Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Rectify

Petra the actual Qibla?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Ibn Al-Shahid said:

Archeology shows that these masjids were facing Petra. It does not explain the reason to why they are facing Petra. The reason why they are facing Petra is as Qaim explained.

I would say it’s quite naieve to suggest they didn’t know their geography since the masjids that actually faced Petra were from far off civilisations like China and Tunisia....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Qa'im said:

I believe the first book to come up with this basic idea was Patricia Crone's "Hagarism" (1977). This thesis was routinely criticized by academics, and I've heard (?) that Crone later retracted this conclusion.

The mihrabs of early mosques were often inaccurate because precise mathematical and geographical methods had not yet been invented. Read World-Maps for Finding the Direction and Distance to Mecca by King. He argues that folk astronomy and geography of the 7th century accounts for these qibla errors.

It is strange that Dan Gibson would try to resurrect this theory in 2017, as much evidence in recent decades (especially the discovery of many epigraphs in and around the Hijaz) confirm the traditional view. And of course, to say that the Kaaba and Masjid an-Nabawi were moved 1,300km, without any explicit references in the vast Islamic tradition, is coocoo.

Christianity isn’t perfect either I mean they can’t even agree on whether Jesus was married or not as dan browns da vinci code sheds light on this topic however I don’t wish to make this discussion an Islam vs Christianity discussion. I believe there are historians that have presented strong proof that the qibla could be Petra due to archaeology. Brother to simply blame geographical errors or folk astronomy is naieve on the part of dan king since there’s many countries where the masjids were facing Petra and some of those civilisations were advanced enough to determine the qibla direction definitely....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rectify said:

No it concerns the physical association through blood

And no soul earns (evil) but against itself, and no bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another 6:164

I don't understand the physical association you're talking about. my understanding is that illegitimacy or not is different from bloodline. Same topic different subjects. 

An example, Imam Hasan Al Askari(عليه السلام) had wives before the conception( once the conception takes place, the child would be illegitimate even if the couple concerned were to get married immediately after the 'act') of Imam Mahdi(عليه السلام), then Imam Hasan(عليه السلام) got married to the other lady & thus Imam Mahdi(عليه السلام) was conceived legitimately. Had Imam al Askari(عليه السلام) conceived Imam Mahdi(عليه السلام) outside of marriage, he( Imam Mahdi(as)) would have been an illegitimate child. Him(عليه السلام) being an illegitimate child wouldn't take the blood of Muhammad(s) away from his blood. Meaning he acquired the lineage 'illegally'.

3 hours ago, Rectify said:

There are other factors like for example who your mother is

This is wrong in my understanding as again the mother of Imam Mahdi(s) was from another area meaning it doesn't matter 'who' the lady is or where she's from so long as she fulfills the requirements made by Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). 

 

3 hours ago, Rectify said:

the intention of the heart

3 hours ago, Rectify said:

 

So what does the intention have to do with lineage & illegitimate birth?

3 hours ago, Rectify said:

who your teacher is

where is the teacher of Islam, the real teacher :helpsos:. He(عليه السلام) will appear when the students are ready.

The bloodline of syeds on the other hand, that's not way near personal interest as...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2019 at 8:02 PM, Rectify said:

Has anyone heard of the actual qibla being Petra? Apparently according to historian dan Gibson all mosques for at least 125 years after the martyrdom of rasulullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) pointed towards Petra and Abdullah ibn zubayr changed the qibla to Mecca in Saudi Arabia. It wasn’t until 822 AD the qibla direction was finalised towards Mecca?!?!

Bismillah and Salams,

The theory Dan Gibson provides isn't new per se, there have been other revisionist historians who've tried to claim that Quranic Mecca was really in Jordan. There have been more sophisticated reasons to argue this than what Dan Gibson attempts to do, but I believe he's perhaps one of the biggest proponents of the qibla argument -- that the qiblas in early mosques don't point to modern day Mecca, rather to Petra. I'll, therefore, leave aside the other points he brings up in his documentary (I remember watching it when I was really bored one evening last evening) and link you to a paper I had come across last year regarding this. This was an excellent treatment of the subject. I believe it might have been through Dr.. Sean Anthony's (a scholar of late antiquity and early Islam) twitter I had found this article -- though I remember it then being published on a website. Regarding the broader Petra thesis, I had come across this French monograph on the subject, but haven't had much time to look at it. 

One needs to also remember that there isn't the unbiased academia that Dan purports to be coming from, he is a fundamentalist Christian who literally believes in the events of the Bible. Dr.. Ian Morris (a new but very fascinating scholar of early Islam) had written a short review thread about this book, it wasn't very favourable and Ian Morris does probably fit into the revisionist camp.

