Mel answers your questions about the 'Idris Mecca Map'

A number of questions came up from our last video concerning the map of Idris, which showed Ur at the center of the world in the 12th century, corresponding with the reference to Mecca just south of Ur, between Edessa and Harran. One questioner asked whether the traditional Islamic story therefore came after the 12th century idris map, Is that being suggested? Mel replied that this was not the case, as the story of the new Mecca was already there in the writings of Ibn Ishaq/Hisham, Al Bukhari and Al Tabari who compiled their material in the 9th and 10th centuries, thus prior to this 12th century map, but the tradition concerning Ur's importance was kept strong all that time, despite the new narrative, and that was why the map pointed to its importance. One must also remember that though the Traditions are attributed to the 9th and 10th centuries, their earliest manuscripts do not appear until the 12th and some even as late as the 16th century. Another viewer mentioned that the map seems mint, and that the China reports are strong. It would be unfair, he continued, to view the Chinese as liars since they would have no incentive to lie, and it is they who refer to the land of the Arabs so much further north. One viewer wondered why the map was in English, when the original one was in Arabic? The answer is that the map Mel is showing was copied from the original in 1926 by Konrad Miller (Tabula Rogeriana) Another question concerned how could Jacob of Edessa use the word "Muslim" in his quotation from 688 AD, when that term was first introduced in 691 AD on the Dome of the Rock? Actually, according to Mel, the word he used in his quote was originally written in Syriac and it was not 'Muslim' but the term "mhaggraya". It was only translated in English to "Muslim" so that the readers could understand it. However, much of what we relate to being Muslim - belief and practice - comes much later, so this term (Muslim) is a misleading one if we assume it means "muslim" as we now understand it. A better term might be Abrahamist. A popular question concerns how the northern Turkish Mecca (Ur) squares with the Jordan's Petra (Mecca)? To be clear, Gibson doesn't suggest that the early Petra was ever called 'Mecca', only that the stages of the Haj were borrowed from Petra and reproduced in the present day Mecca. It is not clear when Petra started to get called Mecca at all. That will have to wait until we do some more research. All we know is that the first reference to Mecca anywhere, the 741 AD Chronicle, is clearly not referring to Petra, but the area between Edessa and Harran, in southern Turkey. This Chronicle does not mention this place having a Qibla or even a Ka'aba. So it looks like the new Mecca took its name from this place in the southern Turkish area, possibly because it was linked by tradition with Abraham. The new Mecca took the idea of a Ka'aba and Qibla from either, or possibly both, Jerusalem or Petra. Mel wants to make clear that he's not suggesting that this Mecca near Ur had any other part in the formation of Islam than the borrowing of its foundation myth for the new Mecca. He's also not claiming that Muhammad lived there or had visions there, or was in a cave there. © Pfander Centre for Apologetics - US, 2020 (39,770) (Music: "small adventure", by Rafael Krux, from filmmusic-io - License CC BY)