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

Petra the actual Qibla?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

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? 

Edited by Rectify
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
10 minutes ago, Rectify said:

Salam 

Has anyone heard of the actual qibla being Petra? Apparently according to historian dan Gibson all mosques for at least 200 years after the martyrdom of rasulullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) pointed towards Petra and Abdullah ibn zubayr in  825 AD changed the qibla to Mecca in Saudi Arabia. 

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? 

Speculations , it's on him to provide some conclusive evidence 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
13 minutes ago, Panzerwaffe said:

Speculations , it's on him to provide some conclusive evidence 

Well he relies heavily on archaeology. For example he says the following mosques which were the earliest Islamic mosques were built facing Petra not Mecca: 

1) The grand mosque of sana in Yemen built in 705 AD facing Petra 

2) Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem built in 709 AD facing Petra 

3) Damascus mosque built in 709 AD facing Petra 

4) Ribat Fortress Mosque in Tunisia built in 770 AD facing Petra 

5) Grand mosque of Guangzhou in China built in 630 AD facing Petra 

6) Mushata Mosque in Amman built in 743 AD still faces Petra 

7) Humeima Mosque in southwestern Jordan faced Petra 

8) The grand mosque of ba’albaek in Lebanon built facing Petra 

Dan Gibson further goes on to say that Mecca has not been mentioned in the holy Qur'an instead “masjid al haram” has been mentioned which was in Petra. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mufti Abu Layth has done a video about this I think, I don't know who else has looked into it.

From a purely geographical point of view, perhaps people roughly guessed where Mecca was in relation to them but it ended up being closer to Jordan. Perhaps people could not pinpoint Mecca but could pinpoint Jerusalem, so opted to go somewhere in between, perhaps people did not know where Mecca was in relation to them, knew where Jerusalem was but knew that as the Qiblah was changed that they could not point the mosque towards Jerusalem so opted to point it just away from Jerusalem but not too far.

That's just guess work, but it isn't implausible surely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, aaaz1618 said:

Mufti Abu Layth has done a video about this I think, I don't know who else has looked into it.

From a purely geographical point of view, perhaps people roughly guessed where Mecca was in relation to them but it ended up being closer to Jordan. Perhaps people could not pinpoint Mecca but could pinpoint Jerusalem, so opted to go somewhere in between, perhaps people did not know where Mecca was in relation to them, knew where Jerusalem was but knew that as the Qiblah was changed that they could not point the mosque towards Jerusalem so opted to point it just away from Jerusalem but not too far.

That's just guess work, but it isn't implausible surely?

I truly believe aside from books there are other sources of knowledge. Archaeology being one of them as well as independent sources (non Muslim) since both of these type of sources of knowledge are unbiased and in all honesty quite convincing. 

My question is how can they all guess towards Petra? Another issue arises and that is Mecca is described as hilly with sheep’s. That could not be possible in Mecca as Mecca was barren and in fertile. Also, Mecca never existed as a place on the oldest maps. 

The early mosques facing Petra and not even one mosque facing Mecca before 725 AD as well as Mecca being barren and infertile for sheep’s and hills as well as Mecca not existing on maps gives dan Gibson a strong case I’d say....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

On the flip side of the coin how is there a crack then on the Kaaba where maula Ali (عليه السلام) was born opposite hajar e aswad if qibla is towards Petra? Perhaps maula Ali (عليه السلام) was born in the Kaaba in Petra which was destroyed and Saudis invented a crack in the Kaaba in Mecca to legitimise the Theory that Kaaba is indeed from Mecca? 

The motives of Banu Umayyah to move to Mecca from Petra might be to discredit the hardwork of rasulullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)? Or maybe qibla always been in Mecca? Who knows 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Two ahadith come to mind one being from Bihar al shear volume 52 where maula Sadiq (عليه السلام) said when Imam mehdi reappears he will restore the qibla of Hazrat Noah (عليه السلام) 

Another Hadith from mafatih al jinan where Imam Baqir (عليه السلام) when instructing on how to recite a dua said go to the balcony of your house and face towards Karbala 

So perhaps in some duas it’s better to face Karbala and not Mecca? 