There is one point of reflection I think is worth considering. I remember last year Dr.. Joseph Lumbard (a scholar of Quranic studies and one of the translators of The Study Qur'an) was in a discussion with some Semiticists and Arabists, I can remember exactly what prompted him to point it out but he mentioned that there is a sort of academic imperialism (I believe this was the term he used or something to this effect) involved with this brand of scholarship (this discussion is unfortunately now gone). I remember then that they scholars laughed at it, and I too thought it was a cop out to say anything contrary to the traditional narrative is a sort academic imperialism. A month ago a Sayyid who's just finished his PhD in Islamic intellectual history and I were discussing the history of Arabic phonology and he made a point which made me reconsider this. There is a sort of mentality, explicit or tacit, that Muslims were unable to preserve their history or tradition at all so these western scholars need to come to undo the damage. I'm still considering what he said but there is some sense to this, at the verse least we need to ask ourselves if revisionism is being done to reconsider a narrative and avoid stagnancies or it is being done for the sake of revisionism, that is to say, as an end itself. If the latter then it doesn't really matter how ridiculous these theories are. Nevertheless, a friend of mine working towards his PhD in Islamic history told me the days of Hugh Kennedy's historiography, as it seems the ridiculous revisionist theories that were prompted by Crone et al. are finding greater legitimacy in academia. Nevertheless, I find Dan Gibson is perhaps more tinfoil-hat scholarship (and I'm really being liberal in usage of this word) than revisionist academia. 

Iltimas-e Dua
Wassalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Rectify said:

Brother the mosques mentioned are the earliest mosques after rasulullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). The qibla was finalised in 822 AD, and all mosques built after 822 AD pointed towards Mecca. Shias never had a Mosque in those days as they had to be in taqiyyah due to oppression.

Salam Qibla direction finalised in time of Prophet Muhammad (pbu) bit after his demis ,ex rabbi Jews like as Ka'ab Al Ah bar convinced second caliph about conquering Jerusalem & started fabricating narrations about superiority of Jerusalem over Kaaba & giving more weight to Jerusalem than Kaaba that during time of Marwan (la) it reached to upmost of it because Marwan (la) also  tried to weaken status of kaaba & gives more weight on Jerusalem by making current dome of rock & tried to make it more important than Kaaba that people like Dan Gibson are using such Israelites & fabricated narrations in Sunni sources although we don't have significant Shia mosque at they time but topic of finding Qibla is mentioned in works of all  Shia  great scholars like as Sheikh Tusi (رضي الله عنه) but it remains a matter for discussion for scholars but applied practically from safavid era but the sources about it not become a public matter .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Rectify said:

 

Well maybe because the qibla was towards that direction (Jerusalem) and by turning a few degrees towards Petra Allah didn’t want to change it too much just a little bit I guess. 

 

:salam:

Sorry but this does not sounds too convincing.

The Qibla switch was made to create dissociation with the Jews that were accusing Rasulullah (sawas) from imitating their qibla.

A few degrees only does not make a single difference.

When Allah says 'now Shall We turn thee to a Qibla that shall please thee. Turn then Thy face in the direction of the sacred Mosque: Wherever ye are, turn your faces in that direction' , it gives a sense of a new start, a turning point.

 

 قَدْ نَرَىٰ تَقَلُّبَ وَجْهِكَ فِي السَّمَاءِ ۖ فَلَنُوَلِّيَنَّكَ قِبْلَةً تَرْضَاهَا ۚ فَوَلِّ وَجْهَكَ شَطْرَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ ۚ وَحَيْثُ مَا كُنتُمْ فَوَلُّوا وُجُوهَكُمْ شَطْرَهُ ۗ وَإِنَّ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ لَيَعْلَمُونَ أَنَّهُ الْحَقُّ مِن رَّبِّهِمْ ۗ وَمَا اللَّـهُ بِغَافِلٍ عَمَّا يَعْمَلُونَ

(2:144)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam Qibla direction finalised in time of Prophet Muhammad (pbu) bit after his demis ,ex rabbi Jews like as Ka'ab Al Ah bar convinced second caliph about conquering Jerusalem & started fabricating narrations about superiority of Jerusalem over Kaaba & giving more weight to Jerusalem than Kaaba that during time of Marwan (la) it reached to upmost of it because Marwan (la) also  tried to weaken status of kaaba & gives more weight on Jerusalem by making current dome of rock & tried to make it more important than Kaaba that people like Dan Gibson are using such Israelites & fabricated narrations in Sunni sources although we don't have significant Shia mosque at they time but topic of finding Qibla is mentioned in works of all  Shia  great scholars like as Sheikh Tusi (رضي الله عنه) but it remains a matter for discussion for scholars but applied practically from safavid era but the sources about it not become a public matter .

