Mecca: Difference between revisions

Mecca, also known as Makkah al-Mukarramah (مكة المكرمة, lit. "the Blessed Mecca"), is a city located in the Hijaz region of the Arabian Peninsula and is described by Islamic scriptures as the birthplace of Muhammad (b. 570), the founder of Islam. Mecca is host to the Kaaba, the holiest Islamic mosque (and central pagan shrine prior to Muhammad's conquest of Mecca), and thus the site of the annual Islamic pilgrimage called the Hajj which physically and financially able Muslims are required to attend at least once in their lifetimes (one of the Five Pillars of Islam). Practicing Muslims face Mecca as they pray towards the Kaaba (their qibla, or direction of prayer) five times a day (another one of the Five Pillars of Islam).

It is said that upon his conquest of Mecca, the prophet Muhammad received revelation that prohibited non-Muslims (which the revelation describes as najas, or "filthy") from entering the city. This law remains in effect until today.

According to Islamic scriptures

Almost a decade after claiming prophet-hood in Mecca in 610, Muhammad was forced to flee to Medina in 622 after facing prosecution for insulting and criticizing the gods and beliefs of the Meccan pagans. Ultimately, after erecting the Islamic state from his base in Medina, Muhammad was able to return to Mecca, this time as conqueror, in 630. Since Muhammad's death in 632, political leadership of Mecca, the holiest city in Islam, as well as Medina, the second holiest city in Islam, has been a significant basis for political claims of authority.

In the Qur'an, the city is also referred to as "Bakkah" as well as "Umm al-Qura" (lit. "mother of all settlements"). The city is described in Islamic scriptures as having been founded by Abraham as he constructed the Kaaba with his son Ishmael (Ismail), though there is an absence of any archaeological evidence to support this narrative.

Islamic texts further maintain that Mecca was the trade capital of the Hijaz and Arabia at large, though even this lacks an archaeological basis.

Early history and modern controversy as to the birthplace of Islam

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

Very little is known through archaeological and historically relied-upon channels about the early and pre-Islamic history of Mecca, as the city is neither referred to unambiguously by any document prior to the rise of Islam, nor is there any architecture in Mecca that has been determined to have persisted from the life of Muhammad at the beginning of the seventh century.^[1] Indeed, even while contemporary Romans produced detailed descriptions of Arabia at large and Western Arabia (the Hijaz) in particular, no references can be found to anything that could be described as a pilgrimage or trade centre at Mecca.

A place called Macoraba in Arabia is mentioned in a geographic work by Ptolemy in the 2nd century CE. Many academic scholars believe this is a reference to Mecca (first proposed in the 16th century), and some even think that the name derives from an ancient South Arabian word for temple, mkrb. Other historians such as Patricia Crone and Ian D. Morris have argued that there is no good reason to believe Macoraba and Mecca are the same place. The idea has never been backed by any significant academic investigation, nor has any other ancient source been shown to describe Mecca or its temple.^[2]

Historian Patricia Crone is widely considered to have established that Mecca was of no wider importance at the time of Islam's emergence, was not on the major trade route, and traded in goods like leather, wool and other pastoral products.^[3] She also pointed out that the audience of the supposedly Meccan verses of the Qur'an are prosperous farmers who have an interest in the sea and ate fish, activities difficult in the arid wastes around Mecca^[4].

In sum, the problems with Mecca are

1. No mention in ancient sources.

2. Not on ancient trade routes.

3. No archaeological remains, in spite of extensive excavations for new buildings.

4. The Abrahamic sanctuary is located by the Quran in Becca/Bakkah rather than Mecca/Makkah (Quran 3:96).

5. Its climate is not compatible with the address of the supposedly Meccan verses of the Quran to prosperous fish eating farmers.

6. Who are said to pass day and night by the remains of Lot's people (Quran 37:133-138, Quran 11:89). Traditionally this is interpreted as a trade route, since Quran 15:76 states that the punishment of Lot's people can be found on "an established road". Sodom and Gomorrah were traditionally somewhere near the Dead Sea.

7. There is a rock inscription near Mecca which dates the building of Al-Masjid-al-Haram to 78 AH / 697-698 CE^[5].

The first three points only tell against traditional descriptions of Mecca as a bustling centre of trade. They are compatible with the existence of a sanctuary patronised by local tribes. But this raises the difficulty of the absence of Christians in the area, given that the Quran is so heavily influenced by Christianity.

Problem seven about the inscription can be dismissed by the claim that the Arabic word translated as ‘built’ also means ‘rebuilt’^[6]. 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.

