Click below to view the video

Are media reports true that say the Rahat mosque is perhaps the oldest mosque in the world? Dan Gibson demonstrates that the Rahat mosque is not the oldest in the world, nor the oldest in Israel, not even the oldest mosque in the Negev.

Transcript

Video #35 This is a general transcript of a Dan Gibson video.

Hello, I am Dan Gibson, and this is another video in the Question and Answer series. Over the last couple of months, I have received at least a dozen emails asking about the newly discovered mosque in Rahat in Israel. And some viewers have even hinted that this newly discovered mosque contradicts the idea that Petra was the first Holy City of Islam. After all, some articles put the date of the construction of this mosque as far back as the being built just after the death of Muhammad. Now I don’t think such an early date is correct, and I do think the Rahat mosque fits quite nicely into the overall picture. And so here is my explanation.

First of all, let me give a disclaimer. The full archeological reports are not out yet. So this is not the last word. Archeologists traditionally dig one season, the next season they carefully go through and catalog all their finding, and it is not until the third season that they publish, at the earliest. So everything I say here is said without seeing the archeological reports.

Second, as far as I know, everyone is getting their news from the media. And the media have a tendency to exaggerate, make it sensational, or even get it wrong. Now as far as I can tell, the initial news was broken by BBC. And there was sudden interest. I don’t think the reporter realized that there was controversy around the earliest mosques. They were quite surprised when the article took off, and lots of people were emailing other people about it. Even I got a handful of emails about the initial story.

Notice the headline: Israel mosque find: Archaeologists unearth 1,200 year old ruins in desert. Now do the math. One thousand two hundred years ago is 820. So I think this is a good headline. If you read the article, it tells us that archaeologists excavated the oldest mosque yet found in Israel. Notice what it says: Found in Israel.

Now, a few months later, the headlines have developed. Now some news sites are reporting discovery of one of the oldest mosques in the world was just discover in Israel. All of this is being thrown on the pages of news-feeds. The Rahat dig is very recent. The full archaeological reports haven’t even come out yet.

Notice the headline in Live Science from July. This Ancient Mosque in Israel May Have Been Built Just a Few Years After Muhammad’s Death. How can such claims be made? Notice that the headline says; MAY have been built just a few years after Muhammad’s death. The word may is very important here.

Under the photo it says: This rural mosque likely served nearby farmers sometime between A.D. 600 and 700. Notice the words “likely.” Before the article goes on to explain itself, it makes sure that it says, “*this may be true*” it is “*most likely*” but may not end up being what we say. So this is “*maybe news*” and is a “very early announcement.”

In the Dailey Beast, the headline is very explicit: If the dating turns out to be correct, the newly discovered mosque was built only a few years after the death of the prophet Muhammad in 632 CE. While this is sensational, it also includes the statement “I*f this turns out to be correc*t.”

What if it doesn’t turn out to be correct? Well, in that case, what will happen? Nothing will be said. The news will have moved on. The full reports will be published in some journal somewhere, and the archeologists and historians may or may not find it, and may or may not read it.

I cringe whenever the news throws up these great headlines. I remember when the discovery of Ubar in Oman was flashed all across the news. It turned out to be a small caravansary, not a major find. Sorry, but it was too late, the world already had heard and believed that Ubar was in Oman. I have an article on the website that tells the whole sordid story.

So now we come to the question of dating the mosque in Rahat. In this case the archeologists also uncovered a nearby village, complete with multiple stone walls similar to those used in the construction of the mosque.

The Daily Beast proudly proclaims: – “*the remains of one of the oldest mosques in the world*” and “if this date is correct, this means that the newly discovered mosque was built only a few years after the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632 AD.”

Wow, this is an amazing statement. Especially since it is followed up by a quote from the director of the excavation who says the mosque dates from the 7th to 8th centuries!

Do you see the confusion here? When the media throws out a date of 632, it seems like this is a very early mosque. But 632 was the time when the Muslim armies were just entering the area. Somebody picked up that date and did some calculations. I don’t think they got it right. As far as I can tell, the oldest mosque was a prayer place in Jerusalem that dates to 636 CE (15 AH). And it was replaced by Al-Aqsa mosque in 90 AH. So how can this news article claim that this small rural mosque predates even al-Aqsa?

Now, none of the articles tell us how this early date was arrived at? Was there carbon dating? But rocks that contain no carbon cannot be dated by carbon dating. So the rocks of the mosque itself are not useful.

Did the archeologists turned to the nearby settlement, assuming that the settlement and the mosque dated from the same era. I have heard of no carbon dating reports. That is why we must wait for the actual report, a peer reviewed report, before we jump to conclusions.

Right now this mosque has all the headlines, and those headlines may be giving a false impression. From the dig we know that Muslims occupied the site, and it appears they took over the local farms and built a mosque. But the settlement may predate the mosque. By the time the hype is over and the archeologists get around to publishing their reports, then perhaps a truer perspective will emerge.

