WikiIslam:Sandbox/Fernando/Mecca: Difference between revisions

The question of interest raised by the current article is whether tradition is correct in identifying the modern location of Mecca as the birthplace of Islam. The article presents some evidence against the Mecca hypothesis, but there is more which needs to be discussed, and more references are needed.

It is important in this discussion to avoid talking about ‘Islamic scriptures’ in general, to distinguish between the Quran and its supporting literature. It is only the Quran which Muslims believe to be the word of God, so they can reject the rest without becoming apostates. The evidence from the Quran alone is against the Mecca hypothesis.

Although the article mentions ‘ample archaeological evidence’ that Islam started in Petra, it does not give any references. Numerous videos by Dan Gibson arguing for the Petra hypothesis are available on YouTube, and there is a recent summary of the evidence at nabataea.net.

The article mentions further evidence against the Mecca hypothesis. The lack of archaeological or documentary evidence, and the evidence detailed by Patricia Crone that it was not an important trading centre, or on a trading route. It also references Ian Watt’s refutation of the identification of Mecca with Macoraba.

But additional evidence against the Mecca hypothesis which is readily available is ignored. No reference is made to Patricia Crone’s use of passages in the Quran to show that the audience of the supposedly Meccan verses were prosperous farmers, who could not possibly have lived in the arid deserts around Mecca. (As confirmed by Quran 14.27).

Nor does it refer to the passages in the Quran which link these farmers to Lot, and thus Sodom, which is generally assumed to have been near the Dead Sea (37:133-138).

It would also be worth giving a reference to the extended discussion by Peter Townsend in The Mecca Mystery (2018).

The article accepts the usual identification of Becca/Bakkah with Mecca, without giving any evidence to support it, and without recognizing that this identification creates further problems for the Mecca hypothesis.

The Quran mentions Mecca/Makkah only once by name, as somewhere in a hollow, in an otherwise obscure passage (48.24). 3.95-97 seem to be saying that the original shrine, presumably Becca, was established by Abraham. This is confirmed by 2.125-127. It is strange that the original and current centre of monotheism is not referred to more often by name in the Quran, or more fully described.

What the Quran does say is that the first sanctuary was at Bakkah (3.96). It also says says that the direction of prayer was changed by the prophet (2.142-145), although without giving details of either the original or final direction. It is assumed by Muslim commentators that the original direction was towards Jerusalem, although Jerusalem is not mentioned by name anywhere in the Quran. If the original direction of prayer was towards the original sanctuary, Bakkah, then it must have been somewhere different from Mecca. If Becca is Mecca, then the original direction of