Excellent! Read the Qur'an carefully, and you discover that the description of the "mother of cities" does not describe dry, barren Mecca at all. It DOES fit Jerusalem, however.
Hahaha.. Twisted history.. God loves you but what is written in your books are all jumbled of history and lies.. A collection of stories that was not understood by your said prophets about the jews. Christianity.. Buddhism.. Hinduism... Your religion comes after this.. So what is your claim.. The name Jerusalem itself is Hebrew and everything in Israel the promise Land given by God to the jews.. I'm a Christian but I don't deny history and history speak itself from the Bible.. Islamic books doesn't have any evidence even in stones.. Study the Bible and history and go to the holy land so that you can see the truth.
Sorry for delay replying, I only recently became aware that this video had been reposted. Yes. In the ancient world Mother City (from which we get Metropolis) had a technical meaning of a city whose inhabitants had founded colonies elsewhere. In the first century, Philo of Alexandria had twice written about Jerusalem as the mother city to Jewish 'colonies' around the middle east (presenting, to some extent, the negative of the Jewish diaspora, that had begun with the Babylonian Captivity into a positive.) Even in the Islamic tradition, Mecca had no colonies. I would say for the v good reason that it didn't exist.
Yet Melchezdech was already worshiping God Most High in Salem. Also whats Abraham doing in a deadzone with presumably herds of dying sheep and goats that have no water and hundreds of helpers who would also have absolutely no water to drink?
Now I wonder whether the place mentioned on the maps today: Al-Baqa'a could be the same as "Bakka", as this seems to be a valley or a high pasture. And according to today's measurements, it would take about 4 hours to reach the Temple Mount on foot from there. This would explain the underlying joy in the Psalm, as one is getting closer to one's goal, the Temple.
I think there is pretty much a consensus amongst revisionists that Bak(k)a in Q is an allusion to Baka in Psalm 84. This of course fits my Jerusalem thesis well, since it was symbolic of 'getting there.' Where precisely it was, I have no views, but I do wonder if the Q's reference to the 'first house at Baka' conflates Baka with Bethel (Yahweh's first earthly house in the Bible, and like the summit of Mt Moriah a maqam Ibrahim). So 'Bethel' may be Baka (on the way to Jerusalem) and so one would need to add to your list all of the possible locations for Bethel.
Great to have Paul Ellis back on your channel Mel, some very interesting stuff to ponder over. But I have some questions. Paul Ellis Could you please let me know what translation you are using as it differs to Pickthall and Spencer, so I can marry up what you’re saying. Pickthall 2:144, 2:149-50, 2:191, 2:196 and 2:217 the term ‘inviolable place of worship’ is used. Spencer uses the term ‘Sacred Mosque’ in the above sura. Regarding Ibn Ishaq from Dr. J, Smith, I think what Dr, Jay Smith says brings into question anything associated with Ibn Ishaq. Sira: The Biography of Muhammad (570-632). 1. *Ibn Ishaq writes the first Sira in 765, however, there are problems: A. None of his material exists, which for such an important document is odd. B. He lived nowhere near Mecca. C. It is 133 years after Mohammad died. D. It’s not even in the same century as Mohammad. Is he a fictional figure like the Mohmmad of Islam? 2. **Ibn Hisham writes his Sira in 833, however, again there are problems. A. His work is supposedly based on ibn Ishaq’s Sira of which (as the stories go) he discounted a lot of ibn Ishaq’s work. B. None of ibn Ishaq’s Sira is to be found. C. He lived nowhere near Mecca. D. It is written 201 years after Muhammad’s death, and obviously not in the same century as Mohammad. *Me: I think he is probably a fictional figure to try and give credence to Ibn Isham’s work. **The Sira Muslims use today: the book ‘The Life of Muhammad’ which Muslims read today for the sira was actually put together by Heinrich Ferndinand Wustenfield, he complied the book of the Sira between 1858-1860 with texts from the Ottoman period and none can be traced back to Ibn Ishaq or Ibn Hisham. So, the Sira Muslims use today is only 164 years old put together in Germany!
An excellent insight I thought I would add my 2 cents regarding ibn ishaq. So historians in this field generally think that they was earlier works than ibn Hisham, why do they think this? well for a few reasons. In the work of ibn Hisham he quotes ibn Ishaq who's sirah does exist as a reconstruction from ibn Hisham and others. Ibn ishaq claims to acquire some information in a type of proto sirah by Urwah ibn al-Zubayr who died in 713. Naturally the information on Muhammad has to make it past Urwah ibn al-Zubayr's theological and political filter, and then past ibn ishaq's filter and finally past ibn Hisham's filter also. So a lot of information has doubtless been substracted and added. and in fairness ibn Hisham does say this in his introduction. Is this odd that these works no longer exist? Not really. These works are produced on perishable materials they would only exist by fluke conditions or from been copied by devotees. It may suprise some people but Herotodus, Tacitus, Livy, ctestus etc are all fully or in part reconstructed from what later historians are saying. We can be skeptical of all but we should not apply different rules in a ad-hoc manner. Unfortunately in the first few 2 centuries of islamic history information was thin on the ground, newer compilations added context and details which older versions had as a chief deficiency. This is the case in most nacent religions over time also. Frustrating yes but odd, not really.
Hi Simon. Thank you for the comment, and I am sorry for the delay in replying to it. I have only recently become aware that Mel had reposted this video from 2020. Re the Q translation,I then used The Study Quran, but my current practise is to use that as a base but leave key words and phrases untranslated, preferring explanatory notes invl a range of opinions/allusions to simple rendering in an English word which just always seems inadequate. Regarding the masjid al-haram, for example, I now think that this term (which almost only appears in surahs with a militaristic component) is an allusion to the biblical concept of God declaring a place to be 'herem,' i.e. dedicated to Himself and requiring of believers its purging from idolatry. Think the Amileks (+ compare with Q 9.5) or Jericho (incl sevenfold-circumambulation). Naturally Jebus (incl Jerusalem) was one of the biblically herem areas, the term only ever being used for regions of the land promised to Abraham. You can't fit all that meaning into one word!
@@PaulDdAEllis Mel has declared an intention to visit the Jerusalem connection so that's interesting. Did you ever update your paper and are you working on anything new? I would be interested to get a sneak peak.
I agree that the sira is almost 100% unreliable. It is not impossible that some bits may be true, but that is not much use if one has no way of telling which bits they are, and the instinctive approach to a narrative of saying 'the details may be wrong but there's probably a kernel of truth in it' is misleading here. The kernel is demonstrably false. It is only the details that may be correct. One set of details that I think may be correct are Muhammad's marriages to the daughters of Abu Bakr, Unar and Abu Sufyan and Uthman's consecutive marriages to two of Muhammad's daughters. I see no reason why anyone would have made it up, especially the latter, and it seems to fit a model in which Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman are allies to Muhammad rather than his devotees, allies that have given daughters to one another to secure compliance. That may also explain why Muhammad is said to have married the infanta Aisha. There may be other instances where the SIN may be considered likely to be correct, but these would have to be inconsistent with the thrust of the SIN and fit an alternative thesis for which there is independent evidence. The SIN itself is always da'if.
