Qibla

Caringheart wrote: islamispeace wrote: Caringheart wrote: islamispeace wrote: As I already, your the one who is confused.  The Quran is actually very clear in differentiating between Jerusalem and Mecca.  When referring to the Isra of the Prophet from Mecca to Jerusalem, the Quran stated: "Glory to (Allah) Who did take His servant for a Journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the farthest Mosque, whose precincts We did bless,- in order that We might show him some of Our Signs: for He is the One Who heareth and seeth (all things)." The "Sacred Mosque" (Al-Masjid Al-Haram) is in Mecca, while the "farthest Mosque" (Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa) is in Jerusalem.  Whenever the "Sacred Mosque" is mentioned, the context always shows that it is referring to the Kaaba in Mecca.  For example, in reference to a peace treaty the Muslims had made with the pagans of Arabia, the Quran states: "How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous." How much more clearer can it be?  What sane person would claim that the Quran was referring to Jerusalem in this case, especially since the Muslims had not yet been in Jerusalem yet and would not be until the reign of Umar Ibn Al-Khattab when he captured the city from the Byzantines? Greetings islamispeace, So, your statements were curious to me for several reasons, so I wanted to look up the surah's you quoted to see what time period they came from, and I found this very interesting article. As I stated, I only originally found it quite odd that the qur'an never says Mecca but referred to a place called Becca. This article I found explains a lot in that regard, but that is not how I found it. I was looking for 'qur'an pre-Meccan' when I found the article. What I found curious about the reply I have quoted above is the reference, purportedly by the qur'an, to a 'sacred mosque' and a 'farthest mosque', and I couldn't help thinking, How can the qur'an be referring to mosques when no mosques were even built before Muhammad introduced his religion? so I wanted to know what time period the surah's were revealed, and they were all (17:1, 9:7, 48:24) prior to the year 620 a.d. of Yshwe.  Two of them as early as Medina. So here is some of what I found in the article:  http://www.academia.edu/1776803/The_Mecca_Question The reference in the qur'an is to a 'valley of bekkah' meaning 'valley of the one who weeps much'... or as I tend to think of it, because I think I have heard it from muslims before... the valley of weeping, or tears. Mecca is only mentioned in surah 48... and the fact that it is mentioned as Mecca, not becca, I think would distinguish the fact that it is referring to a separate place... or a change has been made. Also, apparently Muhammad first had his followers praying in the direction of Syria, and all the evidence supports the first holy place for muslims as Petra. from the article: "Surprising as it may seem, not one map before 900 AD even mentions Mecca. It is also commonly accepted that Mecca was not just a major city, but it was the focus of pilgrimages in Arabia long before the rise of Islam. While there is little evidence of an early shrine at Mecca, Gibson points out that every historian of Arabia knows that pilgrimages were always made to the Nabataean city of Petra, which was known as the original haram or forbidden area of Ara-bia where killing was not allowed." I quoted this last part because it supports a thing you have told to me... the place where killing is not allowed. 9:7  "How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous." asalaam, CH It should also be pointed out that the article you quoted makes the following claim but does not elaborate further: "Gibson points out that every historian of Arabia knows that pilgrimages were always made to the Nabataean city of Petra, which was known as the original haram or forbidden area of Ara-bia where killing was not allowed." Which historians state this?  The article does not specify.  Hmmm.... Greetings islamispeace, Did you take the time to read at the address which I provided? asalaam, CH

The article does not specify which historians say this.  It just summarizes Gibson's claims. 

"Over the years Gibson has gathered copies of many ancient maps of Arabia and has diligently translated and transcribed them, but never once is Mecca mentioned.

Added to this the Qur'an and the hadiths clearly speak of Mecca being in a valley, and as having another smaller valley or stream next to the Ka�ba. This is quite different from modern day Mecca which has been occasionally flooded with spring runoff but contains no stream.
Over the years Gibson has spoken to pilgrims coming from Mecca. Some of them have been vaguely dissatisfied with the geography around Mecca."


