Responding to Hoaxer Dan Gibson: Did Early Mosques Really Face Petra?

 

Responding to Hoaxer Dan Gibson: Did Early Mosques Really Face Petra?

By:Hud Lesprit  

Date: April 13, 2023

 

Dan Gibson is a quack who tried to convince people that, at the time of the Prophet Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), the real Makkah was actually Petra, an ancient city located in Jordania.

His thesis consists mainly of cherry-picking verses and narrations from the Islamic tradition and trying to force them to fit his narrative. However, he claims to bring forth some pieces of evidence that are more concerning. What exactly is he babbling on about? Well, according to him, when examining its orientation, most of the early mosques faced Petra and not Makkah!

Gibson’s claim that the early mosques faced Petra, rather than Makkah, has managed to stir up some doubts for a few.

While some have attempted to dismantle Gibson’s thesis logically, very few have actually focused on the empirical flaws in his work. That being said, however, we must not overlook the fact that many early mosques do at least appear to face towards the direction of Petra.

And thus, we are left questioning the legitimacy of Gibson’s claims.

It is high time these doubts were decisively put to rest. We unequivocally reject Gibson’s thesis and aim to provide evidence supporting the traditional orientation of the qiblah towards Makkah. In the course of doing so, it is only appropriate that we also shed light on the distortions pushed by Gibson throughout his observations.

Let us make it very clear from the onset: the early mosques did NOT face Petra.

Gibson has twisted the facts in order to bring them in line with his thesis, and we are obligated to challenge his claims with vigor. It is imperative that we always protect the authenticity of our traditions from misrepresentation and thoroughly dismantle any falsehood that aims to threaten them.

Our faith is built upon centuries of tradition, and we must be vigilant in preserving it.

RELATED: Salman Rushdie: Neo-Orientalism and Western Hypocrisy

Gibson’s Distortion of the Data

Let us start by taking a look at some clear examples of distortion perpetrated by Gibson.

Medmar Mosque

In his fervor to spread his manipulated ideas, Gibson alleges that the Medmar mosque was facing Petra. This is a claim that can easily be debunked with a simple Google Maps search.

It is an undisputed fact that the mosque being targeted by Gibson is not the authentic Medmar mosque, and the true mosque is resolutely oriented towards Makkah, the holy city which lies at the heart of our faith.

In a desperate attempt to defend his baseless claim, Gibson suggests that the mosque underwent restoration and that, during this process, the qiblah was changed. However, his desperation in engineering the facts to support his narrative only underscores the extents to which he is willing to go.

The building used by Gibson for his measurement.

The actual Medmar mosque according to a simple Google Map search.

Hama Mosque

Gibson’s originally stated that this mosque has never been rebuilt and that it was erected by Muslims in 15 AH:

A screenshot taken from his original thesis.

Gibson’s claim that the mosque in Hama, Syria, was facing Petra is not only erroneous but also lacks any historical basis.

Once again, a simple internet search is all that is required to dispel Gibson’s allegations. The Hama mosque in question was originally a cathedral, and its orientation was determined long before the arrival of Islam in Syria. The fact that the cathedral was not destroyed but instead converted into a mosque confirms that the orientation was not changed by Muslims.

It is alarming that Gibson, in his book, which was published in 2022, was forced to retract his original statement after being confronted with his error. It is a sad reflection of the academic illiteracy that some people have been subjected to for decades, all because of Gibson’s blatant disregard for the truth.

When your claims are being falsified by the most basic of searches on the internet, it really calls into question your academic acumen and integrity.

RELATED: The Multi-Faith Prayer Room: Modern Equivalent to the ‘Ibādat Khāna of Akbar?

Fustat Mosque

Gibson’s claim that the Fustat mosque, in Egypt, faced Petra is based on unreliable and distorted sources.

To support his argument, Gibson relies on a passage from Hagarism, written by Patricia Crohn and Michael Cooke. However, this passage does not even actually support his conclusion, i.e., that the mosque was facing Petra. It merely suggests that the mosque was not perfectly aligned with the Ka’bah.

In fact, the very same passage contradicts Gibson’s claim, as it includes a contemporary eye-witness account from Jacob of Edessa, stating that the mosque faced east, towards the Ka’bah.

From the Christian side we have the remarkable statement of Jacob of Edessa, a contemporary eye-witness, that the ‘Mahgraye’ in Egypt prayed facing east towards the Ka’ba (Hagarism, p.24)

Gibson’s attempt to have his cake and eat it too here is nothing short of fraudulent. He quite evidently has some misguided agenda which he is working towards, by manipulating sources and distorting the facts.