@CtrAltawesome Thank you for your comment. My thesis is that true believers in Muhammad's revelations died out in the North v quickly after the conquest of Jerusalem ~638 (and were probably assisted in this by Umar). In Yathrib they became a manuscript workshop producing Qur'ans (in Old Hijazi orthography, cf van Putten) which would have been luxury items showcasing the height of Arabic culture for wealthy Arab conquerors. Essentially the link you an oral memory was severed, which is how the Q verses came to be imagined on an imaginary Arabian Nights realm. I take your point about historians doing their best with inadequate source material, and ibn Ishaq may well have been doing the same. But the accounts of Tacitus etc have not been proven fundamentally false in the way that I believe the SIN has been.
Haram is also used in Rabbinical hebrew in the Mishna and the Talmud to reference the Temple and items consecrated to it Safa (with the letter tsadi) appears cognant to the hebrew Tsofe as in Har haTsofim, or Mount Scopus
Thank you Paul and Mel for your effort. Fully agree that "there is no evidence of *Saudi* Makkah's existence before 700 CE". (There are a few pointers to its being setup arount 800 CE.) However, the story of Makkah is not complete without taking into consideration the following points: * Al-Azraqi's account - which points to *the Makkah* ("a structure, rather than a place") at Petra * The kur-an itself has an expression for Makkah: _the be11y of Makkah_ (بطن مكة), which is an apt description for Petra. * According to the SIN, the Quraysh belonged to two lots: the *Quraysh that lived inside the belly,* (بطون قريش) and those who lived outside it. This points to Petra as well. * The first Abbasid caliph (who incidentally married a Himyarite princess, under what appears to be Jewish law) was from Jordan (according to the SIN). This again points to Arabia Petraea. * There are some special letters in the Arabic alphabet (e.g. ط) which the Arabs to this day struggle to pronounce. Saudi scholars have acknowledged that such letters come from Arabia Petraea.
Thank you for your comment and apologies that it has taken me this long to respond. I have a feeling that Petra does play a part in the story and I find that parts of Dan Gibson's thesis do make sense. It seems to me that the description of Mecca in Ibn Ishaq matches Petra well, and I find his suggestion that during the Second Fitna some people left the Umayyad Empire and went south, setting up a shrine with the 'Black Stone' is feasible. I do not, however, see any potential for DG's acceptance of the basic SIN and simply transposing it from Mecca onto Petra. The evidence of the text of the Qur'an and the historical sources that Muhamnad was exiled from and trying to capture Jerusalem is (IMO) far too strong.
@vicmath1005 Naturally I think I am right about everything (who ever thinks their opinion is wrong?) But I feel a huge debt of gratitude to everyone who has shared their views on this and helped to develop this discussion. Hopefully, one day we will solve the mystery I'm a way that people will accept and the human race will find itself in a better place.
@@PaulDdAEllis One more insignificant point: The Petra Kaaba had four starting points for the circumambulation: (a) Yemenite corner for the Himyarite Nazarenes, (b) Syrian corner for the Syrian Nazarenes, (c) Western corner for the Nazarenes from the west of the Red Sea, (d) the Black Stone corner for the (non-Nazarene) pagans. In 637 CE, the Nazarene Kaaba moved to Jerusalem (erected 637 CE by 'Umar, and subsequently renovated ca 690 CE). It has ONE starting point for circumambulation. The Petra Kaaba was abandoned by the Nazarenes. But it appears the pagans continued doing their circumambulation at Petra, with the starting point at the Black Stone corner. Ca 800 CE, the Saudi Makkah was built. The petra corners were replicated, with difference: instead of the Western corner, it got an Iraqi corner, symbolising the capital of the Abbasids. However, the starting point of the circumambulation continues to be the Black Stone corner.
"Haram" is a contronymic, because it pertains to the sacred. As such, it means "sacred", as in "sanction", "set apart", or "holy" (the etymological cousin), not "prohibited/forbidden", or "profane", it's opposite pole. This comes from the semitic/Hebrew "cherem", which means the same as above. There's no need for speculation: Its the Temple.
Thank you for your comment and my apologies for the late response. I only recently became aware that this video from 2020 had been reposted. My thinking has moved on a little in the last 4 years in several respects. Regarding the meaning of 'haram' you may be interested in the first reply I gave to Simon to his post in relation to this video.
Against every scholarly ruling, let us grant that Islam is 1400 years old: Available are many ancient maps on which there are many ancient cities - some cities dating back to 3000 B.C. (And those cities are still standing today.) How difficult can it be for Muslims to show us one (single) map that is carbon dated before the 10th century A.D. on which is the City of Mecca - the oldest city in human existence that is directly located underneath Paradise (original home of Islamic 90-feet tall Adam and Eve that has the “Fountain of Youth” called the Zamzam Well)?
Yes, it is kind of necessary as there may be some who haven't yet seen it. I will follow up with sections where Odon supports a Jerusalem connection, though obviously neither are suggesting Jerusalem is the sole geographical place of interest.
Marwa = Aramaic for Moriah Safa = Aramaic for the Latinate English "Scopus" the "sc-" would have been pronounced "Sh"; "Safa" is very close to the original Biblical Hebrew name for Scopus, הַר הַצּוֹפִים "Har ha TSofim (Sofim)" See Josephus.
Thank you for your comment and my apologies for the late response. I only recently became aware that this video from 2020 had been reposted. Essentially yes and no. To borrow and adapt the scheme of Volker Popp: Muhammad #1 (the longed for one) was an anticipated eschatological figure. based on the wording of Song of Songs and Exekiel (to a lesser extend Daniel). It was associated with the hopes for a messiah that would rebuild the Temple and usher in a utopian age of peace and justice. Christians and some others may associate the title with returning Jesus. Muhammad #2 (Mahmad, the historical warrior prophet) was the principal author of the Qur'an. He refers to himself by this title in the Q, and several historical sources (Sebeos, Jacob of Edessa, Thomas the Presbyter, etc) also refer to him by this name Mahmad. He dies before the fall of Jerusalem, and in fact it is his rival/ally Umar who enters Jerusalem for the Arabs. With Mahmad (M2)'s death before taking Jerusalem, it follows that he cannot have been the longed for messiah (M1). When Umayyad's created coins, inscriptions, etc they must have been using the word Mhmd to refer to the still longed-for messiah (whom some may well have expected to be Jesus returned.) Muhammad #3 (the Muhammad of legend) is the creation of Arabic story tellers, and later the Abbasid state to make sense of the Qur'an, at a time when any link to those who had once believed in Mahmad's prophethood and knew the truth of his failed campaign, was lost.
