مَدَائِن صَالِح‎, romanized: madāʼin Ṣāliḥ, lit. 'Cities of Salih'), or Al-Ḥijr (ٱلْحِجْر) is an archaeological site located in the area of Al-'Ula within Al Madinah Region in the Hejaz, Saudi Arabia. A majority of the remains date from the Nabatean kingdom (1st century AD). The site constitutes the kingdom's southernmost and largest settlement after Petra (modern-day Jordan), its capital.[4] Traces of Lihyanite and Roman occupation before and after the Nabatean rule, respectively, can also be found.

The other area is khyber in madina artifacts have been found there it was the Jewish Fort.


Also its bakkah which is southern arabian Yemeni pronunciation in North arabian the b becomes m , makkah , different accent that's all same language.
L

Petra had been in decline well before and then destroyed in the 300s by an earthquake along with its water system

Rasooullsh saw was born in 570 , petra did not even exist it had been abandoned and deserted. Over 200 years prior and was finished even before the earthquake because the nabateans had been destroyed by the Romans.
The area then had become the Christian ghassanid state .

The only nabatean city mentiond in islam was madain Al saleh al hijr near madina in hejaz in quran and authentic hadith.
 
Its really funny to see these so called atheists and ex-Muslims still being obsessed with Islam even after leaving it.
 
Back
Top