Humeima Qasr

Gibson’s assertion that the mosque of Humeima faced Petra is highly questionable. Upon a closer inspection of the site’s plan, it becomes apparent that there is a sizeable structure with a small mosque, which is facing downwards, located in the southeast region.

Take a look at what Gibson presented in his original thesis:

The red arrow is pointing towards Petra and the green arrow is pointing towards Makkah.

However, what Gibson failed to disclose in his publication was that the large structure was, in fact, a castle, and it did not contain a mihrab. There is no evidence to suggest that it was ever utilized as a mosque. Conversely, the smaller building towards the south has been identified as a mosque since a mihrab-like structure was excavated there. This indicates that Gibson’s claims lack any credibility whatsoever and that they are flawed at their very core.

The larger building shows no evidence of ever being a mosque, but the small building on the bottom right of the image does. Can you guess which building Gibson used as part of his thesis?

RELATED: Why Muslim Women Tend to Fall for the “All Men Are Evil” Myth

The Mosque of Umm al Walid

It appears that Gibson’s claims regarding the mosque of Umm al Walid facing Petra have no factual basis and that they are simply not true. A quick glance at a satellite image of the actual ruins reveals that the mosque is oriented towards the south, not Petra.

But it gets worse. In his presentation, Gibson didn’t even show the real ruins of Umm al Walid. He, in his typical fashion, manipulated the evidence in order to somehow force it to fit his false narrative. Once again, this is yet another clear indicator that he lacks any credibility.

What Gibson presented in his original work as being Umm Al Walid mosque.The real ruins of Umm Al Walid.

And this is not some isolated instance. Gibson makes numerous such blunders throughout his work, only eventually correcting them after others pointed out his glaring mistakes.

It raises some important questions:

Why didn’t he ensure that his “research” was accurate to begin with, rather than leaving it for others to come by and correct him before fixing his “mistakes”?

How incompetent does someone have to be in order to make such an array of amateur “mistakes”?

Isn’t is quite evident by this point that there is a clear agenda here?

How could anyone take such blatantly fraudulent “research” seriously?

Gibson seems to be so extremely desperate in his frantic search to find any “evidence” whatsoever—anything that can somehow be bended to support his claims—that he’s more than willing to actually distort and manipulate the facts if doing so helps to further his nonsensical claims.

True scholarship requires honesty and integrity, and, sadly, Gibson is sorely lacking in both.

Qasr El Bai’j

The red arrow is pointing towards Petra, and the green arrow is pointing towards Makkah.

Let us now delve into Gibson’s claims regarding the castle of El Bai’j.

He alleges that the buildings were facing Petra, but let’s take a closer look at his evidence. According to archaeologist reports, there is no clear qiblah that can be established at this site, and there is no evidence of a mosque.

Yet, despite this, Gibson seems to have a different perspective. He has drawn a qiblah that points towards Petra, despite there being no concrete proof to support his claim.

Again, this raises an important question:

Why would he do that?

It seems that Gibson, in his desperate attempts to find even the smallest shred of evidence to support his theory, deems it perfectly fine to resort to misrepresentation and manipulation of the facts.

RELATED: Debunking the Christian “Miracle of Fátima”

Umm Jimal

When it comes to the Umm Jimal mosque, Gibson seems to once again be stretching the facts. Despite his claims that the mosque faced Petra, the reality is quite different. Archaeologists who have studied the site report that no mosque was found there, and that the buildings themselves predate the Islamic period. I mean, just take a look at this:

Umm al-Jimal is also notable for two important inscriptions relating to its Nabataean culture: an ‘altar’ inscribed in honour of Dushara, a powerful god associated with Zeus and Dionysus, and part of a tomb inscription which is a valuable witness of the transition of Nabataean script to an Arabic style and of the rise in power of the Tanukh, a confederacy of Arab tribes whom the Romans enlisted as part of their frontier forces. Unfortunately, both inscriptions have recently suffered damage due to a lack of protection of the site. In an ideal world, there would be some restoration work to shore up some of the walls that are threatening to collapse. With such a large site, this would be a huge undertaking.

Gibson’s insistence that some of these buildings were possibly used as a mosque is nothing more than mere conjecture. There is simply no evidence whatsoever that can be used to support his baseless assertions.

Gibson is simply more invested in promoting his own despicable agendas than he is in presenting accurate information.

Siraf Mosque

Let us now look into the mosque of Siraf and the claims Gibson makes about it. He asserts that it was built in 750 and was facing Petra. However, his claims are not based on any sort of accurate historical evidence. In fact, archaeologist David Whitehouse confirms that the very first mosque in the city dates back to the 9th century, not the 8th century as Gibson suggests.