@@PaulDdAEllis Paul, thanks for your response. The only question I would have is how do you suppose that MHMD #2 is the author of the Koran? I look forward to hearing from you. ☺
@karenthompson1337 I find that the Qur'an is composed by a single principal author, but whether I am correct about that or not its divine voice talks frequently about a particular prophet or messenger (usually commanding believers to ovey him) whom it often addresses directly. This person is predicted as being ahmad by Quranic Jesus Q 61.6, and referred to in the text as Muhammad at least twice (Q 3.144 + Q 48.29; two occurrences of Mhmd Q 33.40 + Q 47.2 appear to me to be interpolations, although that too is evidence that this was how their prophet was referred to). In addition, several historical sources from the 7C refer to Muhammad, all of which refer to him fighting in Palestine and at least 1, Sebeos (c.661) describes him leading an alliance of Arabs and Jews in a religious war to seize the land God had promised to Abraham. Another tract, the Doctrina Iacobi (~630s?) refers to an unnamed false prophet who led Saracens and Jews 'mixed up together.' I find the chances of the author Sebeos being aware of the Doctrina Iacobi and expanding on the story fairly remote. So I conclude from the historical sources that there was a warlord prophet calling himself Muhammad fighting in Palestine in the 630s. And since the Qur'an appears to have been composed by a warlord-prophet IMO to support a campaign to capture and purify Jerusalem, it is a small step to say that this is the person referred to in the historical sources.
ḥaag or ḥaaj? In Hebrew, it is the former, of course. In Arabic, in some regions such as Egypt and Western Yemen (former Himyar), it is pronounced with a hrd 'g' - so ḥaag. In other Arabic-speaking places, it is ḥaaj.
Like Gabriel to Jabril, Goliath to Jalut, Gog & Magog to Yajuj & Majuj and Gehenna to Jahannam. The softening of the gimel seems a fairly regular feature of words moving from Hebrew to Arabic.
The ma'amad that commanded the arab conquests was the ruling council of Jewish elders, a sort of Sanhedrin. Right now I am equating Qabisa and his son Iyas ibn Qabisa to Hushiel and Nehemiah ben Hushiel. Both sets were Khosrows buddies. Khosrow appointed Iyas governor of Al Hira in 614, and appointed Nehemiah governor of Jerusalem in 614. Nehemiah was killed in 617, Iyas ceased to be governor of Al Hira in 617. Iyas was a cousin of Hani, Hushiel was the brother of Haneman. The Quraysh were in charge of the ka'ba, the Korathites were in charge of the Temple. The Mohammedans did pilgrimage to see the Caliph in Baghdad aka Madinat as salam (Tudela), in a palace that bore the traditional burial place of the Quraysh- the exilarch lived at Nahar Malka (changed to Makka). The stories go on and on. Islam is Judaism for non- ethnic jews, the shlamim, Muslamai. After writing the Talmud and the gemara, the Jewish yeshivot of sura and pumbedita embarked on scripture for the muslamai. Qabisa and Umar were both Rosh al ma'amad - head of council. This filtered to the outside world as Mahamad, Mahomet, Mehmet. Sebeos and Thomas etc only wrote from hearsay. Check everything that I have w
How about Bosra the former Nabatean Trade centre and documented first target of Arabs when attacking Trinitarian Byzantines. If you are constructing an Arab Abrahamic religion you pick a the old ceremonial capital relating to you location - Petra - and it does not have to be active even if usage for paganism long gone. Bosra and Petra come as a Nabatean pair once whatever went on in Jerusalem failed. Note that as it later became a main pilgrimage caravan stop when Mecca did exist much later, it would be easier to switch its association with change of regime.
A couple of questions for you Mel. 1.If Jerusalem is Mecca,where do you feel all the early "caliphs" were/lived.Or was it various towns/cities. 2.Regarding your Iraqi thesis,do you now think everything/evidence led there because the Abassids created Islam.
There is absolutely no non Muslim evidence for the rightly guided caliphs, their lives or actions. There is evidence as Mel has stated for Arab leaders beginning with the rise of the Arabs in 617AD - notably Iyas bin Qadisa of the Tayyayye tribe, then Umar immediately after (note his actual leadership does not align with the SIN ( standard Islamic narrative) then Arab leader Al-Walid peaceably took control of Damascus in 635AD, Muawiya was next from 640 and he declared himself the first Caliph in 651AD thru 680 AD. History, including recently translated Chinese accounts from the contemporary Tang court, attests to these leaders.
As a point of clarification I have never proposed that Jerusslem is Mecca. I argue thst is the place that the Q refers to as the masjid al haram, maqam Ibrahim, house of Allah, Kaaba and mother of cities. But Q 48 states that Macca is a valley on the way to the masjid al haram so it cannot *be* the masjid al haram. This is also BTW an argument as to why Makka (Q 48.24) cannot be Mecca in KSA.
So. Adam and Eve built the first city on earth in Mecca, presumably they had a water source, built a kaaba and homes for all the people who came after them. So. Hagar arrives there, she finds no one. She has no water. This is when Jibril stamps his foot and the Zam Zam spring is created just 60 feet from the kaaba (hmm a jinn/demon or angel creates…?) Why couldn’t Hagar just go and knock on doors for help? Yup. Simply another Islamic conundrum! 🤣🤣🤣
The hadith on which the traditional account that Abraham brought Hagar and Ishmael to Mecca is based, states that the Kaba is already there, but does not give any explanation what it is or how it got there. Presumably from what happens next it is perceived as a relic from an abandoned settlement, but this still raises the question what that abandoned settlement had done for a water supply.
Re the events noted in 661, the leader of the Arabs had been Muawiya, I believe, from 640, (he declared himself caliph in 652 and ruled to 680) was he called Mohammad, or was he called MHMD in the Psuedo-Sebeos account?
@@abj136 Correct. I used it to stay in the SIN. The Arabs, according to the Chinese Tang Court (which the Arabs maintained contact with for centuries beginning with the first Arab emissary August 25, 651 A.D.), said the Arabs called their leader a 'king'. Altho this date coincides with the Standard Islamic Narrative saying that Uthman was Caliph then, the detailed Tang court records note no such mention of this man/name. They called themselves Taziks, which was the name of their tribe, along with the Tayyayye. Chinese sources describe the Tāzīks (from a house of camel herders to the Persian king) as originating from the West of Persia indicating Syria, rather than south. Vanquishing many peoples and towns, they had existed as a country for thirty-four years. Then, leading a rebellion under divine guidance, they conquered Persia and expanded into a powerful nation. The third Arab king, surname Tazik, was in power at the time of the first envoy visit. Persians were known as Bosi ren to the Chinese. According to Chinese sources, the Tāzīk state was founded around 617 A.D., aligning with a rebellion against the Persians, though this differs from Islamic accounts of the rise of Muhammad and the Arab empire.
