Jump to content


Photo

نقاش بالعربية


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#21 abdelouahed

abdelouahed

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • LocationAlgeria

Posted 21 May 2013 - 06:10 PM


As well as the historical context of the evolution of the Umayyad state is not convincing at all in non-return of the Black Stone to Petra.

I do not believe they fought Abdullah bin Zubair and won him , then they turned to Qiblah caused by Ibn al-Zubayr, and with their ability and their number and their equipment and their authority, surrendered to the enemy fad and had received Mecca.


#22 Dan Gibson

Dan Gibson

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 76 posts

Posted 29 May 2013 - 03:33 PM


As well as the historical context of the evolution of the Umayyad state is not convincing at all in non-return of the Black Stone to Petra.

I do not believe they fought Abdullah bin Zubair and won him , then they turned to Qiblah caused by Ibn al-Zubayr, and with their ability and their number and their equipment and their authority, surrendered to the enemy fad and had received Mecca.


Your argument seems logical, but there are other things to consider. The Umayyads did defeat Ibn-Al-Zubayr, but they continued to fight against other rebels. I am sure that they planned to eventually move the stone back, but they never got to it, as the rebels eventually won the war and the Umayyads were defeated. The book clearly demonstrates how all Qiblas faced Petra for the first 100 years of Islam. Once Ibn-Al-Zubayr was defeated the wars continued, with the rebels buildilng mosques facing Mecca and the Umayyads building mosques facing Petra. Then some new mosques faced a spot between the two, and once the Umayyads lost control of the Middle East their new mosques in North Africa and Spain faced parallel to a line drawn between Petra and Mecca. This went on for about 100 years until the Abbasids took control and from that point on every mosque faced Mecca. We must add into this the fact that during the hundred years of confusion two massive earthquakes destroyed Petra. I believe these convinced people that Mecca was more chosen by God than Petra which was now in ruins.

Whatever the reasons, the archeological evidence remains. The Qibla direction of the mosques is quite clear.

#23 Dan Gibson

Dan Gibson

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 76 posts

Posted 30 May 2013 - 02:48 AM


I think that archeology alone is not enough to weighting your point of view, but the material sciences that can decide the case is astronomy, geography and history of their development.

I see that you are not proficient in these two branches of science, as evidenced by the non answer to the question how Nabataeans link between latitude and longitude to find the values of ​​azimuth directions between countries and cities.

The second evidence: the non response on the subject of the historical roots of Mecca wherein historical information outweigh the existence of towns and villages surroundings Mecca and el haram in Saudi Arabia.




Friend,

I chose not to answer your question about how the Nabataeans found latitude and longitude because this is all laid out in the book in detail and I chose not to copy and paste whole chapters with charts and illustrations into this discussion forum. This forum was designed to be a discussion of the material in the book for those who have read the book, not a place to repeat all the arguments that are already presented in the book.

However, your argument about the historical roots of the towns around Mecca is interesting. Most of our knowledge of Islamic locations comes from Yāqūt ibn ’Abdallāh al-Rūmī al-Ḥamawī who wrote his geography over 600 years after Muhammad. His book: Mu’jam al-buldān is available for download from the internet. You can download it from this site at: http://searchformecc...Downloads.html. There are five volumes. This is the source book I used when studying early locations. For instance close to Mecca was Thaniyyat al-Murar (Bitter Bush Pass) which even until today has never been identified in Mecca, although Yāqūt (Mu’jam al-buldan, VIII, 3) mentions it. I point out in the book where this is near Petra. Another important location is al-Bayḍā which was supposed to be very close to Mecca, and is very important in the account that Ḥajjāj gives in Ṭabarī Vol. VIII pg 126 when recalling his journey to the Holy City. Yāqūt (Mu’jam al-Buldan, II, 335) guesses that Al-Bayḍā must be another name for Tan’im. This is a problem, for if it was Tan'im then it would have been outside the sacred territory encircling Mecca. Yāqūt gives no sources for his conclusion. I believe the real Al-Bayḍā is a place by exactly the same name located only a couple of kilometers from Petra, just like it was described to be close to the Holy City. Another problem is the location of Aqaba. I spend all of chapter 23 presenting arguments that Aqaba in southern Jordan is the real Aqaba of Islamic history, and was a major market. (Sīrat Rasūl Allāh, page 198-199) as described in Al Ṭabarī (Volume 6, 1218, page 130-136). The Aqaba near Mecca is a small wadi with no one living close to it, and with no road through it to any place. It is only three miles from the Ka'ba, so how could it be a major market so close to Mecca? I beleive that after the stone was moved to Mecca people began to rename places after the original ones near Petra.

Friend, the material is all in the book if people choose to read it. I do not want to have to repeat everything on this website. The book is over 480 pages, and took years to research and write. Hopefully you will have opportunity to examine it some day and see what is there.

#24 abdelouahed

abdelouahed

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • LocationAlgeria

Posted 01 June 2013 - 07:39 PM



You said: "Another problem is the location of Aqaba. I spend all of chapter 23 presenting arguments that Aqaba in southern Jordan is the real Aqaba of Islamic history, and was a major market. (Sīrat Rasūl Allāh, page 198-199) as described in Al Ṭabarī (Volume 6, 1218, page 130-136). The Aqaba near Mecca is a small wadi with no one living close to it, and with no road through it to any place. It is only three miles from the Ka'ba, so how could it be a major market so close to Mecca? I beleive that after the stone was moved to Mecca people began to rename places after the original ones near Petra".

The answer of your question is in the topic: historical roots of Mecca.


#25 Dan Gibson

Dan Gibson

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 76 posts

Posted 07 July 2013 - 09:29 PM


I see that you are not proficient in these two branches of science, as evidenced by the non answer to the question how Nabataeans link between latitude and longitude to find the values of ​​azimuth directions between countries and cities.

The second evidence: the non response on the subject of the historical roots of Mecca wherein historical information outweigh the existence of towns and villages surroundings Mecca and el haram in Saudi Arabia.


You seem to have not read the chapters of the book on the archeological evidence and historical evidence. I did not answer about these because I have already written much about them. Please do not take my non-answer as an inability to answer. I simply do not want to start post the whole book here on this website. Also, you seem hung up on the science of qiyās. I will post a separate academic article on this topic in the download section in the future which hopefully will explain things better. But please do not try and match the science of qiyās with the British system of latitude and longitude. They are two totally different systems.