By the way the Qur'an mentions becca not Mecca. Becca means place of weeping. Perhaps for Imam Hussein (عليه السلام)? Interesting how Muslims started to change the qibla around 30-40 years after martyrdom of Imam Hussein (عليه السلام). First kill the grandson of rasulullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) then change the qibla subhanallah 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
2 hours ago, Rectify said:

Petra which was destroyed and Saudis invented a crack in the Kaaba in Mecca to legitimise the Theory that Kaaba is indeed from Mecca? 

A gap that they (Saudis) have since been trying to fill with no success? 

1 hour ago, Rectify said:

Becca means place of weeping.

Bakkah refers to Makkah, according to some it's the old name for Makkah.

The Arabic verb bakka (بكَّ), with double "k", means to crowd like in a bazaar. This is not to be confused with another unrelated Arabic verb baka (بَكَى)(single k) which is the past participle of yabki (يَبْكِي), to cry.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakkah

3 hours ago, Rectify said:

current Zam-Zam has been proven harmful to health and causes cancer. 

All of the Saudi people living in Makkah would have been dead by now.

All nonsense.

 

Edited by starlight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
6 hours ago, Rectify said:

Another Hadith from mafatih al jinan where Imam Baqir (عليه السلام) when instructing on how to recite a dua said go to the balcony of your house and face towards Karbala 

So perhaps in some duas it’s better to face Karbala and not Mecca? 

Salam this dua is about visit of Imam Huassian (عليه السلام) from remote & far places & doesn't relate to Namaz  & praying toward Kaaba 

6 hours ago, Rectify said:

Two ahadith come to mind one being from Bihar al shear volume 52 where maula Sadiq (عليه السلام) said when Imam mehdi reappears he will restore the qibla of Hazrat Noah (عليه السلام) 

it means that Imam Mahdi (aj) will rebuild Kaaba on it's true size & will put everything like as Maqam Ibrahim in it's original location that it's place changed by Second caliph to place of it in time of Ignorance 

Geographical direction of Qibla in the countries north-east of Mecca is such that Muslims stand for prayer facing toward Maqam Ibrahim.

 

Original Location

There are different opinions about the original location of Ibrahim's (a) station.

Some Sunni historians and biographers believe that the stone of the Maqam Ibrahim was kept inside the Ka'ba before the Conquest of Mecca and after taking Mecca, the Prophet (s) took it out and installed it beside the Ka'ba. After revelation of verse 125 of Qur'an 2, the Prophet (s) ordered to move the stone to its current place.

Most Shi'a and some Sunni people believe that the location of Ibrahim's (a) station at Ignorance Era has been its current place and the Prophet (s) returned it to its original place right beside the Ka'ba. But, at the time of the Second Caliph, he moved the Maqam Ibrahim to the current place on the pretext that there were too much crowd of pilgrims, etc.

At the time of Imam Ali (a), in a sermon he (a) mentioned some of the mistakes of previous caliphs and included moving of the Maqam Ibrahim as well and said that if most of the companions did not leave Imam (a), he (a) could correct such issues to the way they were at the time of the Prophet (s).

In a hadith from Imam al-Sadiq (a), it is mentioned that Imam al-Mahdi (a) will return Maqam Ibraim to its original place upon his advent.

http://en.wikishia.net/view/Maqam_Ibrahim_(a)

https://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/question/fa6693

 

 

7 hours ago, Rectify said:

Well he relies heavily on archaeology. For example he says the following mosques which were the earliest Islamic mosques were built facing Petra not Mecca: 

based on Imam Ali (عليه السلام) saying Qibla of mosque of Basra is right toward Hajar Al Aswad that Dan Gibson says it's direction is between current Qibla & Petra but he didn't show end point of Basra line toward Kaaba 

. مجلسي، بحارالانوار، ج 32، ص 253.
2. همان، ص 258.

Bihar Al anwar , v 32 , p 253 & p 258

http://Farsi.balaghah.net/content/بصره-شهر-پرماجرا

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, starlight said:

A gap that they (Saudis) have since been trying to fill with no success? 

Bakkah refers to Makkah, according to some it's the old name for Makkah.

The Arabic verb bakka (بكَّ), with double "k", means to crowd like in a bazaar. This is not to be confused with another unrelated Arabic verb baka (بَكَى)(single k) which is the past participle of yabki (يَبْكِي), to cry.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakkah

All of the Saudi people living in Makkah would have been dead by now.