Moreover, the testimony of one of the inhabitants of Siraf reveals that this mosque was originally a Sassanid monument and was only converted into a mosque later on. Gibson’s mistake in relation to the date of the mosque’s construction and its origin as a Sassanid monument leads one to seriously question the validity of his claims.

To add to this, an Iranian media outlet states that David Whitehouse found evidence that the earliest mosque in Siraf dates back to the ninth century CE; and that, in 2009, archaeologists identified Sassanid layers and artifacts near the mosque.

This Iranian media outlet stated the following:

In addition to the castle, Siraf is home to an ancient congregational mosque and cemetery. David Whitehouse found evidence that the earliest mosque in Siraf dates to the ninth century CE. He found ruins of a congregational mosque surrounded by many other smaller mosques. Archeologists have identified Sassanid layers and artifacts near the mosque in 2009.

Despite these findings, Gibson’s book still claims that the first mosque in Siraf was built in 750 and that it was facing Petra. Once again, it is clear that his claims are not actually supported by any accurate historical evidence.

Excerpt from Gibson’s latest book, Let The Stones Speak.

Misinterpretation of Mosque Orientation

Gibson’s erroneous claim that early mosques faced Petra is a testament to his flawed interpretation of mosque orientation. When we delve into the orientation of mosques in Africa, Spain and the Middle East, we find that they were all directed to the southeast or southwest. Thus, Gibson’s attempt to create a new variety of mosques which face between Petra and Makkah is baseless, as these mosques were simply oriented towards the southeast.

It would seem that the Africans were not very skilled when it came to directing themselves toward Petra or Makkah…

Furthermore, Gibson’s bias is manifestly evident throughout his thesis. He clearly started with his conclusion and tries his hardest to make the data fit his theory rather than the other way around. He wants us to believe that the mosques facing between Petra and Makkah were pointing at Petra when, in fact, they were just oriented south.

The fact that some orientalists and Islamophobes have credited his theory is only a testament to their own personal lack of intellectual honesty.

It is important for Muslims to remember that some so-called “academics” will go to any lengths necessary in order to try and undermine Islam. Gibson’s theory is just another attempt to rewrite our history and distort our religion.

As Muslims who are true to our faith, we must reject such fraudulent attempts at undermining the teachings of our religion outright and, instead, uphold the traditional orientation of the qiblah towards Makkah, as supported by historical evidence, over fourteen centuries of Islamic scholarship and jurisprudence and the teachings of our beloved Prophet Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace).

Whenever such people try to manipulate the facts, we must always be ready to debunk the lies and shine a bright light on the truth.

In conclusion, Gibson is both biased and glaringly incompetent. His thesis is extremely flawed. His arguments, as well as their foundations, are baseless. His supposed evidences are merely distortions and factual inaccuracies. His shoddy “research” is nothing more than agenda-driven drivel.

Let us not fall prey to those who seek to undermine our faith, heritage, and history.

 

Our Lord descends every night to the sky of this world when the last third of the night remains – Shaykh ‘Uthaymīn

 

by AbdurRahman.orgDecember 2, 2018

Our Lord’s Descent

The prophet ( صلّى الله عليه وسلّم ) said in an authentic ḥadīth:

يَنْزِلُ رَبُّنَا تَبَارَكَ وَتَعَالَى كُلَّ لَيْلَةٍ إِلَى السَّمَاءِ الدُّنْيَا حِينَ يَبْقَى ثُلُثُ اللَّيْلِ الآخِرُ ، يَقُولُ : مَنْ يَدْعُونِي فَأَسْتَجِيبَ لَهُ ؟ مَنْ يَسْأَلُنِي فَأُعْطِيَهُ ؟ مَنْ يَسْتَغْفِرُنِي ؟ فَأَغْفِرَ لَهُ

Our Lord, the blessed and exalted, descends every night to the sky of this world when the last third of the night remains. He asks, “Who is calling on me so I can answer him? Who is asking me (for anything) so I can give (it to) him? Who is asking for my forgiveness so I can forgive him?”

[Recorded by al-Bukhārī (no. 1145) and Muslim (no. 758)]

This ḥadīth is a proof confirming the descent of Allah to the lowest heaven, the sky of this world.

Some people of knowledge said this ḥadīth has come with many different chains of narration, and the scholars have always agreed that it is one of the famous ḥadīth often mentioned by the scholars of the Sunnah.

The prophet ( صلّى الله عليه وسلّم ) says,  “Our Lord descends every night to the sky of this world.” Allah’s descent is real and actual because, as we have mentioned before, anything mentioned with a pronoun that refers back to Allah, it must be attributed to him in a real, actual manner.

