User Reviews

From my understanding, The Exodus, The Flood etc, Biblical archaeologists can't seem to find any evidence or at least, in not in the areas as described in the Bible and it's good to see Western scholarship being applied to Islam as well. Dan Gibson seems to be one of the few and with this documentary, makes a very strong case presenting the evidence in a very well-paced well researched documentary. It would be good to see to see further research on as to why the Qiblas of the early mosques Dan Gibson presented seem to point to Petra rather than Mecca. I've seen arguments that suggest Gibson got his calculations wrong or early Muslims got their calculations wrong. If Gibson got his calculations wrong then this can be very easily verified by other scholars. But if early Muslims got their calculations wrong, let's examine that further. But at the same time, it would also be good to expand on the early Muslim power struggle and the suggestion the black stone of the Kaaba was moved from Petra to Mecca for safe keeping.

Before watching leave your biases behind. it doesn't insult islam just reevaluates historical facts. i am ex-muslim myself and i can understand negative reviews but take it as a documantary. if you didn't like it than try to find proofs that corrects the infos given in this doc.

i suggest it to everyone who has interest in history.

Amazing.. This is so valuable film It is more logical to consider Petra as the sacred city of Islam, as it fits the Islamic description of the original holy city of Islam rather than Mecca.

There are two reviews here as of this writing one has 10 stars and the other 1.

The negative review comes with the hard statement that the Qibla never moved...and for that you need to present proof that it didn't move. You can't really state it as faith.

And you can't do it because this is about history, not faith. I'm Catholic, I don't practice, but I still have faith in God and Jesus. Faith enough where I am going to question it, because I want to know what happened. I want to know the truth, and there really isn't any piece of evidence that archeology and history can produce that will change the core of my belief.

Now, the history of my faith, how it came to be, that has been changed time and again, and I hope it will continue to be changed until we have the best possible picture of how we came to be as possible.

This is also how I can believe in evolution. It doesn't test my faith. Nothing about it calls my faith in God into question.

I really believe that we have to take the same approach with everything. Including the Petra/Mecca debate.

At its heart, this is a theory. But it is a theory that has enough heat behind it to warrant further investigation. It's compelling enough to call history into question as it stands now...

....and that is really the type of thing that I love. The questions that could re-write history, the conjuncture that is enough to make you really question everything you know. Makes me drool with anticipation.

It seems logical and compelling documentary and has been remained unanswered from Islamic figures. None of religious branches of islam has been able to prepare an answer in defense of the old and ordinary view of Islam history. Therefore it sounds that the finings of Dan Gibson, the researcher, stays profound, impressive and without any rejection.

Excellent documentary film. As a researcher historian, Dan Gibson has all that is neccessary to take on such project: he is thorough, honest, studious, unbiased, hard working, and highly dedicated to his research subject. The film is very well produced, great photography, and very clear narration.

Dan Gibson's documentary is welcome in its thesis which is on solid grounds but its odd production inconsistencies let it down.

There are mistranslations - 'masjid al haram' does NOT mean 'forbidden gathering place'; rather, 'sacred place of prostration / sacred mosque' - the mistake lies in 'haram' which is a polysemous word - as if river bank is confused money bank.

There are misquotes. For example a key text is quoted as 'the contest of mecca' when the actual text is 'conquest of mecca'.

This sloppiness detract from the documentary's effectiveness.

For instance, the so called Arab speaker in the mosque dramatisations is not an an Arab nor an Arabist - His Arabic is badly mispronounced. Moreover his northern English accent shows eg riming 'one' with 'gone' - this comes across as unprofessional and cheap. Clearly miscasting has taken place.

The documentary narrators' Arabic mispronunciations are also distracting eg 'um may yud' dynasty becomes 'um my ud.' Why not train him?

And the cutaways to speakers make for an odd superise. In a serious documentary, one would expect interviewing professionals with actual expertise in the relevant discipline, however what we get we get are a 'refugee charity organise' and a 'cultural commentator' - these are not specialists.

Apart from these shortcomings, it's certainly edifying to see research into such questions still being undertaken with astonishing conclusions- this without the unfortunate present muzzle of political correctness and chilling effects.

I would definitely recommend everyone see it.

Film/Documentary information isnt broad enough for a sufficient conclusion, but rather just a one sided coin information that most definitely wrong in many occurrences. E.g the show is telling Arabs they don't know they're history. It would be like telling telling the British they're history isn't British but probably a possible made up/misguided info .

No real evidence. Suddenly people started facing a different position!!!!! why did he not show us where Médina faced! The early mosque he states Qiblatain faced towards Masjid Aqsa and then changed towards Mecca after revelation so why go on about other theories. . Isn't it obvious the mosques at that time pointed at a general direction towards Mecca. The kaba has never moved as it's been standing there since Hazrat Adam and was been rebuilt by the prophet Noah and then by the Prophet Abraham before hazrat Mohammed salala o alaiwasalum. The point he makes about Mecca being made of Rock and no existing evidence of greenery. Islam already states when Abraham went there there was rock no water or any useful substance and when Hajrah ran between safa and marwa and when Zam Zam water broke out from the ground that was divine power of Allah. Lots of other points I can make but hey ho... Maybe the Presenters need to sit with some real Islamic historians and gain some knowledge.

Too many thing missed out, very biased, no Muslim historians involved or questioned re this documentary,

The fact people have been circumnavigating and praying the 5 obligated prayers continuously at the same location unbroken.

The stories given in the Quran, and by the prophet,, explain in great detail the physical landmarks around the 'Kabah' (Tabernacle), such as the well of Zamzam, and the meteorite at the corner, now how could he explain the Zamzam well for water? Physically, why would a city be built away from the greatest source of water known since Abraham? If one was to read in Arabic, the book about the 1000 benefits of Mecca, one would see that it's location remains the same.