Qibla

islamispeace wrote: Caringheart wrote: Greetings islamispeace... You, dear sir, do not read.  You refuse to read or process from anything other than your own biased sources. islamic-awareness.org ? really?  How unbiased is that?  Don't they start with a premise... with an agenda of proving a point?  Whereas the article and book which I have presented resulted purely from exploration with no pre-conceived agenda, just interest. I'll read your latest, at islamic-awareness, also, because I believe in looking at, and trying to see both sides of any issue, (but truly who is it that has, and had, to gain from distorting, hiding, and/or changing, the truth?) I just wish people could learn to 'tell it like it is' and 'let the chips fall where they may'.  But that is why I always look at both islamic and non-islamic recordings and look for the truth in the middle. asalaam, CH You, dear lady, are a troll who sits at her computer doing Google searches instead of actual research.  In one such search, you found the article from one "Jeremy Smyth" which purports to present evidence from one "Dan Gibson" which contradicts the established history regarding Mecca's place in Islam.  Unfortunately, the "evidence" is flimsy at best.  Case in point: Gibson realizes that the archaeological evidence simply does not prove that Petra was the original Islamic "holy city", so naturally he assumes that the big, bad Muslims must have destroyed it as part of a conspiracy.  The rest of his "evidence" is based on leaps of faith.  He merely makes suggestions based on his presumption that Petra was the Muslim place of pilgrimage.  For example, we already dealt with the ridiculous claim that many early mosques did not face Mecca.  The articles from Islamic-Awareness completely refuted this claim. Another flimsy argument is regarding the pagan Meccans' ability to raise large armies against the Muslims.  Gibson alleges that this meant that Mecca had to be a large city.  Naturally, he assumes that it must have been Petra that was the source of the large armies.  Unfortunately for Gibson, as is widely known in scholarly circles, Petra had been in a state of decline and decay since Roman times.  It had reached its zenith hundreds of years before the coming of Islam.  Even at this time, its population never reached more than 20,000 people!  So how exactly would Petra have been the source of the armies mentioned in the Islamic sources?

Some writers have estimated that Petra might have had a population of 20,000 to 30,000 inhabitants. Interestingly enough, few academic sources substantiate these figures. (originally derived by a journalist). There was a limited amount of room within Petra's city walls. If we calculated, say, 10 people to a household, this would come to at least 2000 large houses. The problem with this is that there was very little room within the city proper for private housing. The great majority all of the buildings uncovered to date have been public buildings. As an example, consider the market places. For years, part of Petra was deemed as having upper, middle, and lower marketplaces. When archaeologists decided to excavate the lower market in 1998, they discovered a series of public pools, gardens, and waterworks.

Most archeologists, however, now believe that Petra was a large, urban center. The Petra Scrolls clearly tell us of the crowded living conditions within the city during the Byzantine era, but little is known of Petra during its purely Nabataean days from around 60 BC to 200 AD.

As the Nabataeans were a nomadic people who traditionally lived in tents, it is assumed that for the first several hundred years of their occupation of the Inner Kingdom that they lived in tents, and did not erect stone houses. This is true in most of the Nabataean cities. It is only during the latter part of the Nabataean kingdom that suddenly the Nabataeans began constructing houses, and then they were often of incredible size, varying from 600 to 2000 square meters.

and it looks like a whole lot of good information here:
http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Joukowsky_Institute/Petra/

I think the Nabataeans make a fascinating study if I had more time.

asalaam,

CH

islamispeace wrote: Caringheart wrote: Greetings islamispeace, No articles I looked at that you shared gave any information regarding the direction of qibla. Gibson's evidence is compelling. 'Flimsy arguments'... is in 'your' opinion. Now, the point about Petra being in decline is well taken and I will have to look into that. "as Palmyra (fl. 130�270) grew in importance and attracted the Arabian trade away from Petra, the latter declined. It seems, however, to have lingered on as a religious centre. " " the Arabs conquered the region in 663. " I don't know what to make of all that. Perhaps it is because it was in decline that Muhammad was able to prevail? and yet the notation, if it is correct, is that the 'arabs did not conquer the region until 663'... some 30 years after Muhammad's death. This is what I found disturbing, if it is true, and worthy of further study also; "A Roman road was constructed at the site. Epiphanius of Salamis (c.315�403) writes that in his time a feast was held there on December 25 in honor of the virgin Khaabou (Chaabou) and her offspring Dushara (Haer. 51).[citation needed]" I wonder if this was a pagan feast, or a Christian feast. I've spent some time and have found this; Some writers have estimated that Petra might have had a population of 20,000 to 30,000 inhabitants. Interestingly enough, few academic sources substantiate these figures. (originally derived by a journalist). There was a limited amount of room within Petra's city walls. If we calculated, say, 10 people to a household, this would come to at least 2000 large houses. The problem with this is that there was very little room within the city proper for private housing. The great majority all of the buildings uncovered to date have been public buildings. As an example, consider the market places. For years, part of Petra was deemed as having upper, middle, and lower marketplaces. When archaeologists decided to excavate the lower market in 1998, they discovered a series of public pools, gardens, and waterworks. Most archeologists, however, now believe that Petra was a large, urban center. The Petra Scrolls clearly tell us of the crowded living conditions within the city during the Byzantine era, but little is known of Petra during its purely Nabataean days from around 60 BC to 200 AD. As the Nabataeans were a nomadic people who traditionally lived in tents, it is assumed that for the first several hundred years of their occupation of the Inner Kingdom that they lived in tents, and did not erect stone houses. This is true in most of the Nabataean cities. It is only during the latter part of the Nabataean kingdom that suddenly the Nabataeans began constructing houses, and then they were often of incredible size, varying from 600 to 2000 square meters. and it looks like a whole lot of good information here: http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Joukowsky_Institute/Petra/ I think the Nabataeans make a fascinating study if I had more time. asalaam, CH You can continue to deceive yourself and believe whatever you want.  The fact is that Gibson has only his own theories and nothing else.  No serious scholar believes that Petra was the original "holy city" of Islam.

Greetings islamispeace,

islamispeace wrote:  In the next section, the article discusses Petra in the Byzantine era and it only proves further that Petra could not possibly have been a large, religious center.

islamispeace wrote: Now, you quoted Wikipedia in reference to Petra's decline (and didn't provide a link, as per your usual habit ),

that's because I know that you are perfectly capable of doing your own research and I believe it is better that way.

islamispeace wrote:  if Petra was supposed to be the "holy city" of Islam, why did the Arabs only manage to conquer the region by 663?  If it was so important, wouldn't they have captured in much earlier?  In fact, Gibson insists that the Islamic sources only make sense if they were talking about Petra instead of Mecca.  The conquest of Mecca is supposed to have happened in the year 630, so if the Islamic sources were actually referring to Petra, then it should have been conquered in 630, not 663.

Yes, did you not understand that I concur that there is a difficulty here?  Why do you have to be so combative. 

Peace,
Caringheart

Some writers have estimated that Petra might have had a population of 20,000 to 30,000 inhabitants. Interestingly enough, few academic sources substantiate these figures. (originally derived by a journalist).

Most archeologists, however, now believe that Petra was a large, urban center. The Petra Scrolls clearly tell us of the crowded living conditions within the city during the Byzantine era, but little is known of Petra during its purely Nabataean days from around 60 BC to 200 AD.