Tuesday, 25 April 2023

The Defense of The Qur'ân Against The Bible Borrowing Theory

 

The Defense of The Qur'ân Against The Bible Borrowing Theory

Islamic Awareness

© Islamic Awareness, All Rights Reserved.

Last Updated: 14 June 1999


Assalamu-alaikum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

The Qur'ân is made up of 114 Surahs: only 27 of them were revealed in Madinah while the remaining 87 were revealed in Makkah or some other nearby locations. It is to be reminded that the Jews were in Madinah and the Christians were in Najran and Yemen. There was no seat of Christianity in Mecca, in al-Hijaz nor in Madinah as stated by Bell:

...in spite of traditions to the effect that the picture of Jesus was found on one of the pillars of Ka'aba, there is no good evidence of any seats of Christianity in the Hijaz or in the near neighbourhood of Makkah or even of Madina.[1]

Dr. Nabîh Aqel, a Professor of Arabic and Islamic History, University of Damascus, states in his book Tarîkh al-cArab al-Qadîm:

The big difference between Christianity and Judaism is that Christianity unlike Judaism didn't have any bases in Hijaz , Christianity was an external source of enlightenment echoed in Hijaz either by missionary activities form Ethiopia, Syria and Iraq or from Alheerah's Christian centresdair Hind al-Kubra [the order of Hind al-Kubra] - Um Amro al-Mundhir [the order of Um Amro] - Dair Hind al-Sugra [the order of Hind al-Sugra]) or from some of the scattered churches in Bahrain, al-Yamamah and Yemen.[2]

Ibn Ishâq narrated also in al-Sîrah al-Nabawiyyah, speaking about four people from Quraysh (Mecca) who were among the generation that preceded the Prophet Muhammad(P) and who had abandoned their people's faith (paganism) and went in search for their Haneefite roots.

These four men were Waraqah bin Nawfal, cAbdullâh bin Jahsh, cUthmân bin al-Huarith and Zaid bin Amro who said to each other "you know that your people had deviated from the religion of your father Abraham" and decided to search for their Haneefite roots and they "scattered into different countries seeking the Haneefite religion, the religion of Abraham". Ibn Ishâq said that Waraqah bin Nawfal had converted to Christianity as a result of his search. [3]

The migration of these four men out of Mecca shows that the city was completely a pagan society for if there was any significant Christian or Jewish presence in Mecca, it wouldn't be necessary for these men to travel in search for it.

Yet another piece of evidence is that during the period of Christian influence and power in Yemen, from Najran to Abyssinia (Ethiopia), history narrates to us the famous attempt of a great Christian army to conquer Mecca.  This army from Yemen was supported by elephants and was lead by Abraha, the Abyssinian.  The doomed invasion occurred in the same year that the Prophet Muhammad(P) was born ,and later came to be known amongst the Arabs as the Year of the Elephant.  The army's aim was to vanquish Mecca, destroy the Ka'aba (the holy shrine built by Abraham(P) and his son Ismâcîl(P)) and then to convert the pagan Arabs to Christianity.  Once this was accomplished, they could force them to make pilgrimage to the great church named al-Qulais that Abraha had built in Yemen for this purpose.

Ibn Ishâq in al-Sîrah al-Nabawiyyah under the title The Story of the Elephant said:

Then Abraha built the "Qulais" in San'a, it was a church that people never saw its like in their time, then he wrote to the Abyssinian king; "I built for you O king, a church that no king had before you, and I'll not stop until I make the Hajj - that the Arabs perform to Ka'aba - shifted to it..."[4]

Dr Helmi Mahroos Ismâcîl in his book al-Sahrq al-'Arabi al-Qadîm writes:

Abraha worked hard on spreading Christianity among the Yemens, he built many churches there the most important of it all was the "Qulais" in Sana'a which the Abyssinian took as their capital in Yemen. Abraha tried to make the Arabs to perform Hajj to it.[5]

