All language subtitles for The Sacred City (Taylor, David 2016)_WEBRip.720p.x264.AAC_EN

Five times a day, every day,

over a billion Muslims bow down

and recite a prayer to Allah,

given to them by Muhammad, their prophet.

Every day, five times a day,

they face a Black Rock in
the Holy City of Mecca,

and submit themselves afresh
to the religion of Islam.

Every day, they bow as a corporate group

all around the world, to
express their solidarity

as followers of Islam, for
whom Muhammad is their prophet,

the Qur'an is their scripture,
and Mecca is their Holy City.

However, as archeological discoveries

are beginning to point
to a different story,

scholars are seriously examining
and challenging the fact

about the founding of Islam.

And if they are right, how
will it affect Muslims today?

We have tools at our disposal

that have never been available before.

Modern technology is
allowing us to reconstruct

the opening years of Islam
and to understand things

that have puzzled historians for years.

All over the world, universities,
museums, and libraries

are putting ancient books
and writings on the Internet

for scholars to access.

Now, we can check these ancient manuscripts

with just a few clicks of a mouse.

Today, both academics and amateurs alike

can accurately check via
satellite locations and details

that would previously have
taken huge expensive effort

and can share them
instantly around the world

via social media and academic forums.

So, now for the very first time,

a whole new era of research

surrounding the founding of Islam

is coming to light,

and we can piece together
what really happened

in Arabia 1500 years ago.

Writer and historian Dan Gibson

has lived most of his
life in the Middle East.

He has extensively researched the peoples

and places of the ancient
world before Islam.

I first came to Arabia in my early 20s,

and I've spent more than 30 years exploring

every corner of this
amazing part of the world,

piecing together evidence
for a radical new theory

which I believe will change
our understanding of the past.

Years of study have led
me to the conclusion

that Islam began somewhere other than

where the conventional history suppose,

and that in early Islamic writings,

there are clues and references that reveal

the hidden truth about the Mecca mystery.

Back in 2002, I had occasion to visit

a conference on Nabataean
studies organized here

by the Al-Hussein Bin Talal University.

During the conference,
I had occasion to speak

with leading archeologists
from Saudi Arabia

and from Jordan.

I asked them specifically

about the archeological record in Mecca.

While not to wishing to be named or quoted,

they admitted that there
was no archeological record

in Mecca before 800 AD.

I had expected them to defend the opinion

that Mecca was a walled
city with houses and gardens

and public buildings and temples.

They said, "No, there was
nothing like that there."

Did you know that the
name Mecca is mentioned

only once in the whole Qur'an?

Muslim scholars link
other names with Mecca,

names such as the
Forbidden Gathering Place,

or the Holy House, or the
Place of Becca or weeping.

All of these terms are
universally associated

with Mecca today.

Nevertheless, the Qur'an
itself does not tell us

in so many words that
these all refer to Mecca.

Muslim scholars see no
reason to debate this.

But in recent years, some
historians have raised questions.

They have noted that
Mecca was a barren place

and not located on the
ancient caravan route.

People have imagined that the caravans

carried incense, spice
and other exotic goods,

but according to recent research,
by the time of Muhammad,

the age of frankincense was now long over,

and the Arabs engaged in a
trade of leather and clothing,

hardly items that could have
sustained the large city

that was described as
the mother of all cities

and the center of the trade route.

Look at this map.

Where do all the trade routes intersect?

There are three places in northern Arabia

that could be described as
the center of the trade route.

What is interesting is that Mecca

was not even a stopping place

because it was not even
located on the caravan route.

In this film, we will find out

why there is a total lack
of archeology in Mecca

from the time of the Prophet Muhammad,

why descriptions of Mecca do
not tally with the landscape,

and how an early Islamic civil war

altered the truth about Islam.

While Muslims all over the world believe

that their holy city and
their founding leaders

all lived in Mecca in Saudi Arabia,

Dan Gibson believes the evidence

actually points elsewhere.

During my studies of Arabian history,

I've come across evidence
that points not to Mecca

but to northern Arabia as
the founding place of Islam.

Up until now, no one has ever questioned

that Mecca was the Holy City of Islam.

Every Muslim believes that he should pray

towards the Black Rock in Mecca,

but years of study and countless trips

to all parts of the Arabian Peninsula

have led me to a radical new understanding

of Islamic history.

I believe that in the
process of understanding

Islamic history, a fundamental
error has been made.

It wasn't a deliberate falsehood,

it was just a misunderstanding
of what happened

during the founding years of Islam.

So later, Islamic writers corrected

what they thought was an
error in earlier histories

when it was actually the truth.

Is it possible that over a billion people

who followed the religion
of Islam misunderstand

how and where their religion began?

And if so, what implications
does this evidence have

for the average Muslim who wants to follow

the instructions of Muhammad, his prophet?

We are going to have to
examine a time in history

and a setting that few of us understand.

For centuries, the histories
of the classical world

and Middle East empires
have been discussed,

but little effort has been
given to the history of Arabia.

This ignorance is true,
not just of the West,

but also of the Arabs themselves.

The prophet Muhammad was born in 570 AD,

at a time and a place that few people today

really know about.

His grandfather and his father
were Nabataean merchants

and, in fact, Muhammad himself
married a merchant woman.

One day, Muhammad was meditate in the cave

and an angel visited him.

The angel taught him
words of praise to Allah.

Later, his wife convinced Muhammad

that it really had been an angel

and he was, in fact, called
to be a prophet of God.

During his lifetime, he had many visits

from the same angel, and each time,

there was a new revelation.

These revelations from the whole

of the lifetime of Muhammad
become gathered together

to what we know today as the Qur'an.

Adel i-Shemari studied Islam

at the Islamic College in Kuwait.

Over the years, he and Dan
have formed a good friendship

and have often found themselves
drawn into deep discussion

about faith and its history.

Muhammad and his followers
suffered persecution,

so he and a few of his
followers fled to Medina.

Now that city actually converted to Islam

and Muhammad established
a government there.

And in fact, we can
date the Muslim calendar

from this period of time.

Shortly after this, his followers

started attacking caravans,

growing in power, growing
in number, until eventually

more and more people
joined them to the point

where they became an
expanded military presence,

in fact, threatened the whole of Arabia.

Muhammad gave his vision of taking Islam

to the entire world.

However, he died unexpectedly.

And at that point, disputes broke out,

leading to civil wars.

But despite these differences
and these divisions,

there was the continued
dream of expanding the faith

to the whole of the world.

Eventually, much of North
Africa or in Central Asia

became under the control of Islam.

And today, Islam is the second largest

of the world's religions.

Today, all over the Middle East,

when construction companies
want to dig for a foundation,

there should be someone present

from the Ministry of Antiquities.

It doesn't matter if you're in Jerusalem,

Damascus, or Amman, Jordan,

wherever you dig, the chances are,

you will expose an
ancient site of some sort.

In the city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia,

developers are digging all over,

putting up great buildings,
hotels and high-rises,

but to the surprise of archeologists,

there are no ruins of a great
and ancient city on the Mecca.

The city where Muhammad
was born was a major city.

It had no trouble in
raising large numbers of men

to work caravans and march in its armies.

Not only did it have a
significant population,

but it was also an agricultural city.

The Prophet Muhammad would
go forth for his affairs

and journey far afield until
he reached the glens of Mecca

and the beds of its valleys.