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, some explanation is required of why Abraham should have wanted to travel so far south from the Promised Land. Both problems could be solved by accepting that Becca is not Mecca, but somewhere further north.

For advocates of a non-Hijazi origin, the only plausible solution to problems five and six, the fish eating farmers familiar with the cities of Lot, is to accept that some verses of the Qur’an were not written in either Mecca or Medina (which has an even lower rainfall 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^[7].

A useful overview of some of the main points in the academic debate on the Meccan origins of Islam is provided by Nicolai Sinai in chapter 3 of his book, The Qur'an: A Historical-Critical Introduction.^[8]

Palestine as a possible location

Stephen Shoemaker and Guillaume Dye have both suggested Palestine as an alternative possible origin for at least part of the Quran. Shoemaker has argued for a connection between the Quranic nativity story (Quran 19:16) and the Kathisma Church in Palestine (see Parallels Between the Qur'an and Late Antique Judeo-Christian Literature),^[9] while Dye has argued for a connection with the same church and another element of Surah Maryam, the reference to Mary as "Sister of Aaron" (verse 28; see the discussion in the article Mary, Sister of Aaron).^[10]

Gibson's Petra theory

In 2011, independent scholar Dan Gibson first proposed his theory that Islam originated not in Mecca, but in Petra, the ancient Nabatean city in modern-day Jordan.^[11] He was motivated, among other factors, because geographical descriptions provided of Mecca in Islamic scriptures fail to map reliably onto the geography of the actual city of Mecca, and because in his opinion, ample archaeological evidence demonstrates that for roughly a century after Muhammad's death Muslim prayed toward Petra as their qibla.^[12] This interpretation collides heavily with the explicit statements of Islamic scriptures and, advocates claim, conforms more readily with Islamic scriptures' implicit, geographical descriptions of Mecca, as well as with the archaeological evidence available to us today.

Gibson's theory has a considerable following online, though has not met with acceptance in wider academic circles. Professor Sean Anthony, a renowned historian of Islam, has remarked that no scholars take the Petra origin theory seriously.^[13] Similarly, David King, who is a longstanding critic of Gibson, writes that "His claims about Petra as the cradle of Islam are not taken seriously by scholars of Nabataean Studies."^[14]

Dan Gibson^[15] has provided both an alternative to the Mecca hypothesis and new evidence, by measuring the orientations of early mosques in terms of the prayer niche, or mihrab, indicating the direction of prayer. The Quran orders Muslims to face the Holy Mosque (Quran 2:144), and the accepted interpretation is that they must face Mecca when praying^[16]. As an aid, mosques are built facing Mecca. Which is to say, the prayer wall is built perpendicular to a straight line to Mecca, and worshippers face this wall. The question then is in which direction are early mosques orientated? And if not to Mecca, when did it change?

Gibson claims to have found that the earliest mosques face Petra rather than Mecca, but there was a gradual reorientation to Mecca over a period of centuries. He suggests that the original Holy Mosque of Islam was at Petra, but was then changed to Mecca for political reasons, presumably encouraged by earthquakes at Petra.

Gibson argues that 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^[17]. Gibson offers various other arguments in favour of Petra, and Peter Townsend argues more generally for a north Arabian location^[18].

One specific point against Petra is that it is not near the Dead Sea and thus the cities 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 possible 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.

A general objection to the Petra hypothesis is that it is difficult to understand how the real birthplace of Islam could have been erased so completely from Muslim traditions^[8]. Advocates counter that there are numerous examples of partially successful attempts to rewrite history for political reasons. It is often noted that there is surprisingly little documentary evidence surviving from the first two centuries of Islam. Perhaps because the first Muslims were practical men more concerned with consolidating their new empire than writing about it. Or perhaps because by the second century a consensus had been reached about the value of the founding myth of Mecca, and all evidence to the contrary was destroyed.

A significant linguistic problem with a Nabatean origin theory has been raised by Marijn van Putten, a leading academic scholar on early Arabic and in particular Quranic Arabic, who has argued in detail that the dialect evident in the Uthmanic rasm of the Quran (also found in the Sanaa 1 palimpsest, so predates canonization) is Old Hijazi and not Nabatean.^[19]

Other criticisms of Gibson

David A. King, who is a leading academic scholar on the Qibla and early Arab astronomy, has written a number of articles fiercely criticising Gibson's work.^[20][21] The most fundamental problem with Gibson's hypothesis, argues King, is that Muslims did not apply mathematical geometry nor accurate coordinates for locations when determining the Qibla until the 9th century. He says that the first mathematical determination of the qibla known to us comes from Baghdad c. 825 CE. Even centuries after and despite such advances, it was common for Muslims to use a variety of non-mathematical, "folk astronomy" methods for determining the Qibla.