All nonsense.

 

Interesting so bakka means to Crowd in. Is that the word used in the Qur'an or with the single k? 

Yes but you know a lot of the information about the crack in the Kaaba is hearsay. What if the Saudis are just trying to spread this rumour to make fun of the Shias? I mean they’ve got rid of most of the holy Shia sites it wouldn’t surprise me if they’re behind this rumour....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam this dua is about visit of Imam Huassian (عليه السلام) from remote & far places & doesn't relate to Namaz  & praying toward Kaaba 

it means that Imam Mahdi (aj) will rebuild Kaaba on it's true size & will put everything like as Maqam Ibrahim in it's original location that it's place changed by Second caliph to place of it in time of Ignorance 

Geographical direction of Qibla in the countries north-east of Mecca is such that Muslims stand for prayer facing toward Maqam Ibrahim.

 

Original Location

There are different opinions about the original location of Ibrahim's (a) station.

Some Sunni historians and biographers believe that the stone of the Maqam Ibrahim was kept inside the Ka'ba before the Conquest of Mecca and after taking Mecca, the Prophet (s) took it out and installed it beside the Ka'ba. After revelation of verse 125 of Qur'an 2, the Prophet (s) ordered to move the stone to its current place.

Most Shi'a and some Sunni people believe that the location of Ibrahim's (a) station at Ignorance Era has been its current place and the Prophet (s) returned it to its original place right beside the Ka'ba. But, at the time of the Second Caliph, he moved the Maqam Ibrahim to the current place on the pretext that there were too much crowd of pilgrims, etc.

At the time of Imam Ali (a), in a sermon he (a) mentioned some of the mistakes of previous caliphs and included moving of the Maqam Ibrahim as well and said that if most of the companions did not leave Imam (a), he (a) could correct such issues to the way they were at the time of the Prophet (s).

In a hadith from Imam al-Sadiq (a), it is mentioned that Imam al-Mahdi (a) will return Maqam Ibraim to its original place upon his advent.

http://en.wikishia.net/view/Maqam_Ibrahim_(a)

https://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/question/fa6693

 

 

based on Imam Ali (عليه السلام) saying Qibla of mosque of Basra is right toward Hajar Al Aswad that Dan Gibson says it's direction is between current Qibla & Petra but he didn't show end point of Basra line toward Kaaba 

. مجلسي، بحارالانوار، ج 32، ص 253.
2. همان، ص 258.

Bihar Al anwar , v 32 , p 253 & p 258

http://Farsi.balaghah.net/content/بصره-شهر-پرماجرا

 

Wasalam 

the Hadith I read from Bihar al anwar volume 52 says qibla and not maqam e ibrahim and yes maqam e ibrahim will also be restored by Imam mehdi (عليه السلام) according to ahadith. 

Its interesting that maqam e ibrahim is also in the wrong place....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
5 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.

I’ll have a look at dan kings book but Gibson argues from the archaeological point of view. He even lists the mosques facing Petra up to 125 years after the martyrdom of rasulullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). Some of the mosques that face Petra are like from China and Tunisia. Not to mention obviously masjid al aqsa and the grand mosque in Damascus. Was this geographical ignorance worldwide? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
6 hours ago, hasanhh said:

The Romans liked the place and considered it a pantheon.

The 'structures' are facades.

 

Dan Gibson has his own YouTube channel and he suggests the actual locations of safa and marwa which were two or three days distance between each other as well as the actual Zam-Zam. He seems pretty convinced this was the actual qibla....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I would like to add some further depth to this discussion. I’ve done a lot of research on the signs of the coming of Imam mehdi (عليه السلام). My belief is king Abdullah of Jordan is the sufyani who will fight Imam mehdi (عليه السلام). Could the Jordanian government be hiding the actual Islam? Since their ruler is the descendant of Abu sufyan? And when Imam mehdi (عليه السلام) reappears he (عليه السلام) will restore the qibla and maqam e ibrahim to its actual location? 

Ive actually read an interview of king Abdullah of Jordan to a western newspaper where he said only 10% of Petra has actually been discovered and apparently if any researchers or historians want to research Petra in depth they have to get approval from the Jordanian authorities which most of the time is a rejection. 