Aisha, Muhammad's wife,
mentioned that one of the men

was longing for Mecca.

Would that I but stay overnight

in a valley filled with
various kinds of grass.

When we came to Mecca, we saw a town

blessed with water and trees,

and delighted with it, we settled there.

Al Bukhari speaks of a prisoner

who is eating grapes while
he was chained in

and he says, "This was not
the time of fruit in Mecca."

It's hard to believe that these things

were written about Mecca.

The area around Mecca
is all rocks and desert.

Mecca averages less than 10
centimeters of rain per year.

With its extremely hot
temperatures and barren conditions,

this is scarcely enough to
grow any vegetation at all,

let alone grow enough food to
support a large population.

Yet the Holy City of Islam is described

as having fields with
trees and grass and soil.

But there's no cultivatable
land near Mecca.

It doesn't match the ancient descriptions.

Even the Shaq mentions
that the people of Mecca

were reluctant to cut down
trees in the sacred area.

The presence of trees and
plants in ancient times

can be easily tested by
the presence of spores

and pollen in undisturbed ancient soil.

To date, there is no record of trees

having ever existed in ancient Mecca.

Another puzzle is that the city of Mecca

is missing on all early maps of Arabia.

One would expect that a major merchant city

would be mentioned on early maps.

But not one shows Mecca
before the time of Islam.

Over the years, I have gathered copies

of many ancient maps of Arabia.

I have diligently translated them.

But never once did I find Mecca mentioned

on a map before Islam.

Did you know that the
name Mecca does not appear

in any literature prior to 740 AD?

That's 120 years after
the founding of Islam.

Don't you find it puzzling

that for the first 120
years of Islamic history,

none of the surrounding
nations knew anything

about the existence of Mecca?

How could a major city,

a city that could raise
thousands of men in its army,

a city that had agriculture, trees, grass,

fruit and grapes, be
missed by other nations?

How could a major city with walls, temples,

and public buildings not be found

in the annals of other nations,

especially if it was a merchant city

that undertook trade with
all the nations around it?

And most puzzling of all is that when we go

to the physical location
of this ancient city,

we find that there is no
early archeological record.

It was an insignificant location,

not even on a trade route.

Many historians today have
come to the conclusion

that the accounts of the
founding of Islam are all myths.

Obviously, there is a great discrepancy

between what Islamic records tell us

and what the archeologists
have been finding.

So the conclusion they draw
is that the Islamic records

are just fabricated myths.

In my years of study,
I have become convinced

that the early records are not myths,

but that they refer to another location

that fits all of these descriptions.

I believe that Muhammad was born

and raised in another
place, and that Muslims

are facing the wrong
direction when they pray.

According to commonly
accepted Islamic history,

the Ka'ba was a major
shrine in the city of Mecca

and the focus of pilgrimage in Arabia.

A good starting place might
be studying the pilgrimage

before the founding of Islam.

This Umra before Muhammad

was at a time when the focal
point of Arabian pilgrimage

was to a place known as the
Forbidden Gathering Place.

This location held many pagan idols.

In order for us to understand

what was happening in pre-Islamic Arabia,

we need to understand the importance

of holy places in ancient Arabia.

From ancient times,
Middle Eastern religions

have equated gods with regions

rather than being universal.

Modern readers of history
have long been influenced

by Greek and Roman concepts
of the pantheon of gods

and have failed to realize the significance

that the ancient Arabs applied
to gods of specific regions.

In the eyes of the ancient
Arabs, there were gods

who lived in Mesopotamia,
gods who lived in Egypt,

and gods who lived in Greece, and so on.

Arab merchants passing through an area

would respect the local gods.

They were not opposed to
gods of different places.

What they were opposed
to was the representation

of a god in human or animal form.

They prefer to use geometric shapes.

For instance, here is a god
in the shape of a block.

That one over there is
shaped as a triangle.

Each of these gods were
considered local gods,

and must be respected when
passing through their territory.

Such a view of religion naturally leads

to accepting territories and locations

as being sacred to specific gods.

Thus, the area around the temple,

such as a particular valley
or remote desert location,

could be considered as sacred.

It would have a precinct
where people could gather,

even with their enemies, and be safe,

because violence was forbidden
in the sacred precincts.

When tourists enter the
majestic beauty of Wadi Rum

here in southern Jordan,

they're so often taken up
with the exquisite beauty

of this valley on the rugged mountains,

that they miss a temple
dedicated to the goddess Lat,

or al-Lat as some call her.

This Nabataean temple had a sacred area.

It was located in front of the temple

with the mountains marking
off the sacred area.

Before Islam, Arabs were divided

into many groups.

They worshiped different gods

and often fought amongst
themselves over tribal issues.

The one thing that held them together

was the pilgrimage to a
common ancient meeting place.

The Qur'an calls this Masjid al-Haraam,

or the Forbidden Gathering Place.

Masjid means gathering,

and is translated mosque today.

Before Islam, there were no mosques,

so the Masjid was simply a gathering place.

The Forbidden Gathering
Place was a sacred place

of refuge and security,

where regular activities ceased

and violence was forbidden, or Haraam.

The concept of Haraam or forbidden

is very strong in Islam.

Allah has made Mecca a sacred sanctuary

and it was a sanctuary before,

and will be so after.

None is allowed to uproot its shrubs,

or cut its trees, or hunt its game.

So we have two descriptions of the original

Holy City of Islam.

It was a Haraam place where
killing was forbidden,

and it was the focus of the pilgrimage

for many centuries before
the founding of Islam.

Now, look here.

Much of the graffiti found throughout

the Negev in southern Jordan

was written by people on pilgrimage

to the ancient city of
Petra in southern Jordan.

Thousands of people scratched their names

and messages on rocks
as they made their way

to Petra for pilgrimage.

This creates a problem for us.

Mecca is unknown in maps and literature

before and during the rise of Islam.

The descriptions such as the
center of the trade route,

the mother of all cities,
and the focal point

of the ancient pilgrimage, do not fit.

How can we solve this?

The answer to that comes from Islam itself.

In Islam, it is universally understood

that the Qibla is towards
Mecca in Saudi Arabia.

No one questions the
direction of the Qibla today.

However, the Qur'an tells
Muslims they have a Qibla.

The text of the Qur'an does
not give the name of the city

to which prayer was originally made.

It only mentions Masjid al-Haraam,

or the Forbidden Gathering Place.

Muslims believe they originally
prayed towards Jerusalem.

According to Islamic sources, in 624 AD,

Muhammad changed the Qibla to Mecca.

Muhammad revealed this
in Sura 2 of the Qur'an.

Thus, we appointed the Qibla to you.

Indeed, it was a momentous change,

except to those guided by Allah.

Allah would never make
your faith of no effect.

Now shall we turn you to a
Qibla that shall please you.

Turn then your face in the direction

of the Mashjad Al Haraam;

wherever you are, turn your
faces in that direction.

As a historian of the Arabian Peninsula,

I've always been interested
in finding the location

of the original Qibla.

What direction did Muhammad pray towards

before the Qibla was changed?

Was it Jerusalem, as some claim?

Was it Syria, as some claim?

Or was it some other direction?

If we were to do this study 100 years ago,

it would require an incredible
amount of work and research.

We would have to travel the
world searching ancient sites

to find the earliest mosques in Islam.

Now, in a few moments, we can do

what used to take a lifetime.

