Petra or Makkah?
The Pseudo-historians mainly from the Christian denomination claim that the original Qiblah was in Petra hence the Prophet Muhammed was born and raised in Petra and Ka'bah was in Petra, Makkah in the Quran is simply a spelling error and supposed to say Bakkah which according to them means a Valley of Weeping where people died, to refer to the valley of Petra, they cunningly mix the word Bakkah with the word Baca used in their Bible which talks about a valley of weeping called Baca, however, from a sole Quranic view, there is no evidence to support this claim. This page will inspect the evidence that the Prophet Muhammed was not from Petra but from Makkah a city in the Hijaz region of Arabia.
https://muslimheritage.com/the-petra-fallacy/
• No mention of "Petra" in Qur'an
• Many Arabic inscriptions are actually found more towards Hijaz and Southern Arabia, this also fits with the Arabian Felix theory from Kamal Salibi's book The Bible Came From Arabia, also there's some words in Arabic that are similar to the ancient Ethiopian language, Ethiopia is closer to Southern Arabia.
• Mention of Al-Lat, Al-Uzza and Manat, all 3 were collectively worshipped in the Arabian peninsula
• Ptolemaic descriptions of Macoraba and Lathrippa when mapped are shown in Arabian Peninsula, are highly similar to Makkah and Yathrib.
• It would've been near impossible for the Prophet to have preached the message in the heart of Byzantine occupation with Sassanids on the opposite side, they would've crushed his movement the moment they noticed.
• The people who proposed the Petra theory, Patrica Crone and Michael Cook, have long abandoned and rejected this theory, however it's only held up Christian polemics, don't understand why they want to attack Islam in such an oblivious way, it's not even Pseudo-history, since it has been falsified, David King has wrote a full rebuttal against this Petra theory.
• Early Mosques aren't intentionally pointing towards Petra, some don't even point towards Petra directly but are actually off-set, they are not pointing anywhere.
• The Qiblah wasn't a physical direction for Masjids and therefore Petra isn't the Qiblah.
I have seen that many Muslims who don't know the history of Makkah have come to various conclusions that the Prophet Muhammad did not like in Makkah in the region of the Hijaz but have preferred other far-fetched locations such as Jerusalem and Petra or at least somewhere around the region of Northern Arabia or Levant, regions where Aramaic and Syriac were the prominent languages spoken among natives of that broad region, on the basis of what Dan Gibson and many other Christian revisionists have said based on a biased Syriac Christian narrative that the Prophet Muhammed allegedly plagiarized from many of the Christian Scriptures written in Syriac and made changes in them stories to passively rebuke them despite plagiarizing the stories and editing them to suit his own personal beliefs, I also once believed the Prophet came from Northern Arabia and Levant, until I studied more.
However there is no evidence for any of these historical claims and errors propagated by Christian polemics Dan Gibson, Jay Smith, Mel and Thomas Alexander; Patricia Crone and Michael Cook who first propagated this idea that the Prophet Muhammad came from Petra in their book "Hagarism", gave a disclaimer years later that it was just a theory and that they were "young" when making this claim, this theory has also been refuted by Western Academic David King who dismisses it as a lie of orientalist revisionists and evidentially refutes it, which is why Patricia Crone and Michael Cook disclaimed the theory later.
Yet Christian Polemics still resort to their Pseudo-Historical claims and also claim that Makkah was not on any maps before the 9th Century, however, they don't know that, regardless of the name, the geographical records of Ptolemy place Macoraba in the West of Arabian Peninsula, identified as the Hijaz, and Lathrippa north of Macoraba, which is where the Islamic Makkah and Yathrib are also said to have existed since Pre-Islamic days till now. There is a consensus in Orientalist scholarship that Macoraba is Mecca, a map based on Ptolemy's Geographia which was made by Cartographers was published in 1578 which places Macoraba in approximately the same area as Makkah is located, in the West of Arabian Peninsula i.e. Hijaz, surround by mountain ranges just as described in the Muslim traditions, placing Yathrib north of it, all based on Ptolemy's Geographia, Yathrib is the ancient name of the modern-day city of Medinah, and in Latin is known as Lathrippa according to Ptolemy's Geographia, Lathrippa is the Latin equivalent for the Arabic Yathrib.