Calif means successor, abd al-malik has the title first on coins and also uses amir al-muminin, commander of the believers. However in Syriac chronicles he says Muawiya was a successor. Doesn't use the term calif but he was a successor of this movement although no evidence exists he called himself that.
@@PaulDdAEllis yes I agree, you could do with reading a little islamic history Paul as they is pointers like the curious tale of ibn sa'd. A scribe in tabari who left islam because he was able to insert whatever he wanted while Muhammad was dictating. He later rejoined Islam after the Meccan conquest. Now traditional scholars say this is not true, as if they claim anything else, But how on earth did that story start in the first place?
Mel, Paul thanks a lot. I have gathered nearly 80% to show who Muhammad' was. As a tip, the constitution of Medina article 23 reads, "in case of any disagreement between you, ask God or (the) Mhmd". The mhmd should have been immortal to be constitutional. We also know that Nehemiah b Hushiel was killed with his mhmd. So, you now know that mhmd was not a person. Abu Bakr al Sadiq ruled from al Hira, Ali from Kufa, all the Umayyads from Damascus, the Abbasids from Baghdad. Where is the Hijaz?
Makes sense, yet Sharia law does “ask the Mhmd” because they have written up a vast collection of stories and sayings of their prophet which they consult to find answers to disputes.
We can speculate that mhmd was a title, but the fact is evidence points to this been a name. If mhmd was a title the person claiming that has to demonstrate why several Arabic grammatical rules are broken in just this one instance, and never again. The grammar is consistent with Muhammad been a name. We also know of other people contemporary who also have the name Muhammad.
Originally the kaaba was in Jerusalem, not in Mecca, and it was jewish. We have to remember that the quran was originally a preaching book of the Nazarenes (called "nasara" (نَصَرَ) in the quran) who were a jewish-christian sect (a "heretical" one for regular byzantine christians since they did not believe in Jesus divinity nor in Trinity). As Jews they practiced pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and their ultimate goal was to go to Salomon's temple. The Holy of Holies was located at the westernmost end of the Temple building and was a cube: 20 cubits by 20 cubits by 20 cubits. The inside was in darkness and contained the Ark of the Covenant. And it was located at the actual location of the Dome of the rock in Jerusalem. So originally the kaaba was in Jerusalem, not in Mecca, and it was jewish. This is also why the first mosques had their qiblas directed to Jerusalem and not to Mecca.
@@urbandsouza7279 One reason could be (hypothesis) that the arabs chose Petra as first alternative to Jerusalem, then for some reasons, maybe some internal conflicts, they finally chose Mecca which is farther away south. Another reason could be that Petra being not very far from Jerusalem (ca 200 kms), the mosque builders did not have the precision tools we have today to measure the exact direction of qiblas ??
@@urbandsouza7279 Neither Petra nor Mecca were important, what was important for the caliphs was to create a new religion for the new arab empire with a book (quran), a city (mecca) and a prophet (muhammad). So they invented all this to serve their interests and power.
Who is or was Muhammad? Ahmad, was it Al-Mahi, meaning the eraser? Or Qutham, the Son of the Slave of Al-Lat, and Al-Lat... Muhammad father name Abdullah ibn Abd al-Muttalib, meaning the slave of Allah. So is al-lat Allah? meaning Goddess of war, peace, combat, and prosperity!! Allat meaning, a pre-Islamic Arabian goddess personifying the sun and considered to be a daughter of Allah. Islam did destroy history and created a false timeline! It seems they still worshipping deities of pre-Islam going off the main players for the titles giving to these fictional people. Then over 200-600 years they kept making and changing the story in the 30 plus Qurans to give them a story of pre-Islamic times from books like book of Thomas, Alexsandra the Great, Torah, even stories that were bedtime stories for the children, not to mention stories relating to Hinduism as well but I suppose Allah was also the Lord shiva, they share some traditions. Since the rise of Islam, they destroyed a lot of history as they conquered cities and villages to create a false timeline. No where in history tell us who this Muhammad meaning "praised one " was by name, only titles that goes back to Allah and the 3 daughters as you can see the deity in their names! Looks like to me they just stole stories to give their sin god the crescent moon a story line to make it like the biblical stories but failed big time. Devil in the details. Sin, in Mesopotamian religion, the god of the moon. Sin was the father of the sun god, Shamash (Sumerian: Utu), and, in some myths, of Ishtar (Sumerian: Inanna), goddess of Venus, and with them formed an astral triad of deities. Sin is considered a member of the special class of Mesopotamian gods called the Anunnaki. Nanna, the Sumerian name for the moon god, may have originally meant only the full moon, whereas Su-en, later contracted to Sin, designated the crescent moon.
@@CtrAltawesome Nope just look at the title the name came from, if Muhammad name was Al-Mahi, then you can see their method in the madness, Mahi is one of the three goddesses Ila, Saraswati and Mahi who are described as tisro devir mayobhuvah, the three goddesses born of delight or Ananda, and her companions being goddesses of knowledge, children of Mahas, she also must be a goddess of knowledge, fits the Islamic knowledge nicely, slaves of Allah just titles that go back to goddesses or god of sin which is the god Islam call Allah the crescent moon hence it's still on show and worshiped, the cube was to do with Al-lat which they gave Muhammad the title in his name but he is a she a goddess that was worshiped near Mecca as a black cube. So, I'm saying your prophet is a woman not a man, a box cube.
@@bobfisher1909 Lloyd de Jong nonsense. Everybody knows that the names people ascribed to god are different from the attributes of the nameless diety. Otherwise Christians should be worshiping ashera yahwehs wife along side like people used to do in the book of kings. Names of dietys are used the concepts are what changed for Jews Christians and later Muslims.
![[UNCUT] The Loyal Pin ปิ่นภักดิ์ EP.15 (1/4)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TLBjiHvkKtE/mqdefault.jpg)
![[UNCUT] The Loyal Pin ปิ่นภักดิ์ EP.15 (2/4)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qbHbshrA1f0/mqdefault.jpg)
Excellent! Read the Qur'an carefully, and you discover that the description of the "mother of cities" does not describe dry, barren Mecca at all. It DOES fit Jerusalem, however.
Hahaha.. Twisted history.. God loves you but what is written in your books are all jumbled of history and lies.. A collection of stories that was not understood by your said prophets about the jews. Christianity.. Buddhism.. Hinduism... Your religion comes after this.. So what is your claim.. The name Jerusalem itself is Hebrew and everything in Israel the promise Land given by God to the jews.. I'm a Christian but I don't deny history and history speak itself from the Bible.. Islamic books doesn't have any evidence even in stones.. Study the Bible and history and go to the holy land so that you can see the truth.
Sorry for delay replying, I only recently became aware that this video had been reposted.