Google Earth lets us look
down on sites from space.

And websites like ARCHNET
can combine the research

of hundreds of students and professors.

We can examine structures
based on various criteria.

We choose Islamic buildings,

arrange them by date into
a chronological list,

then determine when they were constructed,

check their Qibla direction
by using Google Earth,

and collate this to determine when

the Qibla direction changed towards Mecca.

This will give us solid data to work with.

Now, determining the Qibla direction

is not an exact science.

Some of the early mosques like this one

are not exactly square.

So researchers need to find the Qibla wall

and project to 90 degrees from that wall.

Because early buildings were not square,

we cannot use the side
walls or the back walls.

This is the mihrab of an old mosque.

The early Arabs set the Qibla
direction using the stars

and they were very accurate.

The best way to determine
the Qibla direction

is to visit the mosque and use
an actual accurate GPS unit.

Not every mosque can
be used for this study.

Many of them were totally
reconstructed over time,

so much so that it is no longer possible

to determine their
original Qibla direction.

However, a number of mosques survive.

For instance, there is a mosque called

the Mosque of the two Qiblas in Medina.

Islamic history tells us that
it was in this very mosque

that the companion leading prayers

was told of the Qibla
change, so he turned around

and started praying towards Mecca.

The question is where
did he originally face?

Muslims have a ready answer.

He prayed towards Jerusalem.

Now today the Mosque of
the Two Qiblas faces Mecca.

But in 1987, the mosque
was completely torn down

so it could be rebuilt.

During the construction process,

the old foundation was revealed.

And they discovered that
it did have a Qibla wall

that did indeed face north,
generally towards Jerusalem.

And so Muslims believe, originally,

the Qibla was towards Jerusalem.

There is a simple way

that this can be put to the test.

If we go to the earliest
mosques that were built

where we can identify
their direction of prayer,

we can plot them on a map,

and see if their lines converge.

We'll find one of three things.

They all point in different directions.

They all point to Jerusalem,

or they all point to another location.

After the Mosque of the
Two Qiblas in Saudi Arabia,

there are a further 11
early surviving mosques

that we can research.

These are located in China, Egypt,

southern Jordan, Lebanon,

central Jordan, Yemen,

Israel, Iraq,

Jerusalem,

West Bank, and lastly, Lebanon.

So, if we go in the order
that they were built,

the second surviving mosque
was built in Guangzhou, China.

Guangzhou is the modern
name for what was known

as the city of Canton.

When Marco Polo reached
this city in 1300 AD,

he discovered over 100,000 Arab

and Persian merchants living there.

You see, the Arabs have been
trading with the Chinese

for hundreds and hundreds of years.

This is all well-documented.

And so Abu Waqqas, an uncle of Muhammad,

traveled to China on a trade mission.

And according to Chinese manuscripts,

he built a mosque for the
Arabs in Canton in 627 AD,

or six years after the founding of Islam.

I personally examined this mosque

and used the GPS unit to determine

the mosque's Qibla direction.

What I found was surprising.

This mosque does not face Mecca.

It faces 12 degree north of Mecca,

meaning that it does not
face Jerusalem either.

Its Qibla passes south of Jerusalem.

The next mosque was built in 641 AD,

about 20 years after the founding of Islam,

in the town of Fustat,
just outside of Cairo.

This mosque was rebuilt
and enlarged several times

so that today the original
foundation is no longer evident.

However, a description of the original

ground plan of the mosque survives,

and the Islamic records tell us

that the first Qibla pointed east,

and later had to be
corrected towards the south,

towards Mecca.

The next surviving Islamic building

is the Umayyad Palace built here at Humayma

in southern Jordan.

Around 700 AD or about 80 years

after the founding of Islam,

the Abbas family built a
large manor house here.

This house had no special mosque area.

Rather, the faithful would line up here

in the courtyard to pray.

This house has a Qibla direction,

but it is not towards Jerusalem.

The following year, a new mosque was built

in Baalbek in Lebanon.

Notice that its Qibla
does not point to Mecca.

One year later, the Umayyads built a large

and impressive mosque here on
the citadel in Amman, Jordan.

This mosque points south.

Mecca is over there.

A couple of years after this,

in 705 AD, or 84 years
after the founding of Islam,

Muslims constructed the
Great Mosque of Sana'a

in the capital city of Yemen.

While this mosque points in
the general direction of Mecca,

it actually points to
the west of Jerusalem.

The following year, in 706 AD,

the Umayyad Muslim rulers
built Khirbat al-Minya,

a large palace complex in
Israel on the shores of Galilee.

This palace complex had a
specific room used as a mosque.

According to the inscriptions
set into a gateway,

it was built 87 years
after the founding of Islam

by the Muslim ruler al-Walid.

This building and its mosque
do not face Jerusalem.

That same year, the Muslims also built

the Wasid Mosque in Iraq.

Originally, archeologists
claim that this mosque

pointed to Jerusalem.

However, further research has shown

that this mosque points south of Jerusalem.

The next mosque is the Al-Aqsa Mosque

in Jerusalem itself.

This mosque is not the temple dome

but rather the old mosque
to the south of the dome.

This mosque is already in Jerusalem,

but it also has a Qibla,

and it does not point to Mecca.

The next mosque we come
to was built in 724 AD,

103 years after the founding of Islam.

This is the Khirbat al Mafjar Mosque

near Jericho in the Jordan Valley.

This palace was built near the end

of the Umayyad Dynasty.

By looking at the floor plan,

we can see that the palace and its mosque

faced south, rather than towards Mecca.

That same year, a mosque
was built at Anjar,

about 58 kilometers from Beirut.

It was built near the
end of the Umayyad period

and no more than 30 years
later, it fell into ruins

and eventually was abandoned.

Since it was never rebuilt,

we can easily determine the Qibla direction

which does not point
towards Mecca or Jerusalem.

Now, let's put this all
together onto one map.

The result is amazing.

During the first 100 years of Islam,

100% of all the surviving
mosques we have located so far

face a spot in southern
Jordan, rather than Mecca.

From north, south, east, and west,

mosques all face towards one spot.

This isn't some small error

in determining the Qibla direction.

They all specifically
point to just one place.

Directly under this point
is the ancient city of Petra.

This is a city that is
well-known to us today.

It is a popular tourist site.

Tourists come from all over the world

to marvel at the great temples

and the monuments in this city.

Could it be that Petra is
the mother of all cities

described in the Qur'an?

It was the focus of the
ancient Arab pilgrimage.

So could Petro also be the
birthplace of Muhammad,

and the founding city of Islam?

Every good Muslim tells me

that Muslims used to
pray towards Jerusalem.

They know this because
Bukhari tells them this.

And I agree, Bukhari says it was Jerusalem.

But Bukhari is writing some
200 years after Muhammad,

and is writing more than a hundred years

after the Qibla change took place.

So he's not an eyewitness.

He's just collecting what
people are remembering.

And he actually notes
several conflicting ideas

that were circulating at the time.

While some people were
offering morning prayer at Quba',

a man came to them and
said, "A Quranic order

"has been revealed to
Allah as a puzzle tonight,

"that he should face the Ka'ba at Mecca,

"so you, too, should turn
your faces towards it."

At that moment, their
faces were towards Syria,

and on hearing this, they turned
towards the Ka'ba at Mecca.