Other Title: Asiae Tabula VI: Arabiam Felicem, Carmaniam Ac Sinum Persicum
Summary: This map from Ptolemy's Geographia was published in 1578 and reprinted on many occasions between 1584 and 1704. It is much more finely engraved than maps in previous Ptolemy editions. The map mentions several places in present-day Qatar (Abucei, Leaniti, Themi, Asateni, and Aegei). Names added to this edition of the map include Mesmites Sinus, Idicar, and a second Idicar, located in present-day Kuwait. This name is similar to the island of "Ichara" found near Magorum Sinus. Contemporary research has confirmed that Kharj is the island known to the ancients as "Icara." One of the major peninsulas shown on the map is named "Chersonesi Extrema," near Catara. Modern scholarship has identified Chersonesos as Ra's Rakan in present-day Qatar. Ichtyophagorium Sinus is the gulf inhabited by the people identified in ancient histories as the "Fish Eaters." Claudius Ptolemaeus, known in English as Ptolemy, was an ancient mathematician, astronomer, geographer, and astrologer who was born sometime after 83 A.D., most likely in a town in the Thebaid called Ptolemais Hermiou in Roman Egypt. He lived in Egypt and died in Alexandria around the year 168.
وَهُوَ ٱلَّذِى كَفَّ أَيْدِيَهُمْ عَنكُمْ وَأَيْدِيَكُمْ عَنْهُم بِبَطْنِ مَكَّةَ مِنۢ بَعْدِ أَنْ أَظْفَرَكُمْ عَلَيْهِمْ وَكَانَ ٱللَّـهُ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ بَصِيرًا
And He it is that restrained their hands from you, and your hands from them, in the midst of destruction after He made you victorious over them; and God is, of what you do, seeing. (48:24)
Arabic: makkah — destruction. This is the only occurrence in the Qur’an of makkah; it is a common noun which, when translated as such makes perfect sense in the context: مكة — from the m-k-k root — means destruction in the same way that نكبة following the same pattern in n-k-b means disaster, see, Steingass page 1045 who includes to destroy as a value for the verb makka. However, even if the collocation here is claimed to denote a physical location, the city of Petra fits that description as it was located in an enclosed valley and was thus very much belly-like. The city today called Mecca fails to impress on this latter count entirely; it is no secret that many Traditionalists return from pilgrimage to Mecca confused and disappointed, finding the geography at odds with Qur’anic descriptions. This nuance is something the Traditionalist is keen to hide from the reader with no access to Arabic. He typically inclines to a value here for the Arabic baṭn (belly, womb, midst) which obfuscates for the reader its actual meaning, preferring here values such as valley. Consideration of all instances of this word across the remainder of his translation confirm this point (2:174, 3:35, 4:10, 6:139, 16:66, 16:69, 16:78, 22:20, 23:21, 24:45, 37:66, 37:144, 39:6, 44:45, 48:24, 53:32, 56:53). See Notepad XVI.
In the Qur'an the place is also called Bakkah, Bakkah, the place where they used to crowd/weep together, now that doesn't matter to us where exactly because Qur'an isn't specifically a history book but rather theological wisdom, Makkah isn't exactly a name of a city or place, it means destruction and the verse (48:24) it's mentioned in - warfare and destruction is described, i.e. in the midst/belly of destruction, but not a valley, the Pro-Petra polemics say that Batn means Valley but it's not entirely true, to say that it's talking about the Valley of Petra, but they're wrong because Batn means midst, womb and belly i.e. "you are in the midst of a group", in the sense of this verse it means in the midst of destruction, and not in the midst of a valley or a religious capital (Petra was both so that's why they try to use Petra), like I said before - matters not, where specifically the destruction of the deniers of divine authority took place. However, we know from Pre-Islamic sources where Makkah is exactly located
———
This place and all neighboring vicinities would've all been called Hijaz, until Muslims changed it on the basis of Quran (48:24) which is also paraphrased Sunan Ibn 3586.
And I think they called it Makkah because they destroyed the Al-Kafirun of that place and won, that place was called Medina which means city, while the modern-day Medina was called Yathrib, and Lahtripa in Latin, and was later changed to Medinat-Al-Nabi (City of The Prophet) because the Prophet established it.
So the name was basically changed to Makkah but wasn't officialized on maps until as Kaffirs didn't recognize this victory, until Muslims spread their rule during Rashidun era, that's when the name Makkah started being used on maps.