I’ve left a few pictures with ahadith to contemplate over....

CEB95EC8-C482-4F80-A7B9-736421A19B77.jpeg

70231109-0276-44B8-9266-3896D65AE088.jpeg

512CAD2D-0E20-4AB6-933E-59C2BCBB403C.jpeg

230AF43D-198F-459A-8887-216037C873BB.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
10 minutes ago, starlight said:

Interesting 

Did he kill his mother?

Sufyani will kill his mother when sufyanis mother will reveal his true ancestry. King Abdullah of Jordan’ mother is a British woman who was the daughter of a British army captain. She divorced king Abdullah of Jordan’s father king Hussein but still retains the title of a princess in Jordan (princess muna) 

Someone with blue eyes can’t be a syed according to science as almost all (around 99%) people with blue eyes descend from a caveman in northwest Spain around 4-10,000 years ago. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.htm

So one part of the Hadith has come true, and of course his father divorced his mother. I think king Abdullah of Jordan’s mother is out of favour with king Abdullah. I’ve seen very few pics of him with his mother online. He’s always running after his Palestinian wife. Also, the fact that king Hussein divorced princess muna does partially fulfill that Hadith prophecy he just has to bury her alive now....

Edited by Rectify
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
44 minutes ago, Rectify said:

IMy belief is king Abdullah of Jordan is the sufyani who will fight Imam mehdi (عليه السلام). 

CEB95EC8-C482-4F80-A7B9-736421A19B77.jpeg

Not defending him, but how can he be a "fake sayid" or from banu Umayya, wasn't his great grandfather the Sharif of Makkah under the Ottomans? Hussein bin Ali al Hashimi?

170px-Sharif_Husayn.jpg

After failing to win claim to become Caliph after the Ottoman collapse, and losing to the Ibn Saud clan and abdicating, the sharif's sons Faisal and Abdullah were made kings of Iraq and Transjordan in 1921, that means they too are false sayids?

I know there are false sayids, even among Shia, but I have not seen anyone question King Abdullah's lineage before.

 

englishtree3.gif

 

CMA941.gif

Edited by Propaganda_of_the_Deed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
4 minutes ago, Propaganda_of_the_Deed said:

Not defending him, but how can he be a "fake sayid" or from banu Umayya, wasn't his great grandfather the Sharif of Makkah under the Ottomans? Hussein bin

Well, if there is one illegitimate birth anywhere in the bloodline it makes whole lineage following it fake. This could be something known to the people as in the case of some men born in Prophet Muhammad(saw)'s time or it could be a carefully guarded secret in a royal family.

I am not saying this happened, I am just stating a possibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
17 minutes ago, Propaganda_of_the_Deed said:

Not defending him, but how can he be a "fake sayid" or from banu Umayya, wasn't his great grandfather the Sharif of Makkah under the Ottomans? Hussein bin Ali al Hashimi?

170px-Sharif_Husayn.jpg

After failing to win claim to become Caliph after the Ottoman collapse, and losing to the Ibn Saud clan and abdicating, the sharif's sons Faisal and Abdullah were made kings of Iraq and Transjordan in 1921, that means they too are false sayids?

I know there are false sayids, even among Shia, but I have not seen anyone question King Abdullah's lineage before.

 

englishtree3.gif

 

CMA941.gif

Brother 1921 or 1850’s is very recent history in considering rasulullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) lived 1400 years ago. A real syed can prove he’s a syed from his lineage which is connected to ancient shrines and landmark places from over 1000 years ago. There are places in India and Pakistan that are landmark sites in the UNESCO list of heritage sites such as uch sharif, Makli Hill, bilot sharif which have records all the genuine syeds worldwide. Also, Uzbekistan has many landmark UNESCO listed sites where syeds migrated and there’s even a cemetery in Bukhara Uzbekistan named wilayat e Ali.  

On a personal level, I’m a 29th descendant of syed Ali uraidhi (son of Imam Sadiq (as)). Saudis detonated the shrine of syed Ali uraidhi in 2002. I’ve attached a couple of pics below to further explain this topic. To prove your a syed in reality is a whole different ball game simply getting a family tree on paper anyone can do. Rest assured king Abdullah of Jordan is not a syed quite simply because he has blue eyes but if we want to further investigate his lineage you will clearly see it’s not associated with any any landmark sites. The fact that he’s associated with the Saudis who are number 1 enemy of syeds just shows who he really is....