I believe that originally, Muhammad,

while living in Medina,
prayed north towards Petra

which was in the Roman province of Syria.

By the time Bukhari was
collecting his stories,

people had forgotten Petra,

and everyone remembered that
their great grandparents

prayed towards Syria.

Those who bring up the argument about Becca

raise an interesting point.

I agree that in Islamic
literature, the name Becca

is synonymous with the
first Holy City of Islam.

When Muhammad was a young man,

the people decided to rebuild the Ka'ba.

In the rubble, they found
several building blocks

with inscriptions written in Syria,

the language of the Nabataeans.

They found a Jew who could
translate it for them.

I am Allah, the Lord of Becca.

I created it on the day that
I created heaven and earth

and formed the sun and moon,

and I surrounded it
with seven pious angels.

It will stand whilst
its two mountains stand

as a blessing to its
people with milk and water.

The word Becca is an ancient Semitic word

which means to weep or lament.

If a location was assigned the title Becca,

it would mean the place of weeping.

The name Becca has never
been used of Jerusalem.

It appears only once in
the Bible in Psalm 84.

Here it is used in reference
to a valley of weeping,

but the Qur'an also speaks
of a valley of weeping,

where Hagar was weeping over Ishmael.

The Qur'an places this story in Becca,

which is the early name for the place

where the Ka'ba was built.

Surely, this location was not Jerusalem,

which is built on top of the mountain,

and not in a valley.

I think the answer is quite simple.

There were many major earthquakes in Petra,

such as the one in 551 AD, only 19 years

before Muhammad was born.

We are told that during that earthquake,

much of Petra was destroyed.

Petra could have been
called the valley of Becca

because so many people were
killed over so many years

from all the earthquakes.

If Petra is the Holy City of Islam,

then there should be
evidence of Muhammad's tribe,

the Quraysh, around Petra.

If Dan Gibson can find Muhammad's tribe,

it will greatly support
his theory that Muhammad

was from the Petra region
and not from Mecca.

Long ago, this was known
as the city of Hawara,

or Humayma as it is known today.

Archeologists have uncovered a farmhouse

belonging to the Abbasid family

and a mosque built some time later.

When the Muslims of Iraq defeated
the Umayyads of Damascus,

they wanted a member of Muhammad's family

to support and legitimize their revolt.

And so they came here to
Humayma, 27 miles from Petra.

It was here that they
found Muhammad's family

and the Quraysh tribe.

They didn't go to Mecca in
Saudi Arabia, or Medina,

they came here to Humayma,
27 miles outside of Petra.

It was here that they
found the Quraysh tribe

and the family of Muhammad,
not in Saudi Arabia.

So far, we have discovered

that the early mosques of Islam all faced

the ancient city of Petra.

But does the city of Petra
fit the Islamic descriptions

of the original Holy City of Islam?

There is a story told by all

of the early biographers of Muhammad.

It concerns Abdullah, Muhammad's father.

He was working in the field one day

and he came home with dirt on his hands.

He went into his first wife
and said, "Lie with me."

But she refused because he was dirty.

So he went out, washed off the soil,

went into his next wife, Aminah.

She conceived and in this
way, Muhammad was born.

What is important to us
about this story is that

all of the early writers used the same word

for the dirt on Abdullah's hands.

They all used an Arabic word for soil,

especially the soil of a
cultivated plot or field.

The problem is there is no
cultivatable land near Mecca.

However, when we come to Petra, we discover

that Petra had water, fields, and trees.

According to archeologists,

there were private and public gardens,

as well as running water
brought into the city

through aqueducts and clay pipes.

Archeologists have described fruit trees,

grapes and gardens
existing in ancient Petra.

Even today, there are
cultivated plots of land

between Petra and Al-Beidha,
which is five kilometers away.

By analyzing ancient soil,
researchers have discovered

that only 100 years ago,
the hills around Petra

were covered with trees, including oak,

juniper, pistachio, and carob.

Not only did the Holy
City have trees and fields,

it was also a walled city.

Ibn Ishaq says, "And they surrounded him

"by the walls of Mecca."

Now this is very puzzling because Mecca

had no city walls.

Some think perhaps this
was a house in Mecca.

But Ibn Ishaq specifically
says, the walls of Mecca.

But Mecca was not a walled city.

So what about Petra?

Petra was built in a valley.

On either side of the valley

were large mountains with cliffs.

These cliffs were as good as city walls.

So the people of Petra built walls

from one mountian cliff to
the other mountain cliff

both on this side of the valley

and also on the other side of the valley.

So Petra had city walls.

Another distinctive feature in Petra

is that it contains a very unique stream.

Now usually, you have
a valley with mountains

on one side, mountains on the other,

and a stream running down
the center of the valley.

But in this case, long ago,

earthquakes cracked these mountains,

so that there is a crack in that mountain,

water runs through that
crack, across the valley,

and out the crack in the other side.

The Nabataeans built a colonnaded street

from one mountain to the other mountain

and beside it was a rain watercourse.

Let's go down there.

Now in Islam, one of the
duties of the pilgrims

is to go seven times between two mountains

called Marwah and Safa.

What is interesting is
that Bukhari tells us

that Muhammad chose to do this

running in the rain watercourse

between the two mountains.

But there are problems.

Safa and Marwah are just small rocks.

Today, they're housed right
inside of the mosque building.

As you can see on this shrine,

there was no rain watercourse
between these two rocks.

But here in Petra, the
description fits exactly

from one mountain to the other.

There are four ways into the Petra basin.

Since Petra is in a valley, one could enter

from either end of the valley.

During the year of the contest of Mecca,

the prophet entered Mecca
through its upper part.

But there are also other
ways of entering Petra.

The ancient records tell
us that the Holy City

could be entered and exited
by a crack in the rocks.

In Arabic, this is called a thaniya.

Al Bukhari mentions this several times.

Allah's Apostle used to enter Mecca

from the high thaniya

and used to leave Mecca
from the low thaniya.

The prophet went on advancing
till he reached the thaniya

through which one would go to them.

That is the people of Quraysh.

There are two thaniya entrances.

One of these is the famous siq

that tourists pass
through to enter the city.

The other is on the far side
of the colonnaded street

and leads into a maze of
canyons that eventually

empty out into Wadi
Araba below the Dead Sea.

Petra also has many temples.

Over here is what is known today

as the Temple of the Winged Lions,

or the temple to Al-Uzza.

Behind me is what is known
as Qasr al-Bint today

or the temple to the god Dushara.

This short chain of mountains
here was the home to the god

and here in the very heart of the mountains

is the temple to this god, al-Dushara.

Now, Ibn Hisham relates to us

a very interesting story.

It's very early in Islamic history.

Only a few people have
converted to Islam at this time.

One of those was a man known
as al-Tufail bin Amr of Mecca.

He accepted Islam on one of his journeys.

And once he returned home to Mecca,

his wife also decided to accept Islam.

Al-Tufail then tells his wife

to go to the Temple of Dushara

and cleanse herself there.

In the sacred area, there
was a trickle of water

where she could wash herself.

She did this and returned
home and learned about Islam.

Did this story take place in Mecca,

a thousand kilometers away,

where there is no temple to Dushara?

Or did it take place here in Petra?

If it did, then Dushara's temple is there.

She would have come down to this temple,

washed herself, and gone home.

Is there a temple to Dushara
in Mecca in Saudi Arabia?

