Is The Holy City Of Mecca In The Wrong Place? | The Sacred City

Explore the intriguing possibility that the holy city of Mecca, central to over a billion Muslims, might be in the wrong historical location. Uncover archaeological discoveries challenging traditional narratives and the impact on Islamic history. With modern technology, experts delve into the early years of Islam, scrutinizing mosque alignments and historical records. Could a fundamental error have shaped Islamic understanding?

Silk Road is your guide through the storied history of the far East. Our channel delves into the vibrant histories of the Far East and the Middle East, uncovering the hidden stories of empires, traders, and cultures that flourished along the fabled Silk Road. With fascinating new documentaries uploaded every single week, be sure to subscribe so you don't miss out.

[MartianInDisguise]

This is hilarious. Imagine making this mistake for centuries.

[Gurbejong]

It has been clear to me for years already that it is Petra originally. But, if you want to make religious Muslims to understand this, you can't make this statement (as Western European male, like myself) without pointing out the same kind of mistakes in the origins of Christianity first.

[cadderley]

Respectfully, I disagree that Petra is the original site of Mecca. I do agree, however, that the modern Mecca is not the original Mecca. There is one other city that the Muslim shrines point towards, in the same direction as Petra. In fact, on land, if entering the region from the East, then you have to go through Petra to get to that city. That city is, of course, Jerusalem, the birthplace of Christianity, which is located in The Levant, to the West of Petra. The crack in the mountains used to get into the city could refer to "Hezekiah's Tunnel", which was carved during the 8th and 7th centuries B.C. Jerusalem is a walled city. Jerusalem has valleys. Jerusalem has land that can be cultivated for farming. Jerusalem would have been an ancient city when Mecca was founded. Jerusalem fits with the historical accounts much better than Petra does. Besides which, what historical event occurred in 636 - 637 A.D.? The Muslims invaded Jerusalem. Why? Before that time period, Jerusalem was never considered to be an important Muslim site. After 637 A.D. Jerusalem became the third most important pilgrimage site in the Muslim faith. Why? Why, all of a sudden, did Jerusalem suddenly become this epicentre of Muslim faith, when, a decade earlier, Jerusalem didn't even register in the Muslim faith? What made them decide that Jerusalem was, all of a sudden, worth invading? I believe that Jerusalem is the original Mecca, and that it is this realisation that both encouraged and enforced the Muslim desire to both invade, capture and occupy this city. There are only two cities, in that general direction, which have any major religious significance, enough significance to warrant the invasion of the city anyway. One city is Petra, and the other city is Jerusalem. If you tally it all up, looking at the historical description, taking it word for word, verbatim, then Jerusalem makes a much better candidate for the original Mecca than Petra does. I think that the historical record also supports the idea. It wouldn't be a surprise for any power to tamper with history. The Nazi's did it during World War 2. They tried to change history by altering a text called "The Germanicus".

[jiteshverma]

Petra. This is the city which is mentioned in Holy Books. Mecca is not.

[anything]

Is the place islam worship where the black meteorite landed?

[realzeelink]

I have some empathy with this guy in making some efforts to understand history of Islam but he is totally clueless in explaining the story of Quresh, the Arab tribes and traders as well as why should Muslims believe him. For centuries Muslims know that they used used to face Juersulum for prayers in the early days during Prophet Muhammad (SAW) time, then he was allowed (not ordered) by Allah to face Mecca as per his dire wishes because this was his hometown and the original site that Prophet Ibrahim(AS) built. Maybe Petra was one of the possible sites where at some point in time people faced it due to not knowing the exact location of Mecca, because in Islam if one cannot find the central location, they are allowed to make an approximation, but really it is insignificant. Moreover in Riyadh, Saudia they are now building a Mega Structure called Makaab, but not to turn face to it for prayers, but to show advancement. Muslims do not face any cube they see, Mecca is the birth place of our prophet and according to Islam, if you follow Islam you must follow it through the eyes of prophet Muhammad, otherwise the world and hereafter is just a mere chance for you not a promise. In any case, you can believe in whatever you want, but I really don't see even the most deviated Muslims to go to Petra for Hajj. Throughout the history Jews, Christians, Hindus and heretics like Ahmadis and Khawarijs or even so called people who wanted to proclaim prophethood always only tried to take over on Mecca at its present site.

[sandramouzakitis]

You are a historian or arkeologgis or in a group of investigation

[nazuddin]

Dont listen to these
Liers Just trying to
Divert you
Dan Gibson is the biggest lier of all