Yes. In the ancient world Mother City (from which we get Metropolis) had a technical meaning of a city whose inhabitants had founded colonies elsewhere. In the first century, Philo of Alexandria had twice written about Jerusalem as the mother city to Jewish 'colonies' around the middle east (presenting, to some extent, the negative of the Jewish diaspora, that had begun with the Babylonian Captivity into a positive.)
Even in the Islamic tradition, Mecca had no colonies. I would say for the v good reason that it didn't exist.
@@PaulDdAEllis , good points all.
Yet Melchezdech was already worshiping God Most High in Salem. Also whats Abraham doing in a deadzone with presumably herds of dying sheep and goats that have no water and hundreds of helpers who would also have absolutely no water to drink?
Now I wonder whether the place mentioned on the maps today: Al-Baqa'a could be the same as "Bakka", as this seems to be a valley or a high pasture. And according to today's measurements, it would take about 4 hours to reach the Temple Mount on foot from there. This would explain the underlying joy in the Psalm, as one is getting closer to one's goal, the Temple.
I think there is pretty much a consensus amongst revisionists that Bak(k)a in Q is an allusion to Baka in Psalm 84. This of course fits my Jerusalem thesis well, since it was symbolic of 'getting there.'
Where precisely it was, I have no views, but I do wonder if the Q's reference to the 'first house at Baka' conflates Baka with Bethel (Yahweh's first earthly house in the Bible, and like the summit of Mt Moriah a maqam Ibrahim). So 'Bethel' may be Baka (on the way to Jerusalem) and so one would need to add to your list all of the possible locations for Bethel.
Awesome..
I am glad you liked it. This was 4 years ago. My thinking has move on a lot since then, and perhaps I could revisit this topic with Mel some time.
John of Damascus, was the one who eventually, mentioned that the muhammad mentioned in the 8th century was the one the muslims were talking about
The mountain that mohammed was reputed to have gone to was in fact a great steaming pile of lies!
Mel. I am not expecting you to answer my questions, I am posing them for others’ consideration.
Great to have Paul Ellis back on your channel Mel, some very interesting stuff to ponder over.
But I have some questions.
Paul Ellis Could you please let me know what translation you are using as it differs to Pickthall and Spencer, so I can marry up what you’re saying.
Pickthall
2:144, 2:149-50, 2:191, 2:196 and 2:217 the term ‘inviolable place of worship’ is used.
Spencer uses the term ‘Sacred Mosque’ in the above sura.
Regarding Ibn Ishaq from Dr. J, Smith, I think what Dr, Jay Smith says brings into question anything associated with Ibn Ishaq.
Sira: The Biography of Muhammad (570-632).
1. *Ibn Ishaq writes the first Sira in 765, however, there are problems:
A. None of his material exists, which for such an important document is odd.
B. He lived nowhere near Mecca.
C. It is 133 years after Mohammad died.
D. It’s not even in the same century as Mohammad.
Is he a fictional figure like the Mohmmad of Islam?
2. **Ibn Hisham writes his Sira in 833, however, again there are problems.
A. His work is supposedly based on ibn Ishaq’s Sira of which (as the stories go) he discounted a lot of ibn Ishaq’s work.
B. None of ibn Ishaq’s Sira is to be found.
C. He lived nowhere near Mecca.
D. It is written 201 years after Muhammad’s death, and obviously not in the same century as Mohammad.
*Me: I think he is probably a fictional figure to try and give credence to Ibn Isham’s work.
**The Sira Muslims use today: the book ‘The Life of Muhammad’ which Muslims read today for the sira was actually put together by Heinrich Ferndinand Wustenfield, he complied the book of the Sira between 1858-1860 with texts from the Ottoman period and none can be traced back to Ibn Ishaq or Ibn Hisham. So, the Sira Muslims use today is only 164 years old put together in Germany!
An excellent insight I thought I would add my 2 cents regarding ibn ishaq.
So historians in this field generally think that they was earlier works than ibn Hisham, why do they think this? well for a few reasons. In the work of ibn Hisham he quotes ibn Ishaq who's sirah does exist as a reconstruction from ibn Hisham and others.
Ibn ishaq claims to acquire some information in a type of proto sirah by Urwah ibn al-Zubayr who died in 713.
Naturally the information on Muhammad has to make it past Urwah ibn al-Zubayr's theological and political filter, and then past ibn ishaq's filter and finally past ibn Hisham's filter also. So a lot of information has doubtless been substracted and added. and in fairness ibn Hisham does say this in his introduction.
Is this odd that these works no longer exist? Not really. These works are produced on perishable materials they would only exist by fluke conditions or from been copied by devotees. It may suprise some people but Herotodus, Tacitus, Livy, ctestus etc are all fully or in part reconstructed from what later historians are saying. We can be skeptical of all but we should not apply different rules in a ad-hoc manner.
Unfortunately in the first few 2 centuries of islamic history information was thin on the ground, newer compilations added context and details which older versions had as a chief deficiency. This is the case in most nacent religions over time also. Frustrating yes but odd, not really.
Hi Simon. Thank you for the comment, and I am sorry for the delay in replying to it. I have only recently become aware that Mel had reposted this video from 2020.
Re the Q translation,I then used The Study Quran, but my current practise is to use that as a base but leave key words and phrases untranslated, preferring explanatory notes invl a range of opinions/allusions to simple rendering in an English word which just always seems inadequate. Regarding the masjid al-haram, for example, I now think that this term (which almost only appears in surahs with a militaristic component) is an allusion to the biblical concept of God declaring a place to be 'herem,' i.e. dedicated to Himself and requiring of believers its purging from idolatry.
Think the Amileks (+ compare with Q 9.5) or Jericho (incl sevenfold-circumambulation). Naturally Jebus (incl Jerusalem) was one of the biblically herem areas, the term only ever being used for regions of the land promised to Abraham. You can't fit all that meaning into one word!
@@PaulDdAEllis Mel has declared an intention to visit the Jerusalem connection so that's interesting. Did you ever update your paper and are you working on anything new? I would be interested to get a sneak peak.
I agree that the sira is almost 100% unreliable. It is not impossible that some bits may be true, but that is not much use if one has no way of telling which bits they are, and the instinctive approach to a narrative of saying 'the details may be wrong but there's probably a kernel of truth in it' is misleading here. The kernel is demonstrably false. It is only the details that may be correct.
One set of details that I think may be correct are Muhammad's marriages to the daughters of Abu Bakr, Unar and Abu Sufyan and Uthman's consecutive marriages to two of Muhammad's daughters. I see no reason why anyone would have made it up, especially the latter, and it seems to fit a model in which Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman are allies to Muhammad rather than his devotees, allies that have given daughters to one another to secure compliance. That may also explain why Muhammad is said to have married the infanta Aisha.
There may be other instances where the SIN may be considered likely to be correct, but these would have to be inconsistent with the thrust of the SIN and fit an alternative thesis for which there is independent evidence. The SIN itself is always da'if.
@CtrAltawesome Thank you for your comment. My thesis is that true believers in Muhammad's revelations died out in the North v quickly after the conquest of Jerusalem ~638 (and were probably assisted in this by Umar).
In Yathrib they became a manuscript workshop producing Qur'ans (in Old Hijazi orthography, cf van Putten) which would have been luxury items showcasing the height of Arabic culture for wealthy Arab conquerors. Essentially the link you an oral memory was severed, which is how the Q verses came to be imagined on an imaginary Arabian Nights realm.
I take your point about historians doing their best with inadequate source material, and ibn Ishaq may well have been doing the same. But the accounts of Tacitus etc have not been proven fundamentally false in the way that I believe the SIN has been.
Haram is also used in Rabbinical hebrew in the Mishna and the Talmud to reference the Temple and items consecrated to it
Safa (with the letter tsadi) appears cognant to the hebrew Tsofe as in Har haTsofim, or Mount Scopus
Thank you Paul and Mel for your effort.
Fully agree that "there is no evidence of *Saudi* Makkah's existence before 700 CE".
(There are a few pointers to its being setup arount 800 CE.)
However, the story of Makkah is not complete without taking into consideration the following points:
* Al-Azraqi's account - which points to *the Makkah* ("a structure, rather than a place") at Petra
* The kur-an itself has an expression for Makkah: _the be11y of Makkah_ (بطن مكة), which is an apt description for Petra.
* According to the SIN, the Quraysh belonged to two lots: the *Quraysh that lived inside the belly,* (بطون قريش) and those who lived outside it. This points to Petra as well.
* The first Abbasid caliph (who incidentally married a Himyarite princess, under what appears to be Jewish law) was from Jordan (according to the SIN). This again points to Arabia Petraea.
* There are some special letters in the Arabic alphabet (e.g. ط) which the Arabs to this day struggle to pronounce. Saudi scholars have acknowledged that such letters come from Arabia Petraea.
Thank you for your comment and apologies that it has taken me this long to respond.
I have a feeling that Petra does play a part in the story and I find that parts of Dan Gibson's thesis do make sense. It seems to me that the description of Mecca in Ibn Ishaq matches Petra well, and I find his suggestion that during the Second Fitna some people left the Umayyad Empire and went south, setting up a shrine with the 'Black Stone' is feasible.
I do not, however, see any potential for DG's acceptance of the basic SIN and simply transposing it from Mecca onto Petra. The evidence of the text of the Qur'an and the historical sources that Muhamnad was exiled from and trying to capture Jerusalem is (IMO) far too strong.
I wish that someone would publish an English translation of Al-Azraqi!
@@PaulDdAEllis Thank you Paul for the explanation. I agree with your point on DG's acceptance of the basic SIN. But perhaps he wanted to play safe :)
@vicmath1005 Naturally I think I am right about everything (who ever thinks their opinion is wrong?) But I feel a huge debt of gratitude to everyone who has shared their views on this and helped to develop this discussion.
Hopefully, one day we will solve the mystery I'm a way that people will accept and the human race will find itself in a better place.
@@PaulDdAEllis One more insignificant point:
The Petra Kaaba had four starting points for the circumambulation: (a) Yemenite corner for the Himyarite Nazarenes, (b) Syrian corner for the Syrian Nazarenes, (c) Western corner for the Nazarenes from the west of the Red Sea, (d) the Black Stone corner for the (non-Nazarene) pagans.
In 637 CE, the Nazarene Kaaba moved to Jerusalem (erected 637 CE by 'Umar, and subsequently renovated ca 690 CE). It has ONE starting point for circumambulation.
The Petra Kaaba was abandoned by the Nazarenes. But it appears the pagans continued doing their circumambulation at Petra, with the starting point at the Black Stone corner.
Ca 800 CE, the Saudi Makkah was built. The petra corners were replicated, with difference: instead of the Western corner, it got an Iraqi corner, symbolising the capital of the Abbasids. However, the starting point of the circumambulation continues to be the Black Stone corner.
Little Sir Echo!
"Haram" is a contronymic, because it pertains to the sacred. As such, it means "sacred", as in "sanction", "set apart", or "holy" (the etymological cousin), not "prohibited/forbidden", or "profane", it's opposite pole. This comes from the semitic/Hebrew "cherem", which means the same as above.
There's no need for speculation: Its the Temple.
Thank you for your comment and my apologies for the late response. I only recently became aware that this video from 2020 had been reposted.
My thinking has moved on a little in the last 4 years in several respects. Regarding the meaning of 'haram' you may be interested in the first reply I gave to Simon to his post in relation to this video.
Against every scholarly ruling, let us grant that Islam is 1400 years old: Available are many ancient maps on which there are many ancient cities - some cities dating back to 3000 B.C. (And those cities are still standing today.) How difficult can it be for Muslims to show us one (single) map that is carbon dated before the 10th century A.D. on which is the City of Mecca - the oldest city in human existence that is directly located underneath Paradise (original home of Islamic 90-feet tall Adam and Eve that has the “Fountain of Youth” called the Zamzam Well)?
To paraphrase Paddington (I think) the more they look, the more it isn't there.
First!!😊
And second, I believe.
Oh. This will be a good review before you bring on your new series.
Yes, it is kind of necessary as there may be some who haven't yet seen it. I will follow up with sections where Odon supports a Jerusalem connection, though obviously neither are suggesting Jerusalem is the sole geographical place of interest.
Marwa = Aramaic for Moriah
Safa = Aramaic for the Latinate English "Scopus" the "sc-" would have been pronounced "Sh"; "Safa" is very close to the original Biblical Hebrew name for Scopus, הַר הַצּוֹפִים "Har ha TSofim (Sofim)"
See Josephus.
True, now asserted inter alia by Shoemaker.
Does Paul believe Mohammad existed? What does he think of the MHMD?
Thank you for your comment and my apologies for the late response. I only recently became aware that this video from 2020 had been reposted.
Essentially yes and no. To borrow and adapt the scheme of Volker Popp:
Muhammad #1 (the longed for one) was an anticipated eschatological figure. based on the wording of Song of Songs and Exekiel (to a lesser extend Daniel). It was associated with the hopes for a messiah that would rebuild the Temple and usher in a utopian age of peace and justice. Christians and some others may associate the title with returning Jesus.
Muhammad #2 (Mahmad, the historical warrior prophet) was the principal author of the Qur'an. He refers to himself by this title in the Q, and several historical sources (Sebeos, Jacob of Edessa, Thomas the Presbyter, etc) also refer to him by this name Mahmad. He dies before the fall of Jerusalem, and in fact it is his rival/ally Umar who enters Jerusalem for the Arabs.