No, there are no temples,

no cracks in the rock,

no water stream, no city walls,

no grass, no trees, nothing.

It's all here in Petra.

And for the first 100 years, every mosque

in the entire Islamic world pointed here

to Masjid al-Haraam, the
Forbidden Gathering Place.

Here, in Petra.

There is no other city in the world

that fits this description so perfectly.

Now, al-Khattab had so harassed Zayd

that he forced him to withdraw
to the upper part of Mecca

and he stopped in the Mountain
of Hira facing the town.

It's interesting to
note that in this account,

Mount Hira is located in
the upper part of Mecca.

If you go to Mecca today, the cave of Hira

doesn't face the city.

But here in Petra, the
high side of the city

is north of the colonnaded street,

and the low part of the city

is south of the colonnaded street.

In effect, the city was divided in half

by the colonnaded street.

If Petra is the Holy City of Mecca,

then the cave where Muhammad
received his first revelation

should be located there.

The ancient records say
that the cave faced the town,

and that it was low down
since Muhammad tried

to climb the mountain to throw himself off.

If that's the case, I
think I know just the spot.

But we'll have to go over there.

Here in this cave, we can see where

there are many various god blocks.

Up there is a large crescent symbol.

This is just the sort
of cave where young men

would go to contemplate
the meaning of life.

The descriptions and location of this cave

are just like the ancient
records describe it,

just outside of the city,

the entrance facing the city,

and evidence that people spent time here

in religious worship and meditation.

I think that this is
one of the holiest spots

for all of Islam.

And it's here, in Petra.

The Qur'an commands every Muslim

to face the Forbidden
Gathering Place when they pray.

Now, the Forbidden Gathering
Place wasn't a building.

It was much more than this.

It was a large area marked
out with special stones.

These stones marked the
boundary around the sacred area.

No killing was allowed inside this area,

even birds were not killed.

Now, what kind of stones would you need

to mark out such an area?

If you had just small round stones,

they would be lost among the
other stones of the desert.

They must have been larger stones,

and there should have been
something special about them,

so that you knew for certain

that this was the boundary
of the sacred area.

Today in Mecca, there are
no special boundary stones.

Historians have long wondered

what these marker stones
might have looked like,

but they seem to have
been lost in the years

that have passed since then.

Or perhaps they were never there.

If Petra is the original
Holy City of Islam,

then, of course, the special
stones wouldn't be in Mecca.

They would be in Petra.

Now there's a feature about Petra

that's absolutely fascinating.

Whenever tourists come to this city,

they pass by a number of square-cut stones

known as the jinn rocks.

This is a fanciful name given
to them by the local Bedouin.

What is interesting is
that there are more 20

of these large square stones

marking all of the entrances of the city.

Is it possible that these mark
out the forbidden sanctuary?

Perhaps that's why they're
not located in Mecca.

If that is true, then Masjid al-Haraam,

or the forbidden sanctuary,

would have been located here.

And if it was located here, then the Ka'ba

would have been located here as well.

But it's not, because a man
named Ibn Zubayr moved it.

So far, in this program,

we have been examining
the direction of prayer

that Muslims originally faced.

As we've seen, all of the mosques

constructed during the
first hundred years of Islam

pointed to Petra.

By using the two mosques
on the Amman citadel,

Dan Gibson has determined
the approximate years

when the Qibla direction changed.

Does Islamic history give
us any clues as to why

the direction of prayer might have changed?

If we look into Islamic
history, at this exact time,

we come face-to-face with
the Second Islamic Civil War.

At this point in history,
the governor in the Holy City

was Abdullah Ibn Zubayr.

He was particularly unhappy.

In his eyes, the Holy City

was the most important city of Islam,

the mother of all cities,

but the Umayyad rulers chose Damascus

as the new capital city,

and a lot of people were unhappy

with the corruption and the
in-fighting in Damascus.

So in 683 AD, about 64 years
after the founding of Islam,

Ibn Zubayr declared himself
caliph in the Holy City

and that started the
Second Islamic Civil War.

The Umayyads reacted strongly

and sent an army against the Holy City.

Ibn Zubayr then did a shocking thing.

He destroyed the Ka'ba, the
ancient Holy Shrine of Islam.

Ibn Zubayr then demolished
the Ka'ba sanctuary

until he had leveled it to the ground

and dug out its foundation.

Then he placed the Black Stone beside it

in a wooden stand, in a strip of silk.

The Umayyads fought against
Zubayr and his companions,

but after 40 days, news arrived

that the ruling Caliph
in Damascus had died.

Now the Umayyad generals insisted

that the battle wasn't over,

but that they must return to Damascus

so that a new caliph could be established.

The members of the Umayyad Royal Family

had come to the battle as well,

and they insisted that they
must return to Damascus

onto the protection of the entire army,

so the whole army marches off.

The problem we face here is one of timing.

The Islamic records are quite clear,

that when the caliph
died, his 13-year-old son

ruled in his place.

Al-Tabari, Volume 20 tells us specifically

that his son survived only
40 days after his father died

before he, too, was killed.

During this time, the
armies from the Holy City

returned to Damascus.

Now, a slow-moving army
would have taken many days

to cover the 1,400-kilometer trek

across the desert from
Mecca in Saudi Arabia

to Damascus in Syria.

If the army could move at 20 miles a day,

it still would have taken them 43 days.

When you add up the time the messenger took

to bring the message, the
time it took for the army

to decide to return and get mobilized,

and the 43-day march, there
is simply not enough time.

Mecca is too far away to be believable.

However, if the Holy City was Petra,

then the distances would
all be drastically reduced.

This problem of distances
plagues Islamic history

again and again.

Mecca in Saudi Arabia is
simply too far removed

to fit many of the stories
in early Islamic history.

Now, with the lull in the war,

Ibn Zubayr had time to rebuild his defenses

and prepare for the return
of the Umayyad army.

Now, I want to show you something.

Here are some of the volumes

of Al-Tabari's history of Islam.

Al-Tabari managed to collect
a massive amount of material

that he writes about what happened

during each year of Islamic history.

He devotes whole chapters,

sometimes two chapters to every year.

But then something strange happens.

The battle for the Holy City

takes place over several years,

but Year 70 of Islamic history

is of great importance.

Now, notice Al-Tabari spends 15 pages

describing what happens in Year 69.

And he spends 27 pages describing

what happens in Year 71.

But where is Year 70?

Look at this.

For Year 70, Al Taburi only
records a few lines of text.

Did he not find any more
information for this year?

Or did later editors censor this year

from Al-Taburi's record?

Only a few lines, but what he records

gives us a few tantalizing details.

It tells us that Mus'aeb Ibn Zubayr,

apparently a brother of Abdullah,

brings supplies to the Holy City.

Were these supplies military equipment?

No, it says he brought
many horses and camels.

I believe that this is the
year that the followers

of Ibn Zubayr moved south from Petra

to the deserts of Arabia

to find a place where they could hold out

against the Umayyad forces.

All details of this year have been removed

from Al-Taburi's history, but we know

that they obtained many horses and camels

which would have no other purpose

than to move many of the
people out of the city.

This lull in the work
continued into the next year,

so Ibn Zubayr took advantage of the break

to undertake a religious project.

He decided to rebuild the Ka'ba.

But Al-Taburi does not tell us

where the new Ka'ba was constructed.

Was it in Petra?

