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.