With Mahmad (M2)'s death before taking Jerusalem, it follows that he cannot have been the longed for messiah (M1). When Umayyad's created coins, inscriptions, etc they must have been using the word Mhmd to refer to the still longed-for messiah (whom some may well have expected to be Jesus returned.)
Muhammad #3 (the Muhammad of legend) is the creation of Arabic story tellers, and later the Abbasid state to make sense of the Qur'an, at a time when any link to those who had once believed in Mahmad's prophethood and knew the truth of his failed campaign, was lost.
@@PaulDdAEllis Paul, thanks for your response. The only question I would have is how do you suppose that MHMD #2 is the author of the Koran? I look forward to hearing from you. ☺
@karenthompson1337 I find that the Qur'an is composed by a single principal author, but whether I am correct about that or not its divine voice talks frequently about a particular prophet or messenger (usually commanding believers to ovey him) whom it often addresses directly. This person is predicted as being ahmad by Quranic Jesus Q 61.6, and referred to in the text as Muhammad at least twice (Q 3.144 + Q 48.29; two occurrences of Mhmd Q 33.40 + Q 47.2 appear to me to be interpolations, although that too is evidence that this was how their prophet was referred to).
In addition, several historical sources from the 7C refer to Muhammad, all of which refer to him fighting in Palestine and at least 1, Sebeos (c.661) describes him leading an alliance of Arabs and Jews in a religious war to seize the land God had promised to Abraham. Another tract, the Doctrina Iacobi (~630s?) refers to an unnamed false prophet who led Saracens and Jews 'mixed up together.' I find the chances of the author Sebeos being aware of the Doctrina Iacobi and expanding on the story fairly remote.
So I conclude from the historical sources that there was a warlord prophet calling himself Muhammad fighting in Palestine in the 630s. And since the Qur'an appears to have been composed by a warlord-prophet IMO to support a campaign to capture and purify Jerusalem, it is a small step to say that this is the person referred to in the historical sources.
ḥaag or ḥaaj?
In Hebrew, it is the former, of course.
In Arabic, in some regions such as Egypt and Western Yemen (former Himyar), it is pronounced with a hrd 'g' - so ḥaag.
In other Arabic-speaking places, it is ḥaaj.
Like Gabriel to Jabril, Goliath to Jalut, Gog & Magog to Yajuj & Majuj and Gehenna to Jahannam. The softening of the gimel seems a fairly regular feature of words moving from Hebrew to Arabic.
The ma'amad that commanded the arab conquests was the ruling council of Jewish elders, a sort of Sanhedrin. Right now I am equating Qabisa and his son Iyas ibn Qabisa to Hushiel and Nehemiah ben Hushiel. Both sets were Khosrows buddies. Khosrow appointed Iyas governor of Al Hira in 614, and appointed Nehemiah governor of Jerusalem in 614. Nehemiah was killed in 617, Iyas ceased to be governor of Al Hira in 617. Iyas was a cousin of Hani, Hushiel was the brother of Haneman. The Quraysh were in charge of the ka'ba, the Korathites were in charge of the Temple.
The Mohammedans did pilgrimage to see the Caliph in Baghdad aka Madinat as salam (Tudela), in a palace that bore the traditional burial place of the Quraysh- the exilarch lived at Nahar Malka (changed to Makka).
The stories go on and on. Islam is Judaism for non- ethnic jews, the shlamim, Muslamai.
After writing the Talmud and the gemara, the Jewish yeshivot of sura and pumbedita embarked on scripture for the muslamai. Qabisa and Umar were both Rosh al ma'amad - head of council. This filtered to the outside world as Mahamad, Mahomet, Mehmet. Sebeos and Thomas etc only wrote from hearsay.
Check everything that I have w
How about Bosra the former Nabatean Trade centre and documented first target of Arabs when attacking Trinitarian Byzantines. If you are constructing an Arab Abrahamic religion you pick a the old ceremonial capital relating to you location - Petra - and it does not have to be active even if usage for paganism long gone. Bosra and Petra come as a Nabatean pair once whatever went on in Jerusalem failed. Note that as it later became a main pilgrimage caravan stop when Mecca did exist much later, it would be easier to switch its association with change of regime.
A couple of questions for you Mel.
1.If Jerusalem is Mecca,where do you feel all the early "caliphs" were/lived.Or was it various towns/cities.
2.Regarding your Iraqi thesis,do you now think everything/evidence led there because the Abassids created Islam.
There is absolutely no non Muslim evidence for the rightly guided caliphs, their lives or actions. There is evidence as Mel has stated for Arab leaders beginning with the rise of the Arabs in 617AD - notably Iyas bin Qadisa of the Tayyayye tribe, then Umar immediately after (note his actual leadership does not align with the SIN ( standard Islamic narrative) then Arab leader Al-Walid peaceably took control of Damascus in 635AD, Muawiya was next from 640 and he declared himself the first Caliph in 651AD thru 680 AD. History, including recently translated Chinese accounts from the contemporary Tang court, attests to these leaders.
1. Damascus, then Baghdad. 2. Abbasids left their fingerprints there, yes.
As a point of clarification I have never proposed that Jerusslem is Mecca. I argue thst is the place that the Q refers to as the masjid al haram, maqam Ibrahim, house of Allah, Kaaba and mother of cities. But Q 48 states that Macca is a valley on the way to the masjid al haram so it cannot *be* the masjid al haram. This is also BTW an argument as to why Makka (Q 48.24) cannot be Mecca in KSA.
So. Adam and Eve built the first city on earth in Mecca, presumably they had a water source, built a kaaba and homes for all the people who came after them. So. Hagar arrives there, she finds no one. She has no water. This is when Jibril stamps his foot and the Zam Zam spring is created just 60 feet from the kaaba (hmm a jinn/demon or angel creates…?) Why couldn’t Hagar just go and knock on doors for help? Yup. Simply another Islamic conundrum! 🤣🤣🤣
Exactly!
Adam and Eve built a city? Not sure what tradition that is.
The hadith on which the traditional account that Abraham brought Hagar and Ishmael to Mecca is based, states that the Kaba is already there, but does not give any explanation what it is or how it got there. Presumably from what happens next it is perceived as a relic from an abandoned settlement, but this still raises the question what that abandoned settlement had done for a water supply.
Re the events noted in 661, the leader of the Arabs had been Muawiya, I believe, from 640, (he declared himself caliph in 652 and ruled to 680) was he called Mohammad, or was he called MHMD in the Psuedo-Sebeos account?
I was told ‘caliph’ was not used for the ruler at this time.
@@abj136 Correct. I used it to stay in the SIN. The Arabs, according to the Chinese Tang Court (which the Arabs maintained contact with for centuries beginning with the first Arab emissary August 25, 651 A.D.), said the Arabs called their leader a 'king'. Altho this date coincides with the Standard Islamic Narrative saying that Uthman was Caliph then, the detailed Tang court records note no such mention of this man/name. They called themselves Taziks, which was the name of their tribe, along with the Tayyayye. Chinese sources describe the Tāzīks (from a house of camel herders to the Persian king) as originating from the West of Persia indicating Syria, rather than south. Vanquishing many peoples and towns, they had existed as a country for thirty-four years. Then, leading a rebellion under divine guidance, they conquered Persia and expanded into a powerful nation. The third Arab king, surname Tazik, was in power at the time of the first envoy visit. Persians were known as Bosi ren to the Chinese. According to Chinese sources, the Tāzīk state was founded around 617 A.D., aligning with a rebellion against the Persians, though this differs from Islamic accounts of the rise of Muhammad and the Arab empire.
Calif means successor, abd al-malik has the title first on coins and also uses amir al-muminin, commander of the believers. However in Syriac chronicles he says Muawiya was a successor. Doesn't use the term calif but he was a successor of this movement although no evidence exists he called himself that.
I am aware of no evidence that anyone other than the Q author claimed to be Muhammad.
@@PaulDdAEllis yes I agree, you could do with reading a little islamic history Paul as they is pointers like the curious tale of ibn sa'd. A scribe in tabari who left islam because he was able to insert whatever he wanted while Muhammad was dictating. He later rejoined Islam after the Meccan conquest. Now traditional scholars say this is not true, as if they claim anything else, But how on earth did that story start in the first place?
Mel, Paul thanks a lot. I have gathered nearly 80% to show who Muhammad' was. As a tip, the constitution of Medina article 23 reads, "in case of any disagreement between you, ask God or (the) Mhmd". The mhmd should have been immortal to be constitutional.
We also know that Nehemiah b Hushiel was killed with his mhmd. So, you now know that mhmd was not a person.
Abu Bakr al Sadiq ruled from al Hira, Ali from Kufa, all the Umayyads from Damascus, the Abbasids from Baghdad. Where is the Hijaz?
Makes sense, yet Sharia law does “ask the Mhmd” because they have written up a vast collection of stories and sayings of their prophet which they consult to find answers to disputes.
We can speculate that mhmd was a title, but the fact is evidence points to this been a name. If mhmd was a title the person claiming that has to demonstrate why several Arabic grammatical rules are broken in just this one instance, and never again. The grammar is consistent with Muhammad been a name. We also know of other people contemporary who also have the name Muhammad.
Originally the kaaba was in Jerusalem, not in Mecca, and it was jewish.
We have to remember that the quran was originally a preaching book of the Nazarenes (called "nasara" (نَصَرَ) in the quran) who were a jewish-christian sect (a "heretical" one for regular byzantine christians since they did not believe in Jesus divinity nor in Trinity).
As Jews they practiced pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and their ultimate goal was to go to Salomon's temple.
The Holy of Holies was located at the westernmost end of the Temple building and was a cube: 20 cubits by 20 cubits by 20 cubits. The inside was in darkness and contained the Ark of the Covenant. And it was located at the actual location of the Dome of the rock in Jerusalem.
So originally the kaaba was in Jerusalem, not in Mecca, and it was jewish.
This is also why the first mosques had their qiblas directed to Jerusalem and not to Mecca.
Dan gibson put in petra why
@@urbandsouza7279
One reason could be (hypothesis) that the arabs chose Petra as first alternative to Jerusalem, then for some reasons, maybe some internal conflicts, they finally chose Mecca which is farther away south.
Another reason could be that Petra being not very far from Jerusalem (ca 200 kms), the mosque builders did not have the precision tools we have today to measure the exact direction of qiblas
??
@jeangatti9384 what is the significance of petra for them .
@@urbandsouza7279
Neither Petra nor Mecca were important, what was important for the caliphs was to create a new religion for the new arab empire with a book (quran), a city (mecca) and a prophet (muhammad).
So they invented all this to serve their interests and power.
@@jeangatti9384 do u think they planned it or swim with the flow.
Mel,if jerusalem then why dan gibson say petra and he makes own conclusion
His margin of error is huge. Dealt with it lots of times before.
Who is or was Muhammad? Ahmad, was it Al-Mahi, meaning the eraser? Or Qutham, the Son of the Slave of Al-Lat, and Al-Lat...
Muhammad father name Abdullah ibn Abd al-Muttalib, meaning the slave of Allah.
So is al-lat Allah? meaning Goddess of war, peace, combat, and prosperity!!
Allat meaning, a pre-Islamic Arabian goddess personifying the sun and considered to be a daughter of Allah.
Islam did destroy history and created a false timeline!
It seems they still worshipping deities of pre-Islam going off the main players for the titles giving to these fictional people. Then over 200-600 years they kept making and changing the story in the 30 plus Qurans to give them a story of pre-Islamic times from books like book of Thomas, Alexsandra the Great, Torah, even stories that were bedtime stories for the children, not to mention stories relating to Hinduism as well but I suppose Allah was also the Lord shiva, they share some traditions. Since the rise of Islam, they destroyed a lot of history as they conquered cities and villages to create a false timeline. No where in history tell us who this Muhammad meaning "praised one " was by name, only titles that goes back to Allah and the 3 daughters as you can see the deity in their names! Looks like to me they just stole stories to give their sin god the crescent moon a story line to make it like the biblical stories but failed big time. Devil in the details.
Sin, in Mesopotamian religion, the god of the moon. Sin was the father of the sun god, Shamash (Sumerian: Utu), and, in some myths, of Ishtar (Sumerian: Inanna), goddess of Venus, and with them formed an astral triad of deities. Sin is considered a member of the special class of Mesopotamian gods called the Anunnaki.
Nanna, the Sumerian name for the moon god, may have originally meant only the full moon, whereas Su-en, later contracted to Sin, designated the crescent moon.
Save me some of what you smoking 🚬😂
@@CtrAltawesome Nope just look at the title the name came from, if Muhammad name was Al-Mahi, then you can see their method in the madness, Mahi is one of the three goddesses Ila, Saraswati and Mahi who are described as tisro devir mayobhuvah, the three goddesses born of delight or Ananda, and her companions being goddesses of knowledge, children of Mahas, she also must be a goddess of knowledge, fits the Islamic knowledge nicely, slaves of Allah just titles that go back to goddesses or god of sin which is the god Islam call Allah the crescent moon hence it's still on show and worshiped, the cube was to do with Al-lat which they gave Muhammad the title in his name but he is a she a goddess that was worshiped near Mecca as a black cube. So, I'm saying your prophet is a woman not a man, a box cube.
@@bobfisher1909 Lloyd de Jong nonsense. Everybody knows that the names people ascribed to god are different from the attributes of the nameless diety. Otherwise Christians should be worshiping ashera yahwehs wife along side like people used to do in the book of kings. Names of dietys are used the concepts are what changed for Jews Christians and later Muslims.