WikiIslam:Sandbox/Fernando/Mecca: Difference between revisions

Traditionally, Mecca is assumed to be the birthplace of Islam.  Starting with Abraham, who founded Al-Masjid-al-Haram, the Mosque of the sanctuary, the House of God, which encloses the Ka’bah, or Cube, which holds the Black Stone.  The holiness of which was confirmed by the prophet Muhammad, who was born and worked in Mecca, and started his preaching career in the city.

5. Its climate is not compatible with the description of the audience of the supposedly Meccan verses of the Quran as prosperous fish eating farmers<ref>As pointed out by Patricia Crone, ''How Did the Quranic Pagans Make a Living?'' Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 68, No. 3 (2005), pp. 387-399. Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/20181949, also in her ''Collected Studies''(2016).</ref>.

7. There is a rock inscription near Mecca which dates the building of the Ka’bah to 78 AH / 697-698 CE<ref><nowiki>https://www.islamic-awareness.org/history/islam/inscriptions/haram1</nowiki></ref>.

Problem seven about the inscription can be dismissed by the claim that the Arabic word translated as ‘built’ also means ‘rebuilt’.  It should be noted however that this is compatible with the hypothesis that while there was a local sanctuary at Mecca, it became the Holy Mosque only in 78 AH.  In any case, if a non obvious translation is proposed, it needs to be supported by examples of its use elsewhere.  

The Becca problem could just be a scribal error.  But then why was it not corrected before an authoritative text was issued?  Furthermore, if the Quran is to be taken seriously as a source of historical knowledge, then some explanation is required of why Abraham should have wanted to travel so far south from Canaan.  Both problems could be solved by accepting that Becca is not Mecca, but somewhere further north.  In which case the sanctuary of Abraham has been lost.

The only plausible solution to problems five and six, the fish eating farmers familiar with the city of Lot, is to accept that some verses of the Qur’an were not written in either Mecca or Medina (which is even more arid than Mecca), or indeed anywhere in the Hijaz.  To admit this undermines the project popular with scholars, of trying to explain the differences of style and doctrine to be found in the Qur’an by a sequential development in the career of its prophet.  The problem is not simply a matter of determining the order in which verses were revealed, but where, when and by whom they were first written down<ref>More evidence for multiple authors is provided by Tommaso Tesei [https://www.academia.edu/75302962/ The Qurʾān(s) in Context(s)] Journal Asiatique 309.2 (2021): 185-202 [https://www.academia.edu/75302962/_The_Qur%CA%BE%C4%81n_s_in_Context_s_Journal_Asiatique_309_2_2021_185_202 Tommaso Tesei].</ref>.  

Petra is the more plausible candidate for the original Muslim shrine.  It was an important trade centre, even if declining by the time of the Prophet.  Agriculture was possible, including the cultivation of olives mentioned in the Quran.  And it had an archbishop, thus a large Christian population, likely of an anti Trinitarian variety which is compatible with Islamic monotheism<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petra, ‘Climate’ and ‘Byzantine Period’.</ref>. Gibson offers various other arguments in favour of Petra, and Peter Townsend argues more generally for a north Arabian location<ref>''The Mecca Mystery'' (2018).</ref>.

A point against Petra is that it is not near the Dead Sea and thus the city of Lot, or not near enough.  But if Mecca is the only competition for the original shrine, it is much nearer.  If Petra contained a sanctuary, it is plausible that it would have been visited by farmers from further north.  In any case, the Quran is inconsistent in a number of ways.  The best that can be hoped for is to get a partial match to what it suggests about its historical context.

Given the seriousness of the issue for both Muslims and non Muslim scholars, it is understandable that there is much hostility to Gibson’s hypothesis.  Yet little has been published against it.  There is however a detailed rejection by David King<ref>https://www.academia.edu/87024335/MOSQUE_ORIENTATIONS</ref>, a long time specialist on the study of mosque orientation.  King’s criticism is long, repetitive and abusive.  Fortunately, most of it can be ignored, since it deals with centuries of mosque building.  Only the earliest are relevant to the question of the birthplace of Islam.  Given the rock inscription, 78AH is a convenient cut off date.

The basis of King’s position is the repeated assertion that ''‘For the interpretation of orientations of historical mosques, modern qibla directions are irrelevant.’''  This claim is clearly false.  If, for instance, it were discovered that all mosques face Mecca to within a reasonable degree of accuracy, it could be concluded that the builders understood the command of the Quran in the obvious way, had the technical ability to fulfil it, and believed the Holy Shrine to be at Mecca.  The problem for the traditional history of Islam is that no early mosques face Mecca, whereas a large proportion of the earliest face Petra.

King seems to think that mosque builders were not even trying to face Mecca in any obvious sense, because they had no way of doing so.  A hypothesis which raises theological difficulties which he does not consider.  If early Muslims had no way of establishing the direction to the Holy Shrine, they had no way of obeying the command of the Quran to face it when praying.  The Quran repeatedly warns that anyone who disobeys will be tortured for all eternity in hell.  Are we to suppose that all Muslims living distant from the Shrine before the invention of GPS are currently suffering the eternal punishment?  Have Muslims currently worshipping in misaligned mosques mended their ways?

Another possible line of criticism is to question whether Gibson has correctly identified the prayer wall on the buildings he has included in his survey, not all of which are obviously mosques, and in any case early mosques did not have a mihrab to identify the prayer wall.  However, Gibson does take care to justify his identification of prayer walls, so unless further data is obtained on site, there is no reason to question his judgement.

It is also relevant to point out that modern Muslims have no doubt about how to interpret the order to face the Ka’bah.  (And have accepted the need to abandon [[Islamic Views on the Shape of the Earth#Direct%20references%20to%20a%20flat%20Earth%20in%20the%20Qur'an|the flat Earth geography of the Quran]], and come to terms with the complications of spherical geometry<ref><nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qibla</nowiki> ‘Calculations with spherical trigonometry’ and ‘North America’.</ref>.) Why should early Muslims have interpreted the Quran any differently?  

‘Qibla’ is commonly used to mean either the actual orientation of a mosque, or the direction towards the Kaaba.  It would be better to adopt the second usage, so that there is an empirical question as to whether orientation and qibla coincide.  Or, more realistically, to what degree of accuracy they coincide.  Even with this clarification the question is ambiguous, since the answer will depend on whether the Kaaba is assumed to be at Mecca, or where the builder thought it was.  The question could be made more precise by distinguishing between the Mecca qibla and the builder's intended qibla, although the latter can only be guessed at from the actual orientation.

In the article on the [[Ka'aba|Kaaba]] yet another definition is given.  'In this capacity, as the direction of prayer, the Ka'aba is referred to as the ''Qibla''.'