Qibla

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

 Caringheart wrote:

Greetings islamispeace,

Your complaints about sources are tired, old, tiresome, and also laughable.   Why waste time on such things.
Are you going to say that you do not use search engines to find your information?  No I'm sure you have the Library of all libraries at your disposal, right?  Which you wander through daily, finding all the information you need in the blink of an eye.  (anyway, I am venturing towards sarcasm which I do not like, so my apologies, and I will move on)

I have already shared with you 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). 
I have already shared with you that Gibson gives a reasonable explanation for it.

and I have also shared with you this;
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.
which includes the link to read about the Petra scrolls.
and also talks about how the Nabataeans were more likely to dwell in tents than buildings, meaning great numbers could have lived there, and apparently did as indicated by the public buildings.  Public buildings and pools would be of no use unless there was a bustling, thriving community there.

Did you do any reading at the Brown.edu link?  There was a wealth of information there to sift through.  I don't really see why you have the need to keep replying to me.  Just go read. 

I do find Gibson's evidence compelling but I also find this one conundrum which may be explained at some time in the future but now remains a mystery.

Regarding the Qarmatians, you are quite right.  Gibson may be seeing through the lens of his own prejudice, as is common to most everyone.  We are shaped by how, and where, we are raised, and what we learn as we grow.  These things will always have an influence on us, unless a thing can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.  We are gong to believe what fits most comfortably with our own minds and life experience.
As I said earlier, you can not say that the islamic sources did not have reason to write things so to fit their own narrative.
All we can do is weigh things in the balance and come to our own conclusions... right and wrong. 

asalaam and blessings to you,
CH

 You're still not answering my question.  Instead, you only offer vague references to Petra's "crowded" and "bustling" community.  

Here is a question for you.  If Petra was indeed the original "holy city" of Islam, and if the Islamic sources have been "edited" to remove any mention of it (obviously a leap of faith by Gibson), then why don't non-Muslim sources say anything about the Muslim pilgrimage to Petra?  Instead, why do the sources which have anything to say about Islam or Muslims (such as Jacob of Edessa) never mention Petra?