Or was it in a new safer
location in faraway Mecca?

I believe that the new Ka'ba
was built in Saudi Arabia,

and that the Black Rock was
moved there for safekeeping

so even if Ibn Zubayr lost the Holy City,

he still had the rock and a new Ka'ba.

After a new caliph was established,

the Umayyad army returned.

This time the army was bigger,

and the Umayyads brought large
weapons of war with them,

among them, a stone-throwing
machine called a manjanik.

The war between Ibn-Zubayr and al-Hajjaj

took place six months and 17 nights

in the hollow of Mecca.

Yousaf bin Mjak said, "I saw the manjanik

"with which stones were being hurled.

"The sky was thundering and lightning,

"and the sound of the thunder and lightning

"rose above that of the stones

"so that it mastered."

During the fighting, Ibn Zubayr took refuge

in a ruined building beside the Ka'ba.

And this began another battle

which completed the destruction

of the Ka'ba area of the Holy City.

Eventually, Ibn Zubayr lost the battle,

but the cause was taken up by those

in the city of Medina in Saudi Arabia,

and by the city of Kufa in Iraq.

I believe that during this time,

the Islamic world was
thrown into contention.

Should they pray towards Petra?

Or should they pray towards Mecca?

The great Islamic Empire
had divided into two.

Originally, the Umayyads
rule from Damascus,

and they prayed towards Petra.

But they were defeated in battle

and now the eastern part of the empire

was ruled by the Abbasids,
who all constructed

their mosques facing towards Mecca.

It was during this exact time

that we see a change
in mosque construction.

Before this, every new mosque
constructed faced Petra.

But now for the first time,
some of the new mosques

began to face Mecca in Saudi Arabia.

But the problem still existed,

what do you do with the old mosques?

They were built facing Petra.

It was during this time that mosques began

hanging a sign on the wall to indicate

the direction of prayer.

It was said in the reign of Uthman

that the caliph ordered
that signs be posted

to the walls of the mosques in Medina.

This was so that the pilgrims
could easily identify

the direction to which they
needed to address their prayers.

Now this is a very interesting development,

because up until this time,

mosques were built so tthe faithful

had only to face the Qibla wall

and they face the Holy City.

Why would you need to introduce a sign,

unless the direction of prayer had changed?

Around this time, around 89 years

after the founding of Islam,

a niche was suddenly introduced
into mosque structure

to denote the direction of prayer.

This niche was added to older buildings

and also incorporated into newer buildings.

Today, the niche is
standard in every mosque,

but it wasn't originally.

There was no niche until
the Qibla direction changed.

In the civil war, the Umayyads
still prayed towards Petra.

But the rebels in the Holy
City in Medina and in Kufa

chose to pray towards the
new Qibla in Saudi Arabia.

When the armies of Kufa met ibn Zubayr,

Bujayr ibn Abdallah al Musli spoke.

"Praise be to God who has
tested us with chuckles

"and tested you by your forgiving us.

"Ibn Zubayr, we are people who turn

"to the same Qibla as you."

What a strange phrase.

"We're the people who turn
to the same Qibla as you."

Muslim historians argue that this means

the same Qibla as every other Muslim.

But now that we have uncovered evidence

of the change of Qibla at this very time,

this phrase takes on special significance.

The people of Kufa join with Ibn Zubayr

in accepting his Qibla.

This is key to understanding

much of what takes place later.

Even though Ibn Zubayr is eventually killed

and seems to lose the civil war,

the city of Kufa plays a major role

in the development of
the new Abbasid Dynasty

and Kufa becomes a theological center

and a place for copying Qur'ans.

In the Islamic world, things were a mess.

Not only were Muslims divided politically,

they were divided religiously.

Obeying the wishes of Allah

as revealed by the Prophet Muhammad

was at the very heart of Islam.

Should you obey Muhammad and the Qur'an

and face towards the Forbidden
Gathering Place in Petra?

Or should you pray towards the Sacred House

and the Black Rock which
is in Saudi Arabia?

So far, Dan Gibson has
plotted the existing mosques

from the first century of Islam,

and they all point to Petra in Jordan.

So, what about the mosques of
the second century of Islam?

Do they all point to Petra as well?

Here is where things
start to get interesting.

During my studies, I
discovered that the mosques

built during the second century of Islam

point in different directions.

This is what I call the time of confusion.

102 years after the founding of Islam,

the mosque of Uma was
constructed in southern Syria

in the ancient city of Bosra.

As you can see, the mosque's orientation

does not point towards Mecca.

But clearly, it does not
point to Petra either.

Five years later, the
ruling Muslims built a palace

in the Syrian desert known
as Qasr al-Hayr al-Gharbi.

This is a drawing of the
floor plan of the palace

and the mosque in the
corner of the complex.

The whole complex seems to face somewhere

between Petra and Mecca.

A couple of years later,

Qasr al-Hayr al-Sharqi palace was built

about a hundred kilometers
north of Palmyra.

If we examine the ground
plan of the palace buildings,

we notice that the palace and its mosque

don't seem to align to
either Mecca or Petra.

Once again, it points in between.

Is it possible that something had happened

which made the builders not want to choose

either Petra or Mecca,

so they pointed the Qibla between the two?

We can see from the map
that the Qibla points

exactly between the two cities.

It is not a slight error in calculation

but a deliberate avoiding
of both Petra and Mecca.

So, we must find an answer
elsewhere to explain that change.

109 years after the founding of Islam,

a mosque was built in Banbhore, Pakistan.

Like all of the other
mosques of the period,

it had only a Qibla wall without a niche.

This mosque, however, pointed
towards Mecca in Saudi Arabia.

Here, we have the very first mosque

that we can identify as pointing to Mecca.

There may have been others
built that no longer exist

but this mosque is significant

because it's the earliest surviving mosque

that we can truly say faced
Mecca in Saudi Arabia.

And what is astounding is that it was built

about 100 years after
the death of Muhammad.

This is very late for Muslim historians,

and it is going to cause
traditional Islamic history

all kinds of trouble.

One of the most important
buildings in our study

is found here on the
citadel of Amman, Jordan.

This Umayyad Palace was
built about 122 years

after the founding of Islam.

Now, if you remember,

we looked at an Umayyad
mosque built over here.

This mosque points directly towards Petra.

But when they built the palace,

its Qibla direction was
directly towards Mecca,

so clearly, the Qibla direction changed

sometime between the
construction of those buildings

and the construction of this palace.

This will help us determine how and when

the Qibla direction changed.

Remember, it was during the
construction of this palace

that the name Mecca first
appears in literature anywhere.

The next major mosque that was constructed

was built 32 kilometers
south of Amman, Jordan.

This was known as the
Mushatta Palace and Mosque

and it was built in 743 AD.

As you can see, it was a very large

and impressive Umayyad Palace
with the mosque located

in the southern part of
the structure facing Petra.

Indeed, the entire complex faces Petra.

What makes this interesting
is that it seems

that Islam is now split
into several groups.

There were the traditionalists
who built their mosques,

like this one, facing Petra.

But there were reformers
whose mosques face Mecca.

And there were others who
were not in either group

and they refused to select
either of those Qiblas.

During this time, a significant change

took place in Islamic history.

The Umayyad rulers of Islam in Damascus

were defeated by the Abbasids of Kufa.

