A LINGUISTIC STUDY OF THE QURANIC WORD “BAKKAH”: REFUTING DAN GIBSON’S HAGARISM -BASED ARGUMENT

Abstract

This study critically examines Dan Gibson's linguistic interpretation of the Qur'anic term Bakkah, which constitutes one of the principal pillars of his Hagarism-based theory that Petra, rather than Mecca, was the original sacred center of Islam. Gibson argues that Bakkah derives from an ancient Semitic term meaning "weeping" or "tears" and therefore refers to a place marked by catastrophic events, a description he considers more applicable to Petra than to Mecca. Employing a descriptive, analytical, and critical methodology, this article evaluates Gibson's argument in light of historical linguistics, classical Arabic lexicography, Qur'anic evidence, and historical sources. The study demonstrates that the semantic value of a lexical item in the Qur'an must be determined according to established Arabic usage rather than its alleged meaning in another language. It further shows that classical Arab philologists consistently regarded Bakkah either as a dialectal variant of Makkah or as another proper name for the same sacred city, deriving the term from Arabic roots associated with crowding around the Kaʿbah or the humiliation of tyrants. The article also argues that Gibson's appeal to historical calamities is methodologically untenable and fails to establish any exclusive connection between Bakkah and Petra. Furthermore, the explicit Qur'anic mention of Makkah, the uninterrupted Qur'anic manuscript tradition, and the absence of any historical or philological evidence identifying Petra as Bakkah collectively undermine Gibson's hypothesis. The study concludes that the Qur'anic term Bakkah unequivocally refers to Mecca and that Gibson's linguistic argument does not withstand critical academic scrutiny.