How does one go about dating a mosque like this? Let me suggest five methods.

Inscription on the building or nearby

Many mosques have inscriptions of who built them, or when a mihrab was built, or a door was added or something about the structure. This is very common, but this mosque has no inscriptions.

Mentioned in manuscripts

The construction of important mosques was often mentioned in ancient manuscripts, helping us date the mosque. But this is a village mosque, and so far no one has found any mention of it in any ancient manuscripts. Some other building or disturbance at the site

Maybe we find some coins. Maybe there was something in the town nearby. Sor some changes that were made. Something we can use to date the building.

Pre-or post mihrab?

From Islamic history we know that the miharab or the prayer niche built into one wall was first developed in the city of Medina in 89 AH or 708 CE. That is a clearly established date.

And this small village mosque has a mihrab. It is part of the building structure, not added later. So this building does NOT date before 708 CE.

And even then, it took time for the practice of using mihrabs to spread out from Medina and become popular in Islamic architecture. The mihrab was made in Medina to help them re-orient the mosque to the new direction. We can see that this mosque has a mihrab so it dates after 708 CE. So whoever claims that this mosque dates back to 636 AD, must be just wanting to grab an exciting headlines.

Mosque Orientation

Now the fifth way to date a mosque, is to use the orientation. Where does this mosque face? That will help us fit the mosque into different periods of time, based on other similar mosque orientations.

So here are the measurements: Rahat to Mecca 1216 km, 154 degrees, Rahat to Petra 137 km, 149.5 degrees, Between Spot 489 km, 157.2 degrees. These are all very close. We are talking a difference of 4.5 degrees on either side of Mecca.

Now Dr. Schumm, who had been analyzing the early Qiblas tells us that 50% are plus/minus three degrees and over 80% are plus minus five degrees. So this mosque could be a Petra mosque, a Mecca mosque, or even a Between mosque. The Between mosques were built within a 66 year period. But since we have no other supporting evidence, at least not that the archeologists have told us, based on the existence of a mihrab built into the Qibla wall, this mosque must have been built after 708 CE. So it is NOT the oldest mosque in the world. It is not even the oldest mosque in Israel.

It is simply a very small, rural mosque, probably built by a local Muslim family. This mosque was never a building with a roof. There is no evidence of that, and the walls are not wide enough to support a roof structure. It is very typical of other very old open-air mosques in the Negev.

Consider the Beer Ora mosque. This open air mosque was first published about in 1972, and has appeared in journal articles in 1988 and 1996. But of course, the media doesn’t know this, or care about it. Maybe the archeologists who are excavating in Israel at Rahat themselves don’t know about the articles of the other mosques in the Negev. (I am sure they do now) There are whole papers written, comparing the shape of early open air mosques in the Negev. This mosque in Israel is not unique, nor is it early.

Consider the early mosques at Beer Karkom, or Nahal Obed, or Nahal Arod, or Beer Hator, or Har Obed… these are all early open air mosques, and they are in the Negev. These are open-air mosques, just like the mosque in Rahat. These mosques have no building on them. They are simply land cleared away and stones laid out, so that the faithful can pray.

Archeologists finding these mosques did not announce that they were the oldest mosques in the world! They didn’t even announce that they were the oldest mosques in Israel. But they researched them and they published articles on them.

So please, when the media gets all hyped up about something, read the article very carefully. Does the director of the dig make these outlandish claims? Or is it the media? Listen to what the archeologists are saying: According to the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), the building was constructed around 600 or 700 A.D., when the region was mostly rural farmland.

The directors of the excavation, Jon Seligman and Shahur Zur, described their discovery as “*a small rural mosque, dated to the 7th to 8th centuries CE, is a rare finding anywhere in the world, especially in the area north of Be’er Sheva, where no similar building has previously been discovered.*”

This is true. The mosques I referred to are south of Beer Sheva, this one was north of Beer Sheva. So I guess it is special in that way. Not nearly as exciting the article makes it out to be.

The Rahat mosque dates to after 708 CE, perhaps a hundred years after 708; long after the Muslim armies arrived. It is not the earliest mosque found “*in all of the world*” nor even “*the earliest mosque found in Israel*” not even the earliest mosque found in the Negev.

I am Dan Gibson, and this has been another Question and Answer video.

Bibliography

Schumm, Walter R. How Accurately Could Early (622-900 C.E.) Muslims Determine the Direction of Prayers (Qibla)? Religions, MDPI, Feb, 2020 LINK HERE

Article quoted

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-49036815

https://www.livescience.com/65993-rural-mosque-just-before-muhammed-death.html

https://www.thedailybeast.com/one-of-the-oldest-mosques-in-the-world-was-just-discovered-in-israel?ref=scroll