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.
Hama Mosque
Gibson’s originally stated that this mosque has never been rebuilt and that it was erected by Muslims in 15 AH:
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:
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment