Was Muhammad from Petra or Makkah?

This is something I have been holding off posting, because I wanted to see if it actually made sense. The more I read it, the more I am wondering about this…. Was Prophet Muhammad living in Petra? Or was he living in what is now Mecca, Saudi Arabia?

The best write up of this is in the book “Quranic Geography” By Dan Gibson who is an expert on Nabatean studies and spent his life researching in Jordan.

Dan Gibson’s Book on The Nabateans

He was not out to study Islam but this is something he found out while he was there and decided to spend some time looking into it. He is a not just a respectable historian, but his father was a historian too.  I initially thought he was a Christian fundamentalist who wanted to disprove Islam but I could find no evidence for this claim

Some of the evidences given

  1. Mecca has not found in any historical maps of the world after the death of Muhammad.
  2. It doesn’t seem to be in the right place for a trade route. Infact its out of the way. Whereas Petra does appear in ancient maps, and was a big hub.
  3. Descriptions in the Quran do not seem to match the current Mecca.
    1. For example, it is described as having a valley in the Quran. It is also described as having some foliage. As well hadith literature gives us more clues about other discrepancies between current Mecca.  Response to this is that Makkah does seem to be a valley.
    2. Like for example the mountains of Safa and Marwah are described as taking days to complete the saee. But now its a quick run back and forth to complete it.    
    3. Other discrepancies include the descriptions of foliage.   But if there was no foliage, how did camels and sheep feed?
    4. And the verse in the Quran describing how you pass by the remains of Lot in the morning and evening.  
  4. Why do all the early mosques point towards Petra, until the time of Abdul Malik Marwan when they started to change to point to Mecca, Saudi Arabia?  For a response to this, see Qibla of the Early Mosques (Islamic Awareness)

The best reference is the Quranic Geography book ($15 PDF), for the below points, but you can also check the below websites.

This documentary The Sacred City gives some compelling evidence of this claim ($8.99 to rent)


Description of Quranic Geography book on Amazon:

Dan Gibson believes that four times in ancient history the Arab people united and poured out of the Arabian deserts to conquer other nations. The first is described in the Qur’an as the people of ‘Ad. The Bible describes them as an alliance of tribes led by Edomites living in the land of ‘Uz or ‘Ud. The Egyptians named them Hyksos or shepherd kings who invaded Egypt from Arabia. By combining these three together, Gibson sees evidence of this powerful alliance from various archaeological remains. Later Arabia united again, this time under the leadership of the Midianites. Many centuries later, the tribes of Ishmael takes leadership, this time under the direction of the Nabataean tribe. The Qur’an calls them the people of Thamud. It was not until 600 AD that the Arabian Peninsula was again united, this time under the flag of Islam. But there is more to this book than a study of the four times when the Arabs demonstrated their greatness. This book also examines the geographical references in the Qur’an cross-referencing them with historical locations. The surprise comes when Gibson examines the Holy City of Islam, known as Mecca. Here Gibson finds evidence that the original Holy City was in northern Arabia in the city of Petra. He theorizes that during an Islamic civil war one hundred years after Muhammad, the Ka’ba was destroyed and the Black Rock was moved to its present location. Gibson examines archaeological, historical and literary evidence that support this theory and addresses many questions and objections that readers may have. This book contains many references, as well as some useful appendices including a 32 page time line of Islamic history from 550 AD – 1095 AD, and a 20 page annotated selected bibliography of early Islamic sources in chronological order from 724 AD – 1100 AD plus a list of many early Qur’anic manuscripts. Easy to read, fully referenced with many illustrations and photos.


18 thoughts on “Was Muhammad from Petra or Makkah?

  1. First I ask Allah to guide you and open your heart to understand the Quran because from what you are saying that shows me that you didn’t really understand and reflect on the meaning of the Quran.
    You said that the prophet lie but let me tell you that prophet peace be upon him was the best one ever walked on this earth and I am sure you know that very well but you are trying to convince yourself with something else which doesn’t make sense in life. Do you know how sahih bukhari and sahih muslim books reached us? Do you know that they didn’t take any Hadeeth from someone who is known with jokes yes just jokes not lies?
    If there is no religion as you claiming so how do we know the good from the bad and the bad from the good. or are we allowed to do crazy things.
    I ask Allah to show you the straight path and give you the knowledge that will benefit you.
    Whomever Allah guides none can misguide, and whomsoever Allah leads astray, none can

    1. It is precisely because of Hadith that he has left Islam. Their occurrence ~ 200 years after the death of Muhammad had been the single most destructive tool in corrupting the message he was charged with delivering.
      Bukhari? Muslim? Criminals of the highest order.

    2. Mohammed: Respectfully, I’d recommend you stay on point.

      Do you have concrete, rational, logical responses to this article? Have you read the book he referenced to look at that evidence? You can now also watch the documentary. It is very compelling. Or have you already made up your mind to continue to believe your inherited faith exactly as you were taught it as a child, no matter the evidence?

      Here’s the video documentary The Sacred City

    3. Dear Mohammed,

      sadly, there are historical facts that show that you have been lied to… Makkah was not the origin of islam. The early qibla was Petra, not Jerusalem. Makkah was not a center of trade. Makkah does not appear on any maps until the 9th century AD. The descriptions in the qur’an fit Petra, not Makkah. Al-Malik probably invented most of the Mohammed myth in 691 AD. Even the Al-Aksa mosque has Petra as the qibla!