This Christian attempt lead by Abraha to destroy the Ka'bah corroborates that Mecca and al-Hijaz, in general, had no Christian or Jewish influence whatsoever even until the time the Prophet Muhammad(P) was born. Abraha had failed in his attempt to destroy the Ka'bah and this was a subject of a Qur'ânic Chapter as a Sign from God (Surat al-Fîl) :

Seest thou not how thy Lord dealt with the Companions of the Elephant? Did He not make their treacherous plan go astray? And He sent against them flights of Birds Striking them with stones of baked clay. Then did He make them like an empty field of stalks and straw (of which the corn) has been eaten up. [Qur'ân: 105]

Historians could not explain how this great army of Abraha didn't reach its goals in conquering the weak- and almost surrendered city of Mecca!!

The following provides an excerpt from a Yemenite archaeological site that mentions, in part, this incident. Walter W. Muller, a specialized researcher in ancient Arabian history, under the subject Outline of the History of Ancient Southern Arabia, says:

Muller says: "Southern Arabia became an Abyssinian dominion, first under the local Christian vassal simyafa then under the former Abyssinian General Abreha (Abraha). In 542 .... An inscription dated 547, reporting of a campaign against the rebellious Maadd in Central Arabia (Ry 506). States that Abreha had already styled himself king. The most recently dated inscription of the Himyarite era (CIH 325) is from A.D. 554. It virtually marks the end of the well-documented ancient Southern Arabian epoch and heralds the decline of the Sabeo-Himyarite empire..... Towards the end of his reign, Abreha launched yet another military campaign against the North which has been preserved in the memory of the Arabs because of the elephants accompanying it. Abreha failed to take Mecca as he had intended and the operation had to be abandoned."

Without giving any reason why Abraha had failed in capturing Mecca even though it had surrendered!

Bernard Lewis in his book The Middle East: 2000 Years Of History From The Rise Of Christianity To The Present Day, writes:

Newly converted, the Ethiopians were fervent in their Christianity and responded eagerly to Byzantine embassies. Unfortunately for the Ethiopians, they were not able to complete the task assigned to them. They succeeded initially in crushing and destroying the last independent state in southern Arabia, and opening the country to Christian and other external influences, but they were not strong enough to maintain it. They had even tried to advance northwards from the Yemen, and in 507 CE had attacked Mecca, a Yemenite trading post on the caravan route to the north. The Ethiopians failed and were defeated, and a little later the Persians came to the Yemen in their place.[6]

For further information on the story of this Christian campaign against Mecca a reference is made in al-Seerah al-Nabawiyyah. Below is a pre-Islamic poem from the same source that preserved the event by a person who had witnessed it. The poet Nufail bin Habeeb was there when the event took place and met with the fleeing soldiers of Abraha's army who asked him the directions to Yemen:

The poem can be roughly translated as follows:

Greetings Rudainah (A female name) we have been pleased with an early morning view. We had received - a seeker of fire - from your side (the word Qabis is used for a person who seeks fire or wood to be used as a source of light at night) but he could not find anything here. O Rudainah! if you have seen what we have seen near al-Muhasab (a location between Mecca and Mina) you would excuse me and not be saddened with what happened in the past between us. I thanked God when I saw the birds and I was afraid of stones that was thrown on us. And they (Abraha's men) were asking about me (to show them the way) as if I was owing them some previous debts.[7]

Bernard Lewis also gave a brief summary on how al-Hijaz looked before the advent of Islam saying the weakness that hit the empires of the north and the south lead to the state that later came to be known to Arabs as al-Jahiliyyah (the days of ignorance).

The militant Christian monarchy which had emerged in Ethiopia developed a natural interest in the events on the other side of the Red Sea [Yemen]. Persians were, of course, always concerned to counter Roman or Christian - for them, the two were much the same - influence.

By this time even these remote outposts of Mediterranean civilization were influenced by the general economic decline of the ancient world.... At least part of the reason for this decline in Arabia must be sought in the loss of interest by both rival imperial powers. During the long period from 384 to 502 CE when Rome and Persia were at peace, neither was interested in Arabia or in the long, expensive and hazardous trade routes that passed through its deserts and oases. Trade routes were diverted elsewhere, subsidies ceased, caravan traffic came to an end, and towns were abandoned. Even settlers in the oases either migrated elsewhere or reverted to nomadism. The drying-up of trade and the reversion to nomadism lowered the standard of living and of culture generally, and left Arabia far more isolated from the civilized world than it had been for a long time. Even the more advanced southern part of Arabia also suffered, and many southern nomadic tribes migrated to the north in hope of better pasturage. Nomadism had always been an important element in Arabian society. It now became predominant. This is the period to which Muslims give the name Jahiliyya, the Age of Ignorance, meaning by that of course to contrast it with the Age of Light, Islam. It was a dark age not only in contrast with what followed, but also with what went before. And the advent of Islam in this, sense may be seen as a restoration and is indeed presented as such in the Qur'ân - as a restoration of the religion of Abraham.
[8]

Although the above excerpt paints a very dark image of how the situation was in Arabia before Islam, it is not totally true. The great amount of cultural heritage left by the Arabs of al-Hijaz represented, for example, by their literature shows that the term al-Jahiliyyah is not descriptive and was mainly used to mean the decline in the social/ethical standards, but nothing else. 

Furthermore; the failure of the Christian Abyssinian army of Abraha to capture Mecca made the pagan Arabs glorify the city even more. Mecca was mainly a pagan society that worshipped stones and trees, yet still believed in a Supreme God.  As the Qur'ân makes clear, they believed that their false gods and idols were a means of getting nearer to God:  

Is it not to Allah that sincere devotion is due? But those who take for protectors other than Allah (say): "We only serve them in order that they may bring us nearer to Allah." Truly Allah will judge between them in that wherein they differ. But Allah guides not such as are false and ungrateful. [Qur'ân: 39:3]

The historical evidence plus the internal evidence of the Qur'ân proves beyond any doubt that there was no Christian nor Jewish influence in al-Hijaz, in general, and in Mecca, in particular. So how was Muhammad(P) borrowing from the Bible when the non-existence of any Arabic Bible or Arabic apocryphal sources has been proven?

Again the Qur'ân denies that someone was teaching the Prophet(P) and at the same time points to the fact that the language is foreign.

We know indeed that they say "It is a man that teaches him." The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notable foreign while this is Arabic pure and clear. Those who believe not in the Signs of Allah Allah will not guide them and theirs will be a grievous Penalty. [Qur'ân 16:103-104]

Had someone been teaching Prophet Muhammad(P), his family and close friends would have eventually known.  However, far from being skeptical about his claims to prophethood, these people gave their wealth and lives for Islam.

In Sûrah Fussilat, the Qur'ân explains the reason why the revelation is in Arabic. This is to make sure that the people who were experiencing it could not make excuses.

Had We sent this as a Qur'ân (in a language) other than Arabic they would have said: "Why are not its verses explained in detail? What! (a Book) not in Arabic and (a Messenger) an Arab?" Say: "It is a guide and a healing to those who believe; and for those who believe not there is a deafness in their ears and it is blindness in their (eyes); they are (as it were) being called from a place far distant!" [Qur'ân 41:44]

Now with the absence of Jewish and Christian sources in Mecca, the question remains: who was teaching Muhammad(P) the stories of the old Prophets and Nations which were all revealed in Mecca as the following table shows:

Adam(P)

| 7: 11~25 Mecca | 15: 26~44 Mecca | 17: 61~ 65 Mecca | 18: 50 Mecca |
|20: 115~126 
Mecca | 38: 67~88 Mecca

Enoch(P)

|19:56~57 Mecca |

Nûh(P)

| Surat Noah ( the complete chapter) Mecca | 7: 59~64 Mecca | 10: 71~73 Mecca | 11: 25~49 Mecca | 21:76~77 Mecca | 23: 23~30 Mecca | 26: 105~122 Mecca | 29: 14~15 Mecca | 37: 76~82 Mecca | 54: 9~17 Mecca | 4:163~165 Madina | 6: 83~87 Mecca | 9:70 Madina | 14: 9 Mecca | 17:3 -17:7 Mecca |
38:12~14 
Mecca | 40:5~6 Mecca | 42:12 Mecca | 50:12~14 Mecca | 51:46 Mecca | 53:52 Mecca | 57:26 Madina | 66:10 Madina |

Hûd(P)

|11:50~60 Mecca | 7:6~27 Mecca | 23:31~41 Mecca | 26:123~140 Mecca | 41:15~16 Mecca.| 46:21~25 Mecca | 51:41~42 Mecca | 53:50~55 Mecca | 54:18~22 Mecca | 69:6~8 Mecca | 89:6~14 Mecca |

Saleh(P)

| 7:73~79 Mecca | 11:61~68 Mecca | 15:80~84 Mecca | 17:59 Mecca | 26:141~159 Mecca | 27:45~53 Mecca | 41:17~18 Mecca | 54:23~32 Mecca |
91:15 
Mecca |

Ibrahîm(P)

|14: 35~40 Mecca | 6:74~83 Mecca | 21:51~70 Mecca | 26:69~83 Mecca | 29:16~27 Mecca | 19:41~48 Mecca | 37:83~98 Mecca | 2:124~141 - 2:258 Madina | 22:26~27 Madina | 16:120~123 Mecca | 53:37 Mecca |

Ishmâ'îl(P)

| 14:37 Mecca | 2:127~129 Madina | 37:99~113 Mecca |

Ishâq(P)

|37:112~113 Mecca | 11:69~73 Mecca | 15:51~56 Mecca | 51:24~30 Mecca | 19:49 Mecca |

Lût(P)

| 7:80~84 Mecca | 11:69~83 Mecca | 15:51~77 Mecca | 26:160~175 Mecca | 27:54~58 Mecca | 29:28~35 Mecca | 37:133~138 Mecca | 51:31~37 Mecca | 54:33~40 Mecca |

Shuaib(P)

| 7:85~93 Mecca | 11:84~95 Mecca | 15:78~79 Mecca | 26:176~191 Mecca |

Yûsuf(P)
Joseph

Surat Yousuf [ The complete chapter] Mecca

Ayoub(P)
Job

| 6:84 Mecca | 4:163 Madina | [21:83~84] Mecca | 38:41~44 Mecca |

Yûnus(P)
Jonah

| Surat Yonus [10:98] Mecca | 21:87~88 Mecca | 37:139~148 Mecca | |68:48~50 Mecca |

Moses(P)

| 19:51~53 Mecca | 28:1~44 - 28:76~83 Mecca | 20:9~100 Mecca | 27:7~14 Mecca | 17:101~104 Mecca | 7:103~155 - 7:159~174 Mecca | 43:46~56 Mecca | 33:69 Mecca | 26:10~68 Mecca | 79:15~25 Mecca | 41:45 Mecca |
| 10:75~93 
Mecca | 40:23~54 Mecca | 2:49~103 Madina | 18:60~82 Mecca |

Jesus(P)

|3:33~62 Madina | 5:72~77 - 5:110~120 Madina | 19:16~40 Mecca |
| 21:90~91 
Mecca | 4:156~159 Madina | 61:14 Madina | 57:27 Madina |

Arranged according to Qisas al-Anbya - Stories of the Prophets - by Imam Ibn Kathîr [10]

The only answer to the question of who was teaching Muhammad(P) the Qur'ân can be found in these verses [53:2-5]

Your Companion is neither astray nor being misled. Nor does he say (aught) of (his own) Desire. It is no less than inspiration sent down to him. He was taught by one mighty in Power[Qur'ân 53:2-5]