Edited by Rectify
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, Rectify said:

Ive actually read an interview of king Abdullah of Jordan to a western newspaper where he said only 10% of Petra has actually been discovered and apparently if any researchers or historians want to research Petra in depth they have to get approval from the Jordanian authorities which most of the time is a rejection. 

Majority of so call d archeologist in Jordan are from Israel or or evangelist like as Dan Gibson that are experts in fabricating of ancient artifact & maybe in near future they will find fake evidences for verification of their false claims that they are trying to prepare minds of Muslims for it but creating doubts about Kaaba & location of qibla by referring to ancient mosques that built by enemies of Prophet Muhammad (pbu) & his progeny or by Sunni standard in making f mosques that he doesn't refer at any Shia mosque & sites & his pointing to shrine of Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) & Hazrat Abbas(عليه السلام) direction to Petra is done by showing wrong direction from it 

Imam Mahdi and death of king Abdallah

 

Edited by Ashvazdanghe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, starlight said:

one illegitimate birth anywhere in the bloodline it makes whole lineage following it fake.

isn't illegitimate birth from being conceived in haram manners & the blood lineage is not affected by haram relations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

:salam:

Then what about masjid al Qiblatain ?

We learn that in that mosque, located in Madina, Muslims first prayed towards Jerusalem (orange below)and then turned towards Masjid al Haram (that we know as the green one).

Had Masjid al Haram been in Petra, how would switching from Jerusalem to Petra make another qibla, with a difference of a few degrees only between the two ?

 

IMG_20190811_181051.png

Edited by realizm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
5 hours ago, Rectify said:

I’ll have a look at dan kings book but Gibson argues from the archaeological point of view. He even lists the mosques facing Petra up to 125 years after the martyrdom of rasulullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). Some of the mosques that face Petra are like from China and Tunisia. Not to mention obviously masjid al aqsa and the grand mosque in Damascus. Was this geographical ignorance worldwide? 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
9 hours ago, Mzwakhe said:

isn't illegitimate birth from being conceived in haram manners & the blood lineage is not affected by haram relations.

No it concerns the physical association through blood. Although it’s not just about lineage but lineage is a portion in make up of an individual. There are other factors like for example who your mother is, your natural ability to understand the guardianship of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) which was determined on the day of covenant (the day before we were born), the intention of the heart, who your teacher is, and of course your lineage through fathers side....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 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.

 

9 hours ago, realizm said:

:salam:

Then what about masjid al Qiblatain ?

We learn that in that mosque, located in Madina, Muslims first prayed towards Jerusalem (orange below)and then turned towards Masjid al Haram (that we know as the green one).

Had Masjid al Haram been in Petra, how would switching from Jerusalem to Petra make another qibla, with a difference of a few degrees only between the two ?

 

IMG_20190811_181051.png

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. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Majority of so call d archeologist in Jordan are from Israel or or evangelist like as Dan Gibson that are experts in fabricating of ancient artifact & maybe in near future they will find fake evidences for verification of their false claims that they are trying to prepare minds of Muslims for it but creating doubts about Kaaba & location of qibla by referring to ancient mosques that built by enemies of Prophet Muhammad (pbu) & his progeny or by Sunni standard in making f mosques that he doesn't refer at any Shia mosque & sites & his pointing to shrine of Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) & Hazrat Abbas(عليه السلام) direction to Petra is done by showing wrong direction from it 

Imam Mahdi and death of king Abdallah

 

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. You mentioned the shrine of Imam Hussein (عليه السلام) and Hazrat Abbas (عليه السلام) they were built 700-800 years after in around 1500-1600 AD during the Safavid rule and nadir shah. 

Archaeology proves that even mosques in China pointed towards Petra for at least 125 years after rasulullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). To simply suggest that the Arabs didn’t know their geography is quite naïve considering the Egyptians were able to build pyramids accurately aligned with stars many thousands of years before rasulullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). So the civilisation when Islam came was more advanced than the Egyptian times.... 

Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...