 

Wasalam 

According to archaeology the qibla was finalised In 822 AD. I appreciate references from books but archaeology and independent sources are far more convincing in my view. 

I completely agree I think dan Gibson should also focus on how Jesus was married as opposed to being crucified on the cross which the da vinci code portrays. So maybe billions of Christians are also following the wrong religion? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, realizm said:

:salam:

Sorry but this does not sounds too convincing.

The Qibla switch was made to create dissociation with the Jews that were accusing Rasulullah (sawas) from imitating their qibla.

A few degrees only does not make a single difference.

When Allah says 'now Shall We turn thee to a Qibla that shall please thee. Turn then Thy face in the direction of the sacred Mosque: Wherever ye are, turn your faces in that direction' , it gives a sense of a new start, a turning point.

 

 قَدْ نَرَىٰ تَقَلُّبَ وَجْهِكَ فِي السَّمَاءِ ۖ فَلَنُوَلِّيَنَّكَ قِبْلَةً تَرْضَاهَا ۚ فَوَلِّ وَجْهَكَ شَطْرَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ ۚ وَحَيْثُ مَا كُنتُمْ فَوَلُّوا وُجُوهَكُمْ شَطْرَهُ ۗ وَإِنَّ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ لَيَعْلَمُونَ أَنَّهُ الْحَقُّ مِن رَّبِّهِمْ ۗ وَمَا اللَّـهُ بِغَافِلٍ عَمَّا يَعْمَلُونَ

(2:144)

It was still in a different direction to Jerusalem....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/12/2019 at 6:53 AM, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

Bismillah and Salams,

The theory Dan Gibson provides isn't new per se, there have been other revisionist historians who've tried to claim that Quranic Mecca was really in Jordan. There have been more sophisticated reasons to argue this than what Dan Gibson attempts to do, but I believe he's perhaps one of the biggest proponents of the qibla argument -- that the qiblas in early mosques don't point to modern day Mecca, rather to Petra. I'll, therefore, leave aside the other points he brings up in his documentary (I remember watching it when I was really bored one evening last evening) and link you to a paper I had come across last year regarding this. This was an excellent treatment of the subject. I believe it might have been through Dr... Sean Anthony's (a scholar of late antiquity and early Islam) twitter I had found this article -- though I remember it then being published on a website. Regarding the broader Petra thesis, I had come across this French monograph on the subject, but haven't had much time to look at it. 

One needs to also remember that there isn't the unbiased academia that Dan purports to be coming from, he is a fundamentalist Christian who literally believes in the events of the Bible. Dr... Ian Morris (a new but very fascinating scholar of early Islam) had written a short review thread about this book, it wasn't very favourable and Ian Morris does probably fit into the revisionist camp.

There is one point of reflection I think is worth considering. I remember last year Dr... Joseph Lumbard (a scholar of Quranic studies and one of the translators of The Study Qur'an) was in a discussion with some Semiticists and Arabists, I can remember exactly what prompted him to point it out but he mentioned that there is a sort of academic imperialism (I believe this was the term he used or something to this effect) involved with this brand of scholarship (this discussion is unfortunately now gone). I remember then that they scholars laughed at it, and I too thought it was a cop out to say anything contrary to the traditional narrative is a sort academic imperialism. A month ago a Sayyid who's just finished his PhD in Islamic intellectual history and I were discussing the history of Arabic phonology and he made a point which made me reconsider this. There is a sort of mentality, explicit or tacit, that Muslims were unable to preserve their history or tradition at all so these western scholars need to come to undo the damage. I'm still considering what he said but there is some sense to this, at the verse least we need to ask ourselves if revisionism is being done to reconsider a narrative and avoid stagnancies or it is being done for the sake of revisionism, that is to say, as an end itself. If the latter then it doesn't really matter how ridiculous these theories are. Nevertheless, a friend of mine working towards his PhD in Islamic history told me the days of Hugh Kennedy's historiography, as it seems the ridiculous revisionist theories that were prompted by Crone et al. are finding greater legitimacy in academia. Nevertheless, I find Dan Gibson is perhaps more tinfoil-hat scholarship (and I'm really being liberal in usage of this word) than revisionist academia. 

Iltimas-e Dua
Wassalam

Wasalam Bismillah hir Rahman nir raheem

The fact that for 125 years no mosque pointed towards Mecca according to archaeology is very strong evidence. 125 years from today (2019) would be 1894 which is a very long time. 

Dan Gibson does say that there’s no doubt about medina but he places a question mark over Mecca. He also says the actual battle of badr was also in Jordan.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/12/2019 at 5:56 AM, Mzwakhe said:

And no soul earns (evil) but against itself, and no bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another 6:164

I don't understand the physical association you're talking about. my understanding is that illegitimacy or not is different from bloodline. Same topic different subjects. 

An example, Imam Hasan Al Askari(عليه السلام) had wives before the conception( once the conception takes place, the child would be illegitimate even if the couple concerned were to get married immediately after the 'act') of Imam Mahdi(عليه السلام), then Imam Hasan(عليه السلام) got married to the other lady & thus Imam Mahdi(عليه السلام) was conceived legitimately. Had Imam al Askari(عليه السلام) conceived Imam Mahdi(عليه السلام) outside of marriage, he( Imam Mahdi(as)) would have been an illegitimate child. Him(عليه السلام) being an illegitimate child wouldn't take the blood of Muhammad(s) away from his blood. Meaning he acquired the lineage 'illegally'.

This is wrong in my understanding as again the mother of Imam Mahdi(s) was from another area meaning it doesn't matter 'who' the lady is or where she's from so long as she fulfills the requirements made by Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). 

 

So what does the intention have to do with lineage & illegitimate birth?

where is the teacher of Islam, the real teacher :helpsos:. He(عليه السلام) will appear when the students are ready.

The bloodline of syeds on the other hand, that's not way near personal interest as...

 

I was actually saying that lineage constitutes for around 20% in the make up of a high level believer. Simply saying I’m from a high lineage is not good enough. You have to work for it. I was implying that the other factors were: 

1) Natural ability to understand wilayat e Ali which was determined on the day of covenant. Every creature accepted wilayat e Ali in different degrees. Some accepted faster than others. The faster ones were more elevated than the slow ones. 

2) Intention of the heart. Having clean intentions towards your neighbour 

3) The mother of the believer. Lineage, aspects and deeds of the mother. 

4) The teacher (murshad) of the individual. 

5) And of course the lineage of the believer. Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) said the lineage of the 313 generals of Imam mehdi (عليه السلام) will be written on their swords (al ghayba by numani). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

A dubious assertion.

We all have a lineage from Noah-(عليه السلام).

We are all special brother but descendants of Hazrat Fatima (عليه السلام) carry a more elevated position physically 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

We all have a lineage from Noah-(عليه السلام).

Salam we all have lineage from Prophet Adam (عليه السلام) his wife Hava (رضي الله عنه)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2019 at 12:41 AM, Qa'im said:

I believe the first book to come up with this basic idea was Patricia Crone's "Hagarism" (1977). This thesis was routinely criticized by academics, and I've heard (?) that Crone later retracted this conclusion.

The mihrabs of early mosques were often inaccurate because precise mathematical and geographical methods had not yet been invented. Read World-Maps for Finding the Direction and Distance to Mecca by King. He argues that folk astronomy and geography of the 7th century accounts for these qibla errors.

It is strange that Dan Gibson would try to resurrect this theory in 2017, as much evidence in recent decades (especially the discovery of many epigraphs in and around the Hijaz) confirm the traditional view. And of course, to say that the Kaaba and Masjid an-Nabawi were moved 1,300km, without any explicit references in the vast Islamic tradition, is coocoo.

Crone is dead now but did Michael cook also retract that ? Or he still defends it ?

Offtopic but What is your view on "slaves on horses" by crone ? As biographical source ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2019 at 5:02 AM, Rectify said:

Salam 

Has anyone heard of the actual qibla being Petra? Apparently according to historian dan Gibson all mosques for at least 125 years after the martyrdom of rasulullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) pointed towards Petra and Abdullah ibn zubayr changed the qibla to Mecca in Saudi Arabia. It wasn’t until 822 AD the qibla direction was finalised towards Mecca?!?!

Also dan Gibson argues that Mecca is described as fertile land in the Qur'an where camel and sheep can eat with hills and Mecca was barren and inhabitable land in the times of Hazrat ibrahim (عليه السلام) and in fact dan Gibson goes on to say Mecca never even existed in any of the old maps. 

In regards to zamzam water he says the actual Zam-Zam is in Petra and the current Zam-Zam has been proven harmful to health and causes cancer. 

What do you guys think? 

Cancer never happened to us through out our lives. Abdullah ibn Zubyr could not do so because politically he was not in such condition to create problem for himself which can be used against him. Even in history, there is no mention of such thing. This man is just speculating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...