In 754 AD, al-Mansoor, the
new caliph, commissioned

the construction of a
brand new eastern capital,

choosing Baghdad in Iraq as his site.

The new city was built
on a spectacular design

Rather than the haphazard
shape common to most

Middle Eastern cities, this city was built

in a great circle.

The designers went out to a brand new area

and used ashes to draw out the city plan

on the ground prior to construction.

The city, which was completed in 767 AD

was two kilometers in diameter.

As you can see on this drawing,

the main mosque of the city had no niche

indicating the direction of prayer.

That was to come later.

One wall was used as a Qibla wall,

and that wall pointed directly to Mecca,

as would all of the other
mosques built from now on

by the Abbasid rulers.

If this is all
true, then the Prophet Muhammad

and the first four
rightly-guided caliphs in Islam,

and the following Umayyad rulers

who ruled Islam from Damascus,

all prayed towards the city of Petra.

But late in the Umayyad
reign, something happened

that caused the builders to change

the direction of their mosques.

Some pointed to Petra, some to Mecca,

and some chose to be neutral
and point between the two.

This created a problem for
the western half of Islam.

The people in the West was still loyal

to the earlier Umayyads.

So the Islamic world is now split into two.

The Abbasid rulers in Iraq controlled

the eastern part of the empire,

and the Umayyad rulers control
North Africa and Spain.

This is an important
time in Islamic history

because the Umayyads in
Spain now blossom in culture

and begin to build beautiful
and impressive buildings.

The builders in Spain had a problem.

Traditionally, Umayyads
all prayed towards Petra.

But as we're going to see,
something devastating happened,

resulting in future mosques no
longer facing that direction.

Their enemies, the Abbasids, now pray

towards Mecca in Saudi Arabia,

so they don't want to choose
that direction of prayer.

So what should the Umayyads do?

As I examine the mosques
built by the Spanish Umayyads,

I discover the most surprising development.

These builders chose
neither Petra nor Mecca.

Now, as we have seen,

some of the builders in the Middle East

chose to point their Qiblas
between the two cities.

But the builders in North Africa and Spain

decided to do something
completely different.

Over the years, historians have always been

puzzled by these mosques.

Their Qiblas seem to point towards

somewhere in South Africa,

but all of the African and Spanish mosques

point to slightly different places.

It all seems very confusing.

However, when plotted on a map,

we can see that the mosques
of North Africa and Spain

all have Qiblas that are parallel to a line

drawn between Petra and Mecca.

So rather than choosing Petra or Mecca,

they chose to make their Qiblas parallel

to a line drawn between the two cities.

If you're still not convinced,

I wanna show you something else.

Do you remember when we discussed

the Second Islamic Civil War?

Ibn Zubayr barricaded
himself in the Holy City,

and the Umayyad Syrian army surrounded him

and kept him there for four months.

During the month of October,

the Syrians brought a
catapult up to the city walls

where they lobbed rocks right
into the holy places of Islam.

How is this possible?

Normally, people live
behind the city walls.

A catapult would simply
smash down people's houses.

But in this case, it said the catapult

hit the holy places of Islam

right in the center of the city.

How is this possible?

Well, here in Petra,
there is a unique feature.

Petra had city walls, in
the north and in the south,

the city walls crossed the valley.

But in the north, the city walls did not go

all the way to the canyon,

because there was a watercourse
running along the canyon.

I believe Syrians brought their catapult

up the dry river course, right to the place

where they could lob rocks into
the very heart of the city,

hitting the Ka'aba and
the holy places of Islam.

Archeologists from Brown University

have been digging here
in Petra for many years.

Their project was to excavate what is known

as the Great Temple area.

As they uncovered the
temple, Dan was amazed

to find evidence that supported his theory.

One of the interesting
features of this building

is that people built
defenses here against attack.

See, here in this
doorway, they closed it in

so they could defend themselves.

This happened sometime after
the earthquake of 551 AD.

We can date the defenses of
here by the roofing tiles

that were used in the
construction of these defenses.

However, there are no recorded battles

in Petra during this time.

So we know this happened during
the founding years of Islam.

But this is not the only evidence we have.

During the excavations, the archeologists

uncovered over 400 catapult stones.

These stones are buried
in about the right place

at exactly the right time.

This is an extremely strong indication

that the battle took place here,

and that the first original Ka'ba

was close to this location.

So, Islam was divided

between the traditionalists
and the reformers.

The traditionalists prayed
towards Petra in Jordan,

and the reformers prayed
towards Mecca in Saudi Arabia,

and others deliberately
choosing a middle path.

How were they ever going
to solve this dilemma?

Petra, the city of weeping,
suffered a fatal calamity.

Massive earthquakes shook the Petra region,

destroying buildings, temples, and houses.

The damage was so bad that the
city was never rebuilt again.

The evidence for that
first Ka'ba is gone now.

The catapult stones destroyed much of it.

Ibn Zubayr destroyed the rest.

In 713, an earthquake destroyed the dam

that diverts the water around Petra,

so every year, floodwaters washed away

whatever evidence was left.

So, with the memory
of Petra fading from view,

the chroniclers of Islamic history,

writing some 150 years later,

would never mention it by name.

In time, the memories
of these two locations

became merged into one, that
of Mecca in Saudi Arabia.

From now on, all Qiblas would point here.

It wasn't until modern archeological tools,

satellite photos, and the
Internet allowed the networking

of historians, academics and
scholars around the world

to start piecing together
a different picture.

In order to understand the events

that influenced the
writing of Islamic history,

we need to recognize several things.

First, it is my belief
there was a literary vacuum

in the early Islamic empire
created by zealous Muslims

who destroyed books and manuscripts,

erased inscriptions,

burned libraries,

and destroyed all literature
except the Qur'an,

which was mostly bits and
pieces of what people remembered

of the revelations that Muhammad gave.

This destruction of written
material by the Islamic forces

has been well-documented.

One piece of evidence
is a letter from 640 AD

from the Caliph to General Amr,

the leader of the Muslim armies in Egypt,

who asked the Caliph what should he do

with the thousands of manuscripts he found

in warehouses in Alexandria.

The Caliph's answer has been recorded

and known for centuries.

As for the books you
mention, here is my reply.

If their content is in accordance

with the revelations of Allah,

we may do without them,

for in that case, the revelations of Allah

more than suffice.

If, on the other hand, they contain matter

not in accordance with
the revelations of Allah,

there can be no need to preserve them.

Proceed then and destroy them.

The Muslim writer, Ibn
al-Qifti, tells us that the books

were distributed to the
public baths of Alexandria

where they were used to feed the stoves

which kept the baths comfortably warm.

They say it took six months to burn

all that massive material.

Eutychius, the patriarch of Constantinople,

recorded that there were 4,000
baths that received books

from the Alexandria library.

This burning of books, however,

did not start in Egypt,

but four years earlier in Persia.

Caliph Umar's army met
with the Persian armies

in the Battle of Qadisiyya
in the year 636 AD.

In early January 637,
the Muslim advanced guard

reached the outskirts of Ctesiphon,

and laid siege to the city for two months.

Eventually, the city fell,
and the Muslims occupied it.

During the fighting, the palaces

and the library at Ctesiphon
were deliberately burned.

In the end, the only book
that managed to survive

in Arabia was the Glorious Qur'an.

When it comes to the history of the Qur'an,

historians have struggled.

It seems that most of the Qur'an

was retained in an oral fashion

rather than written form.