"The Islamic historian Al-Tabari, writing in 900 AD
notes that during the days before Islam, there were two pilgrimages. The lesser was known as �umrah.
He notes that �Abd al-Muttalib (Muhammad�s grandfather) performed
�umrah on one occasion. This was at a time when the forbidden sanctuary in the Islamic Holy City held many pagan idols, among them Hubal and Isaf and Na�ilah. The Qur'an tells us that these pre-Islamic pagan pilgrimages were known respectively as hajj and �umrah, commonly called the greater and lesser pilgrimage. These names continued from pre-Islamic times into the Islamic era and are the terms used today for the two yearly Islamic pilgrimages.  Gibson, however, points out that from ancient time the Arabian pilgrimage was always to the religious center of Arabia, the forbidden sanctuary, the holy burial city of Petra. It was in this city that the Nabataean Arab dead were buried, and it was in this city that the living gathered to eat a ritual meal with their extended family in the presence of their long departed ancestors. This custom was part of the cultural and ethnic make-up of the Nabataeans, and was the glue that held them, a nomadic merchant people, together as a society.  In Petra today visitors can see the feasting halls that are attached to many of the tombs where family gatherings celebrated the living and the dead."


"Besides providing us with over a dozen literary proofs that point to Petra as being the Holy City of Mecca, Gibson also provides seventeen historical proofs."

I guess you would have to read the book.


Edited by Caringheart - 13 October 2014 at 11:01pm

islamispeace wrote: Caringheart wrote: "Over the years Gibson has gathered copies of many ancient maps of Arabia and has diligently translated and transcribed them, but never once is Mecca mentioned. Added to this the Qur'an and the hadiths clearly speak of Mecca being in a valley, and as having another smaller valley or stream next to the Ka�ba. This is quite different from modern day Mecca which has been occasionally flooded with spring runoff but contains no stream. Over the years Gibson has spoken to pilgrims coming from Mecca. Some of them have been vaguely dissatisfied with the geography around Mecca." "The Islamic historian Al-Tabari, writing in 900 AD notes that during the days before Islam, there were two pilgrimages. The lesser was known as �umrah. He notes that �Abd al-Muttalib (Muhammad�s grandfather) performed �umrah on one occasion. This was at a time when the forbidden sanctuary in the Islamic Holy City held many pagan idols, among them Hubal and Isaf and Na�ilah. The Qur'an tells us that these pre-Islamic pagan pilgrimages were known respectively as hajj and �umrah, commonly called the greater and lesser pilgrimage. These names continued from pre-Islamic times into the Islamic era and are the terms used today for the two yearly Islamic pilgrimages.  Gibson, however, points out that from ancient time the Arabian pilgrimage was always to the religious center of Arabia, the forbidden sanctuary, the holy burial city of Petra. It was in this city that the Nabataean Arab dead were buried, and it was in this city that the living gathered to eat a ritual meal with their extended family in the presence of their long departed ancestors. This custom was part of the cultural and ethnic make-up of the Nabataeans, and was the glue that held them, a nomadic merchant people, together as a society.  In Petra today visitors can see the feasting halls that are attached to many of the tombs where family gatherings celebrated the living and the dead." "Besides providing us with over a dozen literary proofs that point to Petra as being the Holy City of Mecca, Gibson also provides seventeen historical proofs." I guess you would have to read the book. I repeat...which "historians" believe this?  And who is this "Dan Gibson" anyway?  The paper says he is a "Canadian historian". For that matter, who is "Jeremy Smyth"? While there are many flaws in Gibson's theory, I think the most obvious one is that if Petra was the "original" holy city of Islam, then why don't we have any Islamic inscriptions and other archaeological artifacts in Petra?  Why, instead, do we have overwhelming archaeological evidence in Mecca?

Greetings islamispeace,

Regarding your last question, that I boldened,
that is covered in the article as well... and in very thorough fashion I might add.

asalaam,
CH

I found this just now:

http://www.academia.edu/1391820/Early_Islamic_Inscriptions_from_Danqur_al-Khaznah_at_Petra

"To conclude, judging from the clues attested in the historical chronicles as well as the nature andamount of archaeological remains in the area, it isevident that Islamic occupation at Petra was very limited and Petra throughout the Islamic periods��had long been what it is today; a field of ruinslargely buried beneath drifts of sand�� (Simms &Russell 1996: 27)."