King discusses in one of his articles medieval examples of such methods illustrated in texts from the 9th century onwards. These divided the world into 4, 8, or later even more sectors, arranged around the sides of the Ka'bah, which itself was known even by medieval scholars to be aligned astronomically; its minor axis being aligned with summer sunrise/winter sunset and its major axis with the rising or setting of Canopus and Ursa Major. King writes, "Each sector is associated with a segment of the perimeter of the Kaʿba and the qibla in each sector is the direction in which one stands in front of the Kaʿba facing that segment of its perimeter"^[22] Such texts advised Muslims to orient themselves towards the specified direction for their sector/location by observing the setting or rising direction of the sun on the winter or summer solstices, or the direction in which certain stars appear, or even the "four winds". In some cases cardinal directions were preferred. In particular, at a number of locations including Medina, Mecca was considered due south.

King argues that folk astronomy methods such as these would have been used also by the first generations since they had not yet encountered and embraced mathematical methods nor accurate location coordinates. The first generations in Iraq were said to have used the winter sunset direction (which accords with the Ka'bah-sector orientation method outlined above) and this is what some early mosques show, just as some early Egyptian mosques are aligned to winter sunrise. According to King, many other mosques cited by Gibson as evidence for his theory were in fact aligned based on the foundations of pre-Islamic edifices.^[20]

King has also repeatedly emphasised that it is a basic fallacy even in principle to use exact individual directions or a statistical correlation of the sort asserted by Gibson to identify a specific directional intent on the part of early mosque builders, however strong or weak the correlation and the reliability of Gibson's underlying data may be (though King also questions Gibson's data). For centuries, those undisposed towards mathematical methods had only the very vaguest and often a highly inaccurate notion of the actual direction of Mecca, let alone anywhere else, and employed methods based on sacred geography, tradition, or roughly suitable pre-Islamic foundations that did not aspire in any way to accuracy. Gibson, recognising this problem, proposes various means by which the early mosque builders could have calculated accurate directions. However, these claims again receive scathing criticism from King.^[20]

While King critically engages with a large sample of Gibson's mosque datapoints,^[20][23] another one discussed by Gibson is particularly interesting. The small mosque at the Humayma archaeological site in southern Jordan is located between Mecca and Petra, a mere 43km from the latter, yet its mihrab faces south towards Mecca, not towards Petra. Gibson claims without citing any evidence that it was built later than the next-door early 8th century Umayyad qasr (palace), which despite not being a mosque, Gibson also claims without evidence is intentionally oriented towards Petra.^[24] However, archaeologists have dated both the mosque and qasr to the same time in the early 8th century, supported by foundation pottery at both buildings as well as historical texts which mention the Abbasid family building a palace and mosque at that location during the Umayyad period.^[25][26]

Points raised by proponents of a Meccan origin

Those who favour the traditional Meccan setting for Muhammad's early career as a prophet point out a very direct reference to Mecca in the Quran itself:

Similarly, some point to another verse which accurately describes the Ka'bah as being sited near an uncultivated valley:

Various other identifiable locations are mentioned in the Quran in the wider region, but most notably Yathrib in Quran 33:13. That Yathrib is the same as al-Medina is verified in the mid 7th century Syriac Khuzistan Chronicle. In addition, the Constitution of Medina (between "the believers and submitters of Quraysh and Yathrib") is generally considered authentic.^[8] A migration after being driven out from the sacred precinct is alluded to in various verses of the Quran. Nicolai Sinai has noted a number of other useful observations, particularly that certain cultic practices alluded to in the Quran would more likely be found deep in the Arabian peninsula than its northern periphery. ^[8] Regarding the religious environment suggested by the Quran, Sinai further points out that a ninth century CE Islamic source mentions a Christian cemetery in Mecca, while other vestiges in Islamic sources permit the positing of a limited Christian presence in the Hijaz (which is also supported by rock inscriptions - see Pre-Islamic Arab Religion in Islam regarding Christian inscriptions as well as regarding the distinctively Quranic spelling of Allah found in inscriptions between Mecca and Ta'if).

Regarding agricultural references in the Quran it is sometimes pointed out that Yāqūt al-Hamawī (d. 1229 CE) in his great work on geography describes Mecca as follows:

Relevant Quotations

Qur'an

Hadith

See Also

• Medina
• Hajj
• Kaaba
• Pre-Islamic Arab Religion in Islam
• Muhammad

References