So we should believe in it and accept it as truth, saying just as the ḥadīth says, “Our Lord descends to the sky of this world,” to the lowest heaven closest to the earth. There are seven heavens, and Allah (عزّ وجلّ) descends at this time during the night to be near his worshippers just as he does during the afternoon on the Day of ‘Arafah (during the pilgrimage), praising and boasting to the angels about his worshippers. [41]

As for “every night” it is general to include every single night of the year. “when the last third of the night remains“. In Islamic legislation, the night begins at sunset and this is unanimously agreed upon. The difference (among scholars) however comes with regards to when the night ends. Does it end with the appearance of first light or the actual rising of the sun? Apparently, the night, according to legislation, ends with the appearance of first light, and the common, “astral” night ends with sunrise. Allah asks, ” “Who is calling on me…”. This is a question yet really intended as an encouragement and motivation rather than expecting an actual answer. It is like his statement (in the Qur’an):

هَلْ أَدُلُّكُمْ عَلَى تِجَارَةٍ تُنجِيكُم مِّنْ عَذَابٍ أَلِيمٍ

Shall I guide you to a transaction that will save you from a painful punishment? [Sūrah al-Ṣaf, 61:10]

“…calling on me…” saying, “Oh Lord…”

“…so I can answer him?” This is the result and reward for doing the first part – calling on Allah.

 “Who is asking me (for anything) so I can give (it to) him?” such as saying, “I ask You for Paradise,” or similar things.

“Who is asking for my forgiveness…” saying, “Oh Allah, forgive me,” or “I seek your forgiveness, Allah.”

“…so I can forgive him?” Forgiveness means to conceal one’s sins and overlook them.

With this, it should be clear to every person who reads this ḥadīth that what is meant by “descends” here is that Allah Himself descends. We do not even need to say He descends “personally” because as long as the verb is associated with Him, then He himself does it. Still, some scholars did say, “He personally descends.” They resorted to saying that, compelled to adding “personally” only because there are those people who twist the meaning of ḥadīth, claiming that what really descends is the decision and decree of Allah. Others say it is Allah’s mercy that descends, and even others say it is one of his angels that descends.

All of these are incorrect. For one thing, Allah’s decision and decree are constantly descending, and not only during the last third of night as he ( تعالى ) says generally:

يُدَبِّرُ الأَمْرَ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ إِلَى الأَرْضِ ثُمَّ يَعْرُجُ إِلَيْهِ

He arranges each matter from the heaven to the earth then it will ascend to him.[Sūrah al-Sajdah, 32:5]

And he says:

وَإِلَيْهِ يُرْجَعُ الأَمْرُ كُلُّهُ

And to him the matter will return, all of it.[Sūrah Hūd, 11:123]

As for their statement that it is really only the mercy of Allah that descends to the worldly sky when the last third of night remains, Allah is above such deficiencies and insults! Mercy does not descend except at that time?! Allah ( تعالى ) says:

وَمَا بِكُم مِّن نِّعْمَةٍ فَمِنَ اللَّهِ

And whatever you have of blessing, it is from Allah. [Sūrah al-Naḥl, 16:53]

Every blessing and favor is from Allah, and they are the results of his mercy; they can be witnessed at all times.

We could then ask: What good does it do for us if mercy descends only down to the sky (and no further)?

As for those who say it is really only an angel that descends, we ask: Does it make sense that an angel would say, “Who is calling on me so I can answer him? Who is asking me for anything…”?!

So it is clear that these claims are distorted meanings, they are incorrect and proven so by the ḥadīth itself.

By Allah, such people who claim these things do not know more about Allah than Allah’s messenger, they are certainly not more sincere in advising the servants of Allah than his messenger, and they are not more precise and eloquent in speech than the messenger of Allah (صلّى الله عليه وسلّم).

Some people also ask: How can you say Allah descends? If He does so, then what about His being high above everything? What about His being over the throne? If He descends, this would involve movement and relocation. Also, if He descends, this would be an action that happens and anything that happens must have a cause.

To this we say: This is baseless and pointless arguing. There is no reason not to say that Allah’s descent is real. Do you know what Allah deserves (of characteristics and descriptions) more than the companions of the messenger (صلّى الله عليه وسلّم)?

The companions never made any of these false assumptions and conjectures. Instead they listened, they believed, they accepted, and they trusted it as absolute truth. Yet now, you people come and challenge the meanings, arguing for the sake of falsehood, asking, “How? Why?”