While the Arabs were great memorizers

and had the ability to retain
the entirety of the Qur'an,

the retention of materials
in an oral tradition

suffers from several difficulties.

First, the accuracy of the memories

of the individuals
involved must be perfect.

In the case of the Qur'an, arguments arose

over the various verses,
how they should be rendered

and if they should or should
not be included in the whole.

Second, the problem of
transferring knowledge

from the learned to the novice

is often a difficult step.

In the case of the Qur'an, most of the men

who memorized the sayings of
Muhammad were also warriors.

As is often the case,
warriors die in battle

and their knowledge of the
Qur'an perished with them.

This is amply illustrated
in the Battle of Yamama

when an estimated 450 men

who had memorized the Qur'an were killed.

Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman

at the time when the people of Damascus

and the people of Iraq were waging war

to conquer Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Hudhaifa was afraid because
the people of Damascus and Iraq

had differences in the
recitation of the Qur'an.

So he said to Uthman, "Oh,
chief of the believers,

"save this nation before they differ

"about the revelations."

So Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying,

"Send us your manuscript of the Qur'an

"so that we may compile
the Quranic materials

"into perfect copies and
return the manuscript to you."

Hafsa sent it.

Then a group of men sat down to create

a new copy of the Qur'an.

Uthman said to the three Quraysh men,

"In case you disagree, write
it in the dialect of Quraysh,

"for the Qur'an was
revealed in that tongue."

When several copies were written,

Uthman returned the original
manuscript to Hafsa.

Uthman then sent every Muslim province

one copy of what's been written,

and he orders that all
of the Quranic material,

rather written in fragmentary manuscripts,

or even in whole copies,
that they all be burned.

And so the burning continued.

This time, even Quranic
materials were burned.

But it did not stop the arguing about

what should or should not
be included in the Qur'an.

When the new Qur'ans arrived
in various provinces,

people argued against them.

Sa'id bin Thabit said,
"A verse from Surat Ahzab

"was missed when we copied the Qur'an,

"and I used to hear Allah's
apostle reciting it.

"So we searched for it, and found it

"with Husaima bin Thabit al-Ansali."

These five or six copies were now

the only Qur'ans in the
entire Muslim empire.

Uthman's order to burn
all other Quranic material

try to wipe out all Qur'ans everywhere,

except the few that were held
by the provincial governors.

In effect, all non-Muslim
books were destroyed

and then the Muslims destroyed

all of their own books and writings

except for five or six copies.

Remember, the Islamic empire at this time

stretched from the Atlantic Ocean

through the Middle East,

all the way to Afghanistan,

and only five or six copies
of the Qur'an existed

in all those millions of square kilometers.

This is what I refer to when
I speak of a literary vacuum.

Much later, once the Abbasids took control

of the Islamic empire,

they recognized this literary vacuum

and they set out to correct it.

The problem was, they were
interested in producing

an Abbasid version of Islamic history,

so all of the materials produced
under the Abbasid control

reflected the politically correct version

of Abbasid history.

These histories and

about the previous 250 or more years

were collected, copied, and distributed.

Those books that were written earlier

were either destroyed or
edited by later writers

who thought they found errors in them.

Under Abbasid rule, massive religious,

scientific and academic
projects were undertaken.

The Abbasid rulers encouraged
scholarly development

that would not only present
the early years of Islam

in a good light, but would also confirm

their own right to ruling the empire.

During this period of time,

we find the great Islamic historians

writing the treatise on Islamic history.

And they also edit the earlier accounts.

For example, what we don't have Ibn Ishaq's

original biography of
Muhammad, as Ibn Hasam

and the Abbasids corrected what he called

grievous errors in the original account.

After the editing of Ibn Hasham,

the rest of the great Islamic historians

began to write their histories,

and they present us with an Islamic history

that was tailored to suit their religious

and political worldview of
the Abbasids of their day.

Is it possible that
Muslims today are victims

of an Abbasid cover-up?

Did the Abbasids purposely
turn Muslims away

from praying towards the
Forbidden Gathering Place

in Petra as the Qur'an commands,

and make them pray towards the Black Rock

now residing in Mecca?

Are Muslims still being
misled by Abbasid propaganda?

I believe the stage was set

when early Muslim leaders gathered together

the various scraps of the Qur'an.

The problem wasn't the collection.

It was the destruction of
anything that opposed their view.

There is a great divide here

between Western thought and Muslim thought.

In western thought, the later manuscripts

are less reliable as they
are copies of copies.

We need to go back to early source material

as it's more accurate.

Muslims, on the other hand, think

earlier manuscripts are less reliable,

and later manuscripts
replace earlier manuscripts.

Even in the Qur'an, later revelations

replace or abrogate earlier revelations.

Once you allow the concept of abrogation,

you open yourself up to
accepting all kinds of changes.

If the Abbasids tampered with history,

did they go so far as tampering
with the text of the Qur'an?

For instance, how did the
name Mecca get into Sura 48?

Abu Bakr, the successor of Muhammad,

made the first compilation
of Quranic material.

Uthman, who followed
him, used that collection

and then added to it.

The historians tell us that even

after Uthman had compiled his Qur'an,

people remembered still more verses

that Muhammad had revealed.

Every time a new Qur'an came out,

it was touted as the most complete Qur'an.

The previous ones were okay,

but the newer ones were more complete

with more revelations in them.

Did the Abbasids bring out
an even more complete Qur'an

that contained mention of Mecca?

Today, we have many of
the Abbasid Kufic Qur'ans

in museums from Istanbul to.

These Qur'ans use the Kufic script

invented in the city of Kufa.

But what about earlier Qur'ans
written in other scripts?

I have searched through many of the early

Quranic parchments written
in pre-Kufic script.

It should come as no surprise

that none of the pre-Kufic material

includes verses about
the changing of the Qibla

or the city of Mecca.

Historians have challenged me

that I'm trying to rewrite
all of Islamic history.

I assure you I'm not trying to do this.

I'm only suggesting one small change.

Long ago, the Holy City of
Islam was referred to as Becca.

I believe that name was
used for the city of Petra.

After repeated earthquakes
killed many people,

after Ibn Zubayr moved
the Black Stone to Mecca,

scribes had only to make one small change

to Islamic writing.

In Arabic, Becca is written like this.

It's very easy to change the Ba to a Mim.

Watch again.

That's all it took.

It is virtually undetectable
to later readers.

Did the Abbasid scribes
correct an earlier reference

to Becca in the Qur'an,
and make it into Mecca?

I believe that all of the evidence

points to Petra as being
the ancient city of Becca,

the founding place of Islam.

All of the mosques of the
first century of Islam

point to the Forbidden
Gathering Place in Petra,

and all of the descriptions
fit Petra, not Mecca.

Muslims are instructed in the Qur'an

to pray towards the
Forbidden Gathering Place.

The Qur'an says nothing
about the Black Rock.

It is clear that although

Dan Gibson's research is
rooted in Islamic history,

and he has a great affection
for the Arabic world,

his theories will be
challenging to Muslims.

As faiths around the globe
come under increasing scrutiny

to prove the veracity of their origins,

all religions need to
consider serious research

they may find difficult.

Islam needs to ask if it is possible

that over a billion people

have been misled by Abbasid propaganda

regarding how and where
their religion began.

And if true, what
implications does this have

for the average Muslim today?