Yusuf Ali 96:

The first House (of worship) appointed for men was that at Bakka: Full of blessing and of guidance for all kinds of beings:

Shakir 96:

Most surely the first house appointed for men is the one at Bekka, blessed and a guidance for the nations.

Pickthal 96:

Lo! the first Sanctuary appointed for mankind was that at Becca, a blessed place, a guidance to the peoples;

only does M. Khan add in parenthesis the word Makkah.  Is this a changing of the word of allah?  to make it suitable to the narrative... the making of the Ka'aba as the place of worship?

M. Khan 96:

Verily, the first House (of worship) appointed for mankind was that at Bakkah (Makkah), full of blessing, and a guidance for Al-Alameen (the mankind and jinns).

² My soul longeth, yea, even fainteth for the courts of the Lord: my heart and my flesh crieth out for the living God.

³ Yea, the sparrow hath found an house, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she may lay her young, even thine altars, O Lord of hosts, my King, and my God.

⁴ Blessed are they that dwell in thy house: they will be still praising thee. Selah.

⁵ Blessed is the man whose strength is in thee; in whose heart are the ways of them.

⁶ Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools.

⁷ They go from strength to strength, every one of them in Zion appeareth before God.

⁸ O Lord God of hosts, hear my prayer: give ear, O God of Jacob. Selah.

⁹ Behold, O God our shield, and look upon the face of thine anointed.

¹⁰ For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness.

¹¹ For the Lord God is a sun and shield: the Lord will give grace and glory: no good thing will he withhold from them that walk uprightly.

¹² O Lord of hosts, blessed is the man that trusteth in thee.

⁶ Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools.

who passing through the valley of sorrows(of this life) fill it with their tears...

islamispeace wrote: If Petra was the "holy city" of Islam, there should be a large number of early Islamic inscriptions and artifacts, like we have in Mecca.  Instead, Petra has mostly Nabataean inscriptions.  Some later Islamic inscriptions have been found from the 2nd century AH.  In contrast, 1st century AH inscriptions of the Quran have been found in Mecca.  Why would this be so if Petra was the holy city of Islam and not Mecca?  Shouldn't the opposite be true?  Shouldn't we have earlier inscriptions in Petra and later ones in Mecca?

One can only surmise that the city of Petra is today bereft of all inscriptions because of the actions of zealous Muslims during Yazid�s reign. 
In the end, the only book to survive in Arabia was the Glorious Qur'an.

islamispeace wrote: If Petra was the "holy city" of Islam, there should be a large number of early Islamic inscriptions and artifacts, like we have in Mecca.  Instead, Petra has mostly Nabataean inscriptions.  Some later Islamic inscriptions have been found from the 2nd century AH.  In contrast, 1st century AH inscriptions of the Quran have been found in Mecca.  Why would this be so if Petra was the holy city of Islam and not Mecca?  Shouldn't the opposite be true?  Shouldn't we have earlier inscriptions in Petra and later ones in Mecca?

The pre-Islamic Arabic is often referred to as the "Old Arabic" by scholars. The most obvious characteristic of the Old Arabic is the use of the definite article ʾl-, the precursor of classical Arabic ʾal-. Old Arabic seems to have remained a purely spoken language until the late fifth / early sixth centuries CE which means that no specific script was associated with it before that period. Thus, on the rare occasions when it was written, the script associated with the local language of prestige was used: South Arabian in the southern half of the Peninsula; Nabataean at Ḥijr, ʿEn ʿAvdat in the Negev, and at al-Namarah; a form of eastern Aramaic at Mleiha on the Oman Peninsula; and early Arabic, mainly in Syria.

The Arabic script originated from the Nabataean script. T. N�ldeke was the first to establish the link between the Nabataean and Arabic scripts in 1865, which later confirmed against J. Starcky's Syriac thesis by Grohmann. The affiliation between Nabataean and Arabic scripts has now been fully documented by J. Healey. Following are the example of some of the inscriptions written in Old Arabic.

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 http://www.livescience.com/23168-petra.html - 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 http://nabataea.net/pwalls.html - 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 http://nabataea.net/scrolls.html - 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 http://nabataea.net/InnerK3a.GIF - 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

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 http://nabataea.net/pwalls.html - 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 http://nabataea.net/scrolls.html - 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 http://nabataea.net/InnerK3a.GIF - 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,

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.

islamispeace wrote: 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?

During his study of Islamic literature, Gibson noted that mention of the city of Petra was missing in all early Islamic literature. Since the Petra scrolls create an overwhelming picture of Petra as a viable city with a functioning hinterland throughout the sixth century, why is there no mention of Petra in any early Islamic literature? There are records of people passing through the region and armies marching through this area, but Petra is never mentioned. At the very same time, non-Islamic literature mentions Petra, but never Mecca. There is no mention of Mecca in any literature until 740 AD when it frst appears in the Continuatio Byzantia Arabica.

This book contains many references, as well as some useful appendices including a 32 page timeline of Islamic history from 550AD - 1095AD, and a 20 page annotated selected bibliography of early Islamic sources in chronological order from 724AD - 1100AD plus a list of many early Qur'anic manuscripts.  Over 470 pages, with index.