We say Allah descends, and we do not delve into asking, “What about his throne? Does this mean he leaves it or not?”

As for his being above, we say he descends and yet he is still high above his creation because “descent” here does not necessarily mean that he is surrounded by the lowest heaven to which he descends while the other heavens are above him. Rather, he is not contained within anything of his creation.

So Allah actually descends in a real manner while he is actually high above in a real manner, and nothing is similar to him.

Rising over the throne is an action, not a permanent, personal characteristic. We should not, as far as I am concerned, begin asking whether he leaves the throne or not. Instead, we should keep silent about it just as the companions did, may Allah be pleased with them all.

However, the scholars of those who follow the Sunnah take one of three positions regarding the issue of whether Allah leaves his throne during his descent. Some say he leaves the throne, others say he does not leave it, and others say we should remain silent and not delve into the issue.

Ibn Taymiyyah says in his al-Risālah al-‘Arshiyyah that Allah does not leave the throne (during his descent) because the evidence confirming he is on the throne is strong and explicit just as this ḥadīth is also a strong, explicit proof of his descent. The actions and characteristics of Allah (عزّ وجلّ) are not to be measured by those of creation. So we should leave the texts of his being on the throne confirmed as they are just as we leave the text of his descent confirmed as it is. We say he is established on his throne and yet he still descends to the sky of this world; Allah alone knows the “how” of it. Our minds are too deficient and incomplete to know everything about Allah, the Most High.

The second position is that Allah leaves the throne during his descent and the third position is to remain silent – in other words, not to say whether he does or does not leave his throne.

Some people more recently bring up yet another point of confusion. Since the earth is round and revolves around the sun, they ask how Allah can descend during the last third of the night when the last third is a constant time. For example, when the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia leaves this time, Europe and surrounding countries enter it. So is Allah constantly and forever descending?

In reply, we say: First and foremost, you should simply believe and accept that Allah descends during this specific time. If you do believe in it, then there is nothing else required from you. Do not go into asking, “How?” Instead, accept that when the last third of night remains in Saudi Arabia, then Allah descends, and when it remains in America, Allah also descends. And His descent finishes when the light of morning appears in any place, respective to it.

To conclude, our position is that we believe and accept everything that has come to us from Allah’s messenger, Muhammad ( صلّى الله عليه وسلّم ) in that Allah comes down to the sky of this world, the lowest heaven, when the last third of night remains and he asks, “Who is calling on me so I can answer him? Who is asking me (for anything) so I can give (it to) him? Who is asking for my forgiveness so I can forgive him?”

Beneficial Points We Learn from This Ḥadīth

This amazing ḥadīth:

• Confirms that Allah is high above creation based on the words, “Our Lord descends.”
• Confirms that Allah does actions by his choice and will—these are known as “action” characteristics (see footnote no. 7 of the main article)—based on the statement, “Our Lord descends…when the last third of the night remains..”
• Confirms that Allah speaks based on the statement, “He asks…“
• Confirms Allah’s kindness and generosity based on his questions, “Who is calling on me…? Who is asking me…? Who is asking for my forgiveness…?”

People should take advantage of this part of the night, asking for whatever they need from Allah, calling upon him, and asking his forgiveness as he asks, “Who is calling on me…? Who is asking me…? Who is asking for my forgiveness…?” And again, the word “Who” here is presented in the form of a question but is actually intended to motivate rather than ask.

So we should take advantage of this chance because nothing that has passed of your life is in your favor except the times you spent in obedience to Allah. Perhaps more days may pass you by, but when death comes it will be as if you were only born that minute. At that time, everything of one’s past life will mean nothing to him.

Footnotes:

[41] The ḥadīth about this is recorded by Muslim (no. 1348). The prophet ( صلّى الله عليه وسلّم ) said:

مَا مِنْ يَوْمٍ أَكْثَرَ مِنْ أَنْ يُعْتِقَ اللَّهُ فِيهِ عَبْدًا مِنْ النَّارِ مِنْ يَوْمِ عَرَفَةَ وَإِنَّهُ لَيَدْنُو ثُمَّ يُبَاهِي بِهِمْ الْمَلائِكَةَ ، فَيَقُولُ :  مَا  أَرَادَ هَؤُلاءِ

There is no day on which Allah frees more servants from the fire than the Day of ‘Arafah. He comes near (them) and praises and boasts about them to the angels, saying, “What do these want?” (or “Anything they want!”)

—

Posted from the appendix of the article : In the Company of Allaah: Confirming Allaah is with His Creation – Shaykh ibn Uthaymeen rahimahullaah | Translated by Abu az-Zubayr Harrison rahimahullaah