Arabic: makkah — destruction. This is the only occurrence in the Qur’an of makkah; it is a common noun which, when translated as such makes perfect sense in the context: مكة — from the m-k-k root — means destruction in the same way that نكبة following the same pattern in n-k-b means disaster, see, Steingass page 1045 who includes to destroy as a value for the verb makka.
وَهُوَ ٱلَّذِى كَفَّ أَيْدِيَهُمْ عَنكُمْ وَأَيْدِيَكُمْ عَنْهُم بِبَطْنِ مَكَّةَ مِنۢ بَعْدِ أَنْ أَظْفَرَكُمْ عَلَيْهِمْ وَكَانَ ٱللَّـهُ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ بَصِيرًا
And He it is that restrained their hands from you, and your hands from them, in the midst of destruction after He made you victorious over them; and God is, of what you do, seeing. (48:24)
Sunan Ibn Majah 3586
It was narrated from Ibn ‘Umar that the Prophet (saw) entered (Makkah), on the Day of the Conquest of Makkah, wearing a black turban.
حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ، حَدَّثَنَا عُبَيْدُ اللَّهِ، أَنْبَأَنَا مُوسَى بْنُ عُبَيْدَةَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ دِينَارٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ، أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ دَخَلَ يَوْمَ فَتْحِ مَكَّةَ وَعَلَيْهِ عِمَامَةٌ سَوْدَاءُ .
Grade Sahih (Darussalam)
Reference : Sunan Ibn Majah 3586
In-book reference : Book 32, Hadith 37
English translation : Vol. 4, Book 32, Hadith 3586
Even though the Hadith says that the Prophet entered Makkah wearing a black turban, which is only trivial information, and isn't relevent to the context of this hadith, it is evidential that the Prophet did enter Makkah on the Day of the Conquest of Makkah as also stated in Quran 48:24
And the Petra theory doesn't make sense, from a linguistic and historical standpoint, Petra theory is from Dan Gibson's interpretation of mainly the Tarikh at-Tabari by Al Tabari, which was considered weak by the early Ulema; and his pre-conceived Christian misinterpretation of the Quran.
The entire Petra theory has already been disproven by David King, and even by Patricia Crone and Michael Cook who first proposed it when they proposed it. Only hardcore christian missionaries like Dan Gibson, Jay Smith and Al Fadi (A former wahhabi and former ally of AQ, can't take him as credible at all for his takfiri past) still resort to Petra theory, and Sam Gerrans (May Allah guide him to the truth and save him from the falsehood of these Christian Revisionists) because he thinks Makkah is Sunni propaganda and believes that the "Early Masjids pointing to Petra", which has got nothing to do with his meaning of Qiblah, which I agree with his meaning of Qiblah and so do others.
The Quran has more phonological compatible words with Ethiopic (Ge'ez/Arhamic) than Syriac. For example the Arabic word إِنْجِيل (ʾinjīl) and Ge'ez ወንጌል (wängel) have a phonological similarity compared to the drastic Syriac ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ (ʾewwangellīōn), Arabic word جَهَنَّم (jahannam) and Ge'ez ወንጌል (gähännäm) compared to Syriac ܓܝܗܢܐ (gêhannā), Arabic word حَوَارِيُّون (ḥawāriyyūn) and Ge'ez ሐዋርያ (ḥäwarəya, “traveller; messenger, envoy; apostle”) while absent from Syriac. People who are inclined to say "Islam came from a Christian background", really mean to say Syriac Christianity without acknowledging other forms of Christianity or Churches that had an influence on the environment of Hijazi Christians. The noteworthy aspect regarding the Ethiopian loanwords present in the Quran is their exclusive association with religious concepts, such as "ḥawārī" or "māyidah." The fact that these terms held religious significance within the Quranic audience implies that they must have already been integrated into the common language of the Arabs and extensively used prior to the Prophet's birth.
I personally hold the view that a lot of these words are in fact native to the Arabic language, and not loan words from Ethiopic or Syro-Aramaic, as we know from history that the Ethiopic language is a result of Arab migration to Ethiopia around a millenia before the Prophet, when Prophet Suleiman married Queen of Sheba, and the fact that Ge'ez and Amharic both linguistically derive from the ASA language, Syriac too was influenced by an Arabian language from the South as a result of Arab migrants from the south who mixed with the Levantines and converted them to Judaism and the ancient Essene religion.
Earliest dated Pre-Islamic Arabic document from Mada'in Salih, Saudi Arabia, from approximately 267 CE (23 AH), the Bosra era, an Arabic text with Aramaic archaisms.
An Arabic rock inscription from Muthallath, Hijaz region, Saudi Arabia, from approximately 643-4 CE (23 AH), written in an old Hijazi script.
An Arabic rock inscription from Qāʿ Al-Muʿtadil, near Al-Hijr/Mada'in Salih, Saudi Arabia, from 644 CE (24 AH) mentioning the death of Umar ibn al-Khattab ؓ in the year 24 AH, written in Hijazi script.
An Arabic rock inscription from Makkah, Hijaz, Saudi Arabia, from 644 CE (24 AH) mentioning the reign of Uthman ibn Affan ؓ in the year 24 AH, written in Hijazi script. Uthman succeeded as caliph in 24 AH after the death of Umar.
An Arabic rock inscription from Tayma, Tabuk province, Saudi Arabia, from approximately 656 CE (36 AH), mentioning the murder of Uthman ibn Affan ؓ and invokes God's wrath on the assassin's that murdered Uthman, written in Kufic script.
An Arabic rock inscription from Wadi Khushayba, South West Arabia (Near Najran), Saudi Arabia, from 650 CE (29 AH), mentioning Yazid ibn Abdallah al-Saluli and asks God to have Mercy on Yazid, written in Hijazi script.
An Arabic rock inscription from Wadi ash Shamiya (Near Makkah), Darb Zubayda, Hijaz Region, Saudi Arabia, from 660-661 CE (40 AH), This inscription was found on the Darb Zubayda caravan route at Wādī 'l-Shamiya during an archaeological survey in 1970s, written in Hijazi script.
An Arabic rock inscription On A Dam Built By Caliph Muʿawiya in Madinah, Hijaz Region, Saudi Arabia, from approximately 661-680 CE (40-60 AH), written in Kufic script.
An Arabic rock inscription On A Dam Built By Caliph Muʿawiya in Near Ta'if, Hijaz Region, Saudi Arabia, from 678 CE (58 AH), written in Kufic script.
An Arabic rock inscription found in Jubbah, Ha'il Region, Saudi Arabia, written in Hijazi script.
Wadi Namlah
Taj Ul Uroos says that Wadi Namlah is between Asqalan and Jabrin, what this means is that when one travels from Asqalan which is in Qunfudhah vicinity, or Thaqalah in the same vicinity, possibly both, as said by Kamal Salibi, they would be passing Wadi Namlah as implied in Taj Ul Uroos, and it is near impossible to go from Asqalan to Jabrin through the desert as a trader with so much valuables, so they would have to go past Wadi Namlah in Yemen to go to Jabrin which is in Oman.
The Quran implies that Wadi Namlah is on the road to the country which lead to land of Queen Saba, then it would be situated near Yemen, or in Yemen, since the land of Queen Saba was in Yemen, where the city of Sana'a is located today; and not in Syria/Jordan.
Sodom and Gomorrah
Igneous rocks such as Granite and Andesite are mentioned in Bible as "costly stones", Sodom Gomorrah was destroyed by burning stones which are oddly considered as brimstones (sulfur) by some Judeo-Christian Exegetists and some Muslim Exegetists, rather it is referring to Molten Rocks, from an erupting Volcano, there's a lot of Granite and Andesite in Arabia's Asir region which is still being mined today, molten materials cool down into igneous rocks, Granite is an intrusive igneous rock, and Andesite is an extrusive igneous rock.
(11:82)
(15:74)
These verses are referring to (magma) molten rock, igneous rocks are molten hot materials that cools down and solidifies, Granite and Andesite are igneous rocks, also one of the meanings of hajjar is burning, as shown above, and another is hard stone.
Granite and Andesite are both hard igneous stones. This aligns with what Kamal Salibi says and his analysis of Biblical and Quranic geography/geology. The Asir region has the hardstones mentioned in the Quran that are made from molten materials.
1: Madinah (Yathrib)
2: Makkah
3: Asqalan, Kamal Salibi confirms that it's in Qunfudhah, West Arabia, not the fake Ashkelon in fake "Israel".
4: Sodom Gomorrah (in Asir)
5: Sana'a (Sheba)
6: Wadi Namlah which is mentioned in Quran with Sheba and is closer to Sana'a than the fake Wadi Namlah in Jordan which is actually Naqb Namlah.
7. Jabrin in Oman
Comments
Post a Comment