Christian missionaries attribute to Muhammad(P) an encyclopedic knowledge, indirectly saying that he knew all the sources - Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Hanif and ancient Arab beliefs - you name it - before he could compile the Qur'ân.  This ignores the simplest facts which the disbelievers from among his own people acknowledged 1400 years ago- that Muhammad(P) was an illiterate man. The following verse, for example, was revealed in Mecca during the early stages of the Prophet's call: 

And thou wast not (able) to recite a Book before this (Book came) nor art thou (able) to transcribe it with thy right hand: in that case indeed would the talkers of vanities have doubted. Nay here are Signs self-evident in the hearts of those endowed with knowledge: and none but the unjust reject Our Signs [Qur'ân 29:48~49]

The Qur'ân had answered this accusation 1400 years ago; but all through the past thousand years were the Christian missionaries able to provide any further evidence for their claims?

It should be kept in mind that the Qur'ân was publicly memorized and recited by all Muslims, both during and after the life of Muhammad(P).  If it was not clearly and widely known in Mecca that Muhammad(P) was illiterate, the verses which claimed that he was certainly would have caused doubts amongst the Muslims.  However, not only did the Prophet's(P) followers continue to grow - in spite of great persecution - but there is also no record of the pagan Arabs in Mecca accusing Muhammad(P) of not being illiterate.  They instead accused him of having a tutor or of being possessed, as previous verses have shown, since it was common knowledge that he was illiterate. 

Related Articles On The Borrowing Theories Of The Qur'ân

 The Orientalists,The Bible & The Qur'ân: A Brief Review Of Bible Borrowing Theories

 Comments On Geiger & Tisdall's Books On The 'Sources' Of The Qur'ân

 Is The Bible Really The Source Of The Qur'ân?

 The Prophet's Wives Teaching The Bible?

 Did Waraqa Ibn Nawfal Teach The Prophet?

 What About Salman - The Persian?

 But What About The Story Of Cain & Abel In The Qur'ân?

 On The Judeo-Christian Sources Of al-Khidr & Dhul-Qarnayn

 Problem Of The Parallels

   Islamic Awareness  Qur'ân  Sources  The Defense of The Qur'ân Against The Bible Borrowing Theory


References

[1] Richard Bell, The Origin of Islam in its Christian Environment, 1925; 1968 (Reprinted), The Gunning Lectures Edinburgh University, London: Frank Cass and Company Limited, p.42.

[2] Nabîh Aqel, Tarîkh al-cArab al-Qadîm, 1983 (Third Edition), Dâr al-Fikr, Beirut, p. 305.

[3] Ibn Hishâm, al-Sîrah al-Nabawiyyah, Mousasat cUlûm al-Qur'ân, Beirut, p.222.

[4] Ibn Hishâm, Op.Cit, p.43.

[5] Helmi Mahroos Ismael, al-Sahrq al-cArabî al-Qadîm, 1997, Mousasat Shabab al-Jami'ah, Egypt, p. 210 - 211.

[6] Bernard Lewis, The Middle East: 2000 Years Of History From The Rise Of Christianity To The Present Day, 1996 (Second Impression), Phoenix: London, p.45

[7] Ibn Hishâm, Op.Cit, p.53.

[8] Bernard LewisOp.Cit, p.42

[9] Nabîh Aqel, Op.Cit, p.271

[10] Ibn Kathîr, Qisas al-Anbiya, 1985 (Third Edition), Dar al-Jeel, Beruit.


Saturday, 22 April 2023

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

 


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

 

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.


Interesting young Samuel was sleeping in the Temple when the Temple was not built until much later? The lamp of God had not yet gone out, and Samuel was lying down in the temple of the Lord, where the ark of God was (1 Samuel 3:3) Does that argument ring a bell?

“If you are in doubt”

A recent trend circulating among Christians on social media has caused Muslims to laugh. The good old British stand-up comedians have now bl...