  2. Bro it’s sad to know u’ve left Islam, and it would be nice if you could add me on Skype, and maybe we could discuss some of the points you’ve mentioned on this blog and maybe I could clear them off.
    Unfortunately, Dajjaliah is so rampant these days that people tend to stop believing in Allah completely. Would really appreciate if you could comment back here, and we could have a dialog.

  3. “Was Prophet Muhammad living in Petra? Or was he living in what is now Mecca, Saudi Arabia”
    The real question is; was there even a prophet named Muhammad?

    I was already beginning to think Mecca could not be the original location when I found about this book today. This is one aspect of the origin of Islam. The origin of Islam didn’t even begin with the prophet they call Muhammad now. It began with the Umayyad period. Although I don’t think there were any “Caliphs” before the Umayyads. If you look closer to that era, you will see that they say “Islam” but not the way we do as referring to a certain religion. They call all the believers Muslim or Mumin. But they don’t say Prophet Muhammad, they say The Prophet or Apostle of Allah (=God in Arabic). They say “Book of Allah” and never Quran. If the translators hadn’t left certain words in arabic (like Allah or Islam) one would never be sure of what religion they are talking about or to what prophet they are referring to. During the 9th century there was a hadith collecting craze. Everyone was looking everywhere to find something that could be useful in their studies. Interestingly none of them does a Quran study! Normally that should be the main source now shouldn’t it? Unless, there was no source at all! That would explain why just around those times, those “Muslim”(?) scholars who had no problem with hadiths and the life and deeds of the prophets, suddenly reacted differently to Quran and a “created or not created” Quran discussion and sceptisism began. Maybe because those times were the birth date of the Quran and all the muslims (Jews Christians Zoroastrians and who knows who else) were turned into “Muslims” as in the followers of the religion “Islam” which also was turned into a name from a general descriptive Arabic word!

    Nothing is what it seems in Islam. Actually it is very much like the Romans creating the Jesus and various books being written by so called disciples that didn’t even live in the same time period. No other source mentions someone by the name Jesus, just like no other source than the Islamic ones mentions the name Muhammad! You need to look closer to the dates, names and origin of people who started to mention and record the religion Islam, its prophet Muhammad and his deeds!

    1. Sema, there are several sources other than the New Testiment that mention Jesus as a real person who was crucified and rose from the dead. The New Testiment was not made up by the Romans. It can easily be traced to the time of Jesus Disciples in the first century A.D.

    2. Sorry, but the case for Jesus is much stronger that the historical Mohammad. The Romans did not create Jesus, we know this because of manuscript data that is available. Look up Ryland papyrus. As a beginning. The first biography of Mohammad comes from 200 years after his life. The earliest Gospels date from a decade or two after the death of Jesus, within the life of his followers. Apples and oranges.

  4. If I were you I would hardly consider biblical stories to be historical, after all the old testament itself is a piece of ” propaganda” to exalt the virtues of “the chosen people ” and as such should never be trusted as source of historical information, especially since a lot of modern archeological work done seems to be unable to corroborate many of the events mentioned in the old testament. As for the hyksos there is still a lot of debate and uncertainity of the true nature of those people, they were”asiatic” meaning they came from the east, most likely nomadic, but also skilled warriors, and possibly semitic speaking. But as far as I know the exact ethnicity or compistion is stil a mystery so far.As for Petra, it is almost impossible to imagine it being the birth place of islam for many reasons, first the city was destroyed and abandonned more than two hundred years before Muhammed, second it was within the borders of the byzantine empire and most likely under direct control of its allies the ghassanids, a christian arab tribal confederation , both of which would most likey have seen any new cult or religion a threat and would have wanted to stop it, and third unlike makka we have had acccess to Petra for more than 150 years and a lot of acheoligical work was done and I have never heard of any discoveries suggesting any links to the birth of islam. As for the various peoples mentioned , such as Aad or thamud, we know very little about them,as most of our knowledge comes via islamic writings, which also might have a certain subjective narrative to tell, even though the stories might have been in origin rooted in true events , but with time might have been changed or reinterpreted to conform to a narrative.

    1. Actually, we don’t know when Petra was abandoned. Documents found in the Byzantine church show there was still a thriving community alive in Petra through the 6th century. As to us not finding links to Islam in Petra, well, we haven’t found much at all in Petra. The city has been ransacked so much throughout the centuries that archaeologists rarely find any writings beyond rock inscriptions (making the documents found in the church so significant). The monuments were mostly tombs, but very few bones have ever been found. We know very little about life in Petra, whether from its hey-day or from it’s waning years in the 6th century and beyond. As for the Ghassanids, I admit that is a good point, but I recommend checking out Tom Holland’s book In the Shadow of the Sword, and his speculations on the meaning of the word Quraysh. It doesn’t appear to have been a real tribe, but was probably referring to confederations of tribes, possibly along the northern border. Hadiths tell us that the Quraysh owned property in Syria, which would have been unheard of if they were really from Mecca.

  5. Poor deluded (or outright lying) Mulhid. Actually, it’s quite common for archaeologists to use the Bible to *successfully* pinpoint excavatation areas. But you keep right on discounting logic, avoiding reality, and deluding yourself.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *