Is the real Kaaba in Petra?

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

I had no knowledge of this documentary, other similar documentaries and the publications on this issue at the time of writing my articles about the real Ka’bah and the real Masjid Al-Aqsa that shocked the world.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

Many people have been sending me this documentary for a few days and wanted me to write a review about it. I could only watched the quarter of the documentary, yesterday. I have watched the rest of it by speeding it up.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

This documentary has nothing to be relied on. It is very clear that is produced with bad intentions, that he has a deceptive attitude and uses a typical missionary tactics in the documentary.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

I didn’t know about Dan or Daniel Gibson. I haven’t ask anything to anyone about him but I am sure that he is a satanist. Despite this, he can be one of those who pretend a Christian. I guess he is alive… I don’t know about his health conditions but I would like to meet him in person. Because what he did in the documentary is a very despicable behavior. I checked the Wiki and understand that I was correct about what I wrote for the answers of the questions people asked me. These claims of him have been claimed by someone elses and those people published a book about this subject. But he tells from the beginning to the end of the documentary that he spent tens of years for these subjects. There is deceit in the documentary.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

In the first years of ummah of Muhammed (pbuh), the ummah was facing Istanbul which means the real Quds. They were facing the real Masjid Al-Aqsa in Istanbul. All the people have heard and understood this issue. It is in plain sigth that the Quds we called today is not the real Quds… It is in plain sight that the Masjid that we called Masjid Al-Aqsa today is not the one the prophet Solomon built. From a scientific perspective, the building’s architecture, age and details reveals that the building were built recently. Our prophet and the first muslims wasn’t facing the false Masjid Al-Aqsa and they were facing Istanbul and therefore, they were unintentionally facing so many cities and structures in between there and Istanbul. If it can be said the real qibla of the muslims is Petra, then others can say that “the first qibla of the muslims is in Cyprus.” And even some can say it is in Antalya, Isparta or Kütahya. The biggest problem of this documentary is that they act like most of the muslims don’t know that the muslims were facing the first qibla which is Masjid Al-Aqsa at he beginning and then they started to face the second qibla which is Masjid Al-Haram… And they are insidiously trying to deny the verse that orders us to turn our face to Masjid Al-Haram when praying and that was revealed in the seventeenth month of the Hijrah… And in the rest of it, they are trying to declare Petra the Kaba of the muslims by forcing, by talking nonsense and by using the behaviors/tactics of the missionaries. But if they research honestly, they will see the truth that the current Quds is not the real Quds and the current Masjid Al-Aqsas not the real Masjid Al-Aqsa… They are that pathetic but they are trying to destroy and deny the religion of islam which is the religion of truth, Qur’an which is the true book and Hz. Muhammad which is a true prophet.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

At the moment, I am doing a few tasks at the same time. I will direct some messages here from the conversations with others or I will copy and paste it.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

I am now watching the rest of the documentary.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

The man continue his reviews with his personal opinions and islam hostility.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

It’s in the 60th minute.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

I am commenting without knowing what the man will say.

In the part up to here, he found out that the direction of the Masjids were facing Petra by facing the qible direction.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

He is not honest about this, the masjids he used as a basis are not facing Petra.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

There is something more clear.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

He examined a few masjids built in the second century after the Hijrah which have reached today.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

And he says at the end.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

That they are not facing Petra.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

But also they are not facing Mecca.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

It is facing an angle in between of them.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

EG means a screenshot.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

He disproves himself his studies that he so-called spent his whole life for and in a very short time here. He doesn’t even need someone else for this. Did the muslims in around the world make a lot of mistakes about which direction Mecca/Ka’bah is in the second century? Because, for example, the masjids the Umayyads built are not facing Petra and the masjids in every regions are facing different directions. But they are facing different and wrong five-ten directions parallel to the qible direction. This shows that they detected the qible direction but they couldn’t detect it correctly and they used the directions parallel to the qible direction. It is very clear that the masjids are not facing one place or city but those are directions parallel to each other. It is possible that they didn’t have the capability to detect the qible direction and they were building new masjids facing the direction parallel to the qible directions of the masjids built in the past.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

Not in that date, even in our century

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

It turns out that the qible direction of so many mosques in Turkiye are not correct.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

Even though the Ottoman empire accepted the Masjid Al-Haram in Mecca as the qible, the qible direction of so many mosques built by the Ottomans and left standing for centuries are incorrect.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

Diyanet become really aware of that in the last ten-twenty years and it raised up discussions between the mosque communities.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

At the end, they decided not to correct the qibles of the mosques.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

That was how they end the discussions.

The muslims who lived in the first century of the Hijri calender organized expeditions one after another and some of them was for religious reasons.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

They didn’t stay in one place.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

They had a voice in the foreign countries.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

They couldn’t learn about the details, the geographies, the regions and the directions where they went.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

But they had to build masjids or at least they had to detect the qible direction and perform their prayers immediately.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

Allah knows best but maybe most of them couldn’t detect the qible directions correctly.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

He talks about a mosque built in the second century of the Hijri calendar in Pakistan in the documentary.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

And he says the qible direction of the mosque is facing Mecca.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

That’s the part.

Even though I couldn’t take the time to watch it and even though I watched only the first part of the documentary, I wrote this matter as an initial assessment.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

There are only a few masjids whose qible directions are facing Mecca that he mentioned and the wall in almost half of those masjids he regarded as the qible direction can be the wall in the opposite direction of the qible direction.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

And at this minute he says it.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

At the minute I took this screenshot, he is talking about a masjid in Jordan.

Previously, he used these masjids as the basis of his claims that “The qible was Petra, people were facing Petra as the qible direction.”

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

But now he clearly says that the wall behind the wall called the qible wall is facing Macca and Ka’bah.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

He confesses it.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

And he also confesses at about the same time that there was no such a thing as mihrab in the mosques.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

He says there were qible walls which were flat walls.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

He says there was no mihrab facing the qible direction in front of the Imam. It is known that mihrabs was not exist in the first century, it started to be built out of necessity. He cannot hide it himself. At the first times, there was only flat walls but the walls had words or sign that it was the qible wall. It is very likely that the words and signs had been erased on the walls and the opposite walls considered as the qible walls…

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

And it shows that he has been manipulating the minds from the beginning of the documentary.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

He touches on these issues because he knows that there will be objections and these sentences may be said to him.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

But it is already poisened the minds and belief of those who watched it until this minute… From the beginning of the documentary, I see typical missionary tactics of the behaviors of this man called Dan. Travelling, studying, spending money in different places of the world for tens of years is not something easy to do. So many questions must be asked to him such as did he receive an inheritance that he spent it for this or who supported him financially, why and how much financial support they provided to him? Also, was he supported politically? Does he have good relations with the masons? and he must be investigated. Because he doesn’t act like a real historian, researcher and a scientist. He is setting up traps insidiously. This is very clear and therefore, this is not only a right and also a duty, a responsibility for the people to investigate who is this man called Dan, what does he do, what is his real purpose.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

He said he found sphere-shaped stones which were fired by a catapult.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

He shows them and says that they found the stones fired to the Ka’bah by a catapult.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

Isn’t he embarrassed?

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

Those stones are already found in so many different places in the world.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

Those stones are not only exist around Ka’bah.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

This is not even scientific.

Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya:

In the beginning of the documentary, he said, “we will see how a war that broke out in the early days of islam changed the islamic history.” just now I finished the documentary. There is a very brief moment about this part in the documentary. Moreover, there is still no tangible evidence and it is impossible to understand who changed what. Even there is no part of these claims to be relied on.

The trees in a wooded areas can be dried out or an arid place can turn into a wooded area with lots of trees and full of crops in one thousand and five hundred years.

In fact, this can happen more than once during this period. In the documentary, they act like this is something can never happen… He supposedly proved it scientifically. He said he get samples from the soil and the study showed that the trees or crops never existed in the area. Who studied the samples? What scientific techniques they used? Are the examination techniques really scientific? Do the examination techniques provide accurate results? Are we sure that this examination process is not fraudelent?

Where are the study results? Besides him, there are two persons who talk briefly in the so-called documentary. It is unclear who they are or if they are skilled. They kept talking in the documentary like random people on the street, they never talked scientifically or worth considering. Should be only two persons against the allegations of Dan on such an issue? Should those persons be so unqualified? Moreover, one of them is his supporter and he is also making comments just the way he does.

Even though the ulterior motives are before the eyes, the scientific results of the scientific studies, the acurrate results scientific results beyond any doubt should have been mentioned more and the documents and data should have been announced.

I am writing it quickly I am talking about it from the beginning and the end of the documentary… Our prophet (pbuh) was walking on a water canal while walking back and forth between the hills of Safa and Marwa. He talked about the hadith about it and said, “This is where the two hills should be and there is no water canal between them.” It has been fourteen centuries. Isn’t it possible that the water canal dried up and the place is changed?

Isn’t that him who tells toward the end of the documentary that Mecca and its surroundings was attacked by catapults, that it was demolished to the ground, that it was disappeared and its surroundings was destroyed? Doesn’t he say that the records the muslims have are the same that he told?

The subjects he talks about are the subjects that we can be draw its general framework for tens of hours and then we can start to discuss it and that can be discussed for months but he was keep saying, “This is how I think” and keep going in the documentary and keep denying himself.

It caught my attention that he tried to make the people doubt about if the Qur’an is a true book or not. And when he was talking about where Bekke would be, he tried to force people to accept that Qur’an is an incomplete book that hasn’t been compiled into the book… Dan Gibson is even talking about the Qur’an is might not be a true book but he uses all the hadiths he reportes as unquestionably authentic hadiths and he bases them.

Even more interesting is he does this even though it is him who says that Bukhari started to collect the hadiths after two centuries and there are contrasts between the hadiths in the Bukhari. Also, Dan knows nothing about the science of hadiths. He knows nothing about with what point the religious scholars collected the hadiths and what rules they followed, which criterias the scholars have categorized the hadiths. He gives the appearance of a person who is talking about hearsay information used by some people.

While I was writing evaluation sentences above for my followers I hadn’t checked any sources or asked anyone for opinion. I hadn’t even checked the Wikipedia. When I’ve checked the Wikipedia, I saw these paragraphs:

– As the historian Patricia Crone discovered it in 1987, the depiction of the city of Mecca is not accurate according to the depiction of the city of Mecca in the Historiography of Islam and Qur’an and also Mecca was not on a trade route at the time. Also, there is no archaeological evidence in Mecca belong to the seventh century. Likewise, an archaeobotanical study showed that the plants in Mecca have never grown in Mecca according to the Qur’an.

– On this basis, Dan Gibson developed the theory of the prophet Muhammad of islam lived in Petra, not in Mecca. Patricia Crone ve Michael Cook had suggested that islam is emerged in somewhere in Northwest Arabia, not in Mecca in the study called Hagarism of 1977.

Also this part is so hilarious. We can just laugh at it… Let’s assume that Mecca is Petra… Then, where are all the places and traces in the hadiths and the books? He answers it that there was a earthquake in Petra and everything that belongs to that period was destroyed and disappeared. So, why doesn’t he dig and find them? If he tells the truth, he took some samples from the soil… Why doesn’t he do the necessary studies in Petra? How can he claim this serious/shocking subject without conducting any scientific study and by only saying that “This is how I think”? What kind of an earthquake was this that meticulously destroyed everything?

What should we say to this? He says the surroundings of Ka’bah was destroyed by catapults. Then, he sees stones fired by catapults and brings it to the screen and right after that he makes a “scientific interpretation”. He decisively expresses that those stones are the stones fired by catapults to the Ka’bah. Is Ka’bah the only place fired stones by catapults in the world history? He shows the plastered parts of the stone in a place he claims without evidence that there was a door and a line of defense. He shows them maliciously as a proof that it is the real Mecca.

It’s not over yet. After he said there must be so many stones around Masjid Al-Haram, he says there are twenty cube-shaped stones in Petra and there are in different spots around the city. And he says that this is the proof that the place is the real Mecca/qibla and that the Masjid Al-Haram is actually in there, in Petra. Throughout the world history, who knows how many structures were surrounded by stones and who knows there are how many structures or cities surrounded by stones in the world. Is this what scientificness is? Is this what good intention is? Is this what being a researcher is?

After a certain point, they can no longer deny that they went to Medina. In another part of the documentary, they say that the distance between Mecca and Damascus is so far and they consider this as a big problem/contrast. They say that “they must have gone to Damascus from Petra, Jordan.” without relying on any scientific evidence. Is the distance between Petra and Medina too short? If they accept that they have emigrated to Medina and accept an emigration process happened, then why is there any further information about Petra in the Medina process? The first muslims supposedly accepted Petra as the qible and valued it, but they never talked about it and it haven’t reflected to the hadiths and the lives of the muslims who lived in the era, is it so? We cannot find these marks, signs, reports even in the period of Medina, is it so?

There were so many experiences, a very high number of people and there were the religion/islam which spreaded such a large area in a very short time when our prophet was alive. There are also the generations of those people. And according to a few missionaries, because of a war that broke out, everything belongs to the religion of islam, including the book of islam were falsified. All the issues were changed. Isn’t it unwise to claim it? There are those who determined the date of the trip of Ebi Vakkas (ra) to China as 616. The date may be incorrect and it may be 620. He told and taught the religion of islam in there and and guided a very high number of Chinese people to islam. One of the masjids he constructed is still standing. Daniel mentioned about this in his documentary. During the war he mentioned and all the information about islam was supposedly destroyed or at least changed, has the impact of the war reached China? Islam was already arrived in distant places. Who can destroy or fundamentally change the most basic principles of islam and how? Also, he mentioned the qibla direction of the masjid that was built in China in his documentary. Ebi Vakkas (ra) went to China before the hijrah. During the time, the muslims were not facing Mecca when praying…

Why the qibla direction of the masjid he built should be facing Mecca, then? He went to China which is a very distant country but there is also this that were there any messengers who went and came? What he said about the qibla that is facing Petra in the masjid in China is nonsense. Either he wanted to face it to Istanbul but he made a miscalculation or he wanted to face it to the false Masjid Al-Aqsa in false Quds but he made a miscalculation. The Iblees supposedly guided a few satanists but all of them were embarrassed themselves. Despite all this, some of the surprising detections are right. This black Ka’bah is not the real Ka’bah and it is the game of the Iblees… People ask the details about these parts, I am not writing it because the time has not come yet. But the time is very soon…

Akademi Dergisi | Mehmet Fahri Sertkaya

..