Categories

Community

  • lutng
  • edmacaudio
  • thinrr
  • repairbuddy
  • Raffaello Palandri
  • suprimedia
  • Sebastian
  • Draco Dracul
  • HealthTipsNow!
  • Pick Me Up Poetry. Making poetry a conversation.
  • Sebastian
  • Kristen
  • vtisdel07
  • trafficsoftware01
  • Zocido
  • acorporatethug
  • Hyphens
  • Mailee
  • guido marsili
  • kalmvalley
  • mama của soft
  • evelyngutierrezze
  • Bolsa Cali
  • Elena
  • strafari
  • besafe1st99
  • BR
  • Hdavey Thoreau
  • Illuminati Brotherhood
  • Anthony Armour
  • Sebastian
  • My Research-Based Fitness
  • Wandering Ambivert
  • Sachin Singh
  • eatliveescape
  • Nguyenthithanhtruc
  • Joffry Arthur
  • Mohammad Ismail
  • Dalalelbuga
  • 1kaday57
  • thedihedral
  • Hacker to hire
  • Marius Theron
  • The Alchemist
  • shaddowryderzteam
  • Sebastian
  • jerrydavid99
  • gdany0754
  • pensmenger
  • Sebastian

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 835 other subscribers

Visitors online – 32269
users – 486
guests – 13958
bots – 17825
The maximum number of visits was – 2021-11-21
all visitors – 467207
users – 3404
guests – 153575
bots – 310228

 24 total views,  1 views today

Description about the foretold story at the roots of the Quran until what we knowing today like.

source

Valdemar Batalha da Cruz

View all posts

33 comments

Leave a Reply

  • Wrong!!!!! Quran-Islam was born in the 3rd Century CE…..with the birth of our Quranic Seal of the Prophets in 216 CE, who was an Aramaic speaker – Q:16:103, and the inception of the Sasanian Persian Empire in 242 CE!!!

  • So I'm a bit confused here.
    So the whole point here is that Mecca is actually Petra, yes? So today's Muslims are facing the wrong direction, and should be facing Mecca?
    Or are we saying the "original" kiblah was Petra, rather than Jerusalem?

    From the current Muslim understanding, they did face Jerusalem, and then were told to face Mecca. From this video I'm getting mixed up what they're trying to say Petra is. At times they make it seem like the original location, but for the most part that it's the real Mecca.
    Did they originally face Jerusalem still then?

  • Now we understand how Muhhamed traveled from Mecca to Jerusalem and back in one night. Look for Petra and Jerusalem on Google maps. with a fast horse, one can travel back and forth in under 11 hours. But between Saudi Mecca and Jerusalem, its impossible (its more than 1400 km one way).

  • What about Zamzam water ? Was that moved too? So I guess Mecca was there and known by locals way before Islam.

    The infant Isma'il scraped the land with his feet, where suddenly water sprang out. There are other versions of the story involving God sending his angel, Gabriel (Jibra'il), who kicked the ground with his heel (or wing), and the water rose.[5]

  • Don Gibson I do not agree with you a lot of information that you’ve given it’s not right I’m sorry to say you got to go back to the history of Syriac Assyrian‘s that has a lot of information about how that Islam created . so Islam was not in Petra I’m sorry to say that Petra it was the place of worship of different gods not Islam after Islam came they converted a lot of people to Islam so. And the books and text that they burned it was not Islamic information it was all Christians Jew information that I did not want anybody to know what was the roots of Quran . So I’m sorry I cannot understand what you’re trying to get to what is your point. Muslim its mind made religion and it came from Petra from Christians and Jews nothing more or less they did not know how to read and write that are American language so they converted a lot of things wrong and made themselves a book of reading that means Quran…..

  • The fact that Dan Gibson betrays that he cannot even read Arabic by conflating two entirely different words – bakkah بكة and bukaa بكاء , saying that bekka means weeping – shows his idiocy and entire lack of any academic background.

  • The fools among the people will say: 'What has turned them from the Qibla to which they were used?' Say: 'To Allah belong both East and West: He guides whom He will to a Way that is straight.' (Qur'an 2:142)

    Baitul-Maqdis (Jerusalem) and Petra, both cities are located almost to the north from the city of Madinah.

    (5 degrees differences in bearing between both cities, from Madinah, and about 30 degrees West to be exact).

    If Petra is supposedly to be considered as "Mecca", hence the changing to the new Qibla would still facing to almost the same north direction !!! , thus some people of Madinah at that time (as the above mentioned verse) won't be argued at all to the prophet Muhammad s.a.a.w, but indeed they did argued.

    Meaning, the prophet s.a.a.w. and muslims were facing to south, towards Mecca as the new Qibla.

    … therefore, to consider Petra as Mecca is just merely a conjecture !!!

    also,

    The following is more even funny, nonsense, illogical yet uncomprehended …..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHSlbNbYXIw

    Al Aqsa

    circa 5:30 to 9:16

    Dan Gibson mentioned that Al-Aqsa Mosque and Al-Haram Mosque are both in Petra, just a 8 kilometers in distance apart !!! …{ in the same city ! }

    If both Mosques are in Petra… thus, the verse of changing direction of a new Qibla doesn't make any sense at all !!! …because of its facing the same direction to the same city of Petra ! (note: during that time, the prophet already lived in Madinah.)

    …so again, to consider Petra as Mecca is just a merely conjecture !!!

  • Guys don’t waste your one and half hour honestly ! It’s the agenda of Christian missionary bcz they tired of their lies like Jesus is god Jesus is son of god and jesus died all humans sins ,blah blah blah etc ,so now they research in new lies

  • All very fascinating. I hope the discussion and discovery remains scholarly and is neither hijacked by islamophobes nor by islamic fanatics.

  • Several flaws, misconception, ignored facts and history, e.g. Direction of Qibla of Nabvi's Masjid, the second holiest place for Muslims, one of ancient mosques / masjid which points towards Makkah, Events and route of army of Ummaiyads of First invasion of second civil war ignored who passed by Madian before and after war, how was possible if Madina had not on route between Damascus and Makkah. Impossibility in light of muslim history Detailed arguments can be found at https://www.academia.edu/s/18b1da231d and https://t.co/qcvO3FgC42?amp=1. Also can be searched from scribd. How muslims divided in sects having several differences since early time agreed on new place which had no attribution while they remained strict on their stands which seems to be quite minor when compared with this issue. How can all books be burnt around all muslim world and memories be washed. Who convinced them on new place and when. Why muslims remained silent. How they could know direction of a place as accurately as now at that time. This false supposition raises question that how other Muslims and companions , supporters of Ibne Zubair could accept and tolerate it when Ibne Zubair was not as great as the holy place itself, rather his own supporters and companions had revolted and punished him within no time. How could citizen / common people leave that holy place, the place that was the part of religion, when the dispute between Ummaiyads and Ibne Zubair was of political nature rather than religious or at least related to non compliant practices?
    Why did not Ummaiyads demolish his constructed place when they defeated him and later Muslims in Madina also, did they not know of new place which was not even walled.

    Why did other people remain silent over a such a big issue when they had openly discussed their differences and had differentiated others over much lesser issues than this, while books are full with their differences minor or major, old or new, but none of these books talks about this. Were all books on this issued destroyed even of far distant areas and was it possible. Was it wiped from memories / knowledge also. How, why and when they agreed to offer their prayers towards a place which had no atribution to their prophet / belief. If it was so easy to change its location why did regimes not shift it to their own when it would had been of great political strenght and it was wish of many to do but they failed.

    The Makkah is / was a place whom visit and certain rituals in certain days at-least once in life, is one of component of Muslim’s faith and this cannot be done at any other place, besides these certain days they also visit(ed) this place throughout the year all over the world, so it is/was not possible to change its location, without publicity at large, acceptability comes even later.

    Muslims claim / intend that they follow as per message of Allah (their God / ultimate Lord), teaching and practices of the last prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and avoid / resist any self devised / derived deeds unless and until it is entirely new issue so it does not seem possible for believers to remain in confusion and opting a middle direction silently at their own when there are historical references that they used to have debates on religious views claiming that their version was the original / proven or as per practice / teaching of the Holy Prophet (PBUH), with strict stand on their own stance irrespective of nature of difference, minor or major.

    In the said documentary Mr. Dan(iel) Gibson presents reference of 40 days tenure of a Ummaiyad’s regime during the first war between Ibne Zubair and Ummaiyads when Ummaiyads army got news of regime change and Ummaiyads decided to return stopping the war because of some participating generals close to the royal family, who reached the palace before the ruler was killed. Then Mr. Dan(iel) Gibson argues that distance between Makkah and their capital was 1400 Km and average speed of slow moving armies used to be 20 miles per day so adding time of message arriving and decision making time they should not have reached the palace whereas they were reached. There is problem in determining movement speed of the troops which is assumed 20 miles per day which may be correct for Geek or Roman large and heavy armies with heavy equipment, goods and animals as mentioned it in “The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare, Volume 2”. This book quotes message passing speed from 50 – 160 miles per day depending upon nature of message from routine to urgent respectively. Another book “From Sumer to Rome: The Military Capabilities of Ancient Armies” relatively discusses in detail the capabilities including marching speed of different armies in different reins with nature of their formation which critically affects their mobility speed. This book mentions speed of Alexender’s army from 13 to 40 miles per day depending upon its composition / formation. Another book also quotes 46 miles per day in context of Alexendar’s expedition in Asia when his army was mostly consisting of cavalry.
    Now compare formation and composition of Ummaiyad’s army with heavy Greek/ Roman armies and Alexendar’s army’s expedition in Asia. You will definitely find that Ummaiyad’s army was not matching with Greek / Roman’s heavy armies whose moving speed of 20 miles is used for calculation. If we use any speed around 40-46 miles per day the matter solves.

    Another decisive and clear reference which the documentary has ignored in framing the supposition, is series of events and flow of said expedition which according to same book, this documentary uses for references. The book tells that during this expedition first Madia (ul Munawara) was attacked and secured / settled, then the Ummaiyad’s army moved towards Makkah / Mecca where Abdullah Ibne Zubair had flown / stayed. So decide how and why it had been logically wise to attack / secure Madina which was far away from Damascus (the capital of Ummaiyads) as compare to Petra where Abdullah Ibne Zubair was, whereas it was relatively more important and sacred than Madina also. Why did not they first attack / secure more important and nearer. If you are not convinced / able to decide then find another proof when Ummaiyad’s return to Damascus after negotiation with Ibne Zubair at end of this first war, Ibne Zubair repented over losing opportunity of being recognized and becoming a ruler while the Ummaiyad had reached in Madina and had come in contact with some local important figures of Madina. This proves that Madina was on route between Makkah and Damascus Otherwise how and why they had gone Madina to meet dignities of Madina while in hurry to return Damascus when Petra is nearer to Damascus and Madina far away from their route. Why they touched Madina before and after Makkah arrival if it was not in route?

    As Mr. Gibson perhaps remained distracted from cause of this war in which Kaba / Qibla had no issue, similarly near the end of documentary, without knowing reason ill perceived unification/compilation of Holy Quran in Uthman’s rule as series of modification in Quran, as till that time it was permissible to use synonyms for a few words which could have been matter of misunderstanding of / differences for non Arabs, so on attention drawing it was abandoned. Further if it had been tempering of the Holy Book, people would have resisted as it was learned by heart at large and used to be properly and completely revised in the month of Ramzan other than their daily routine every where they were living, keeping in mind that there were several other differences at that time and were discussed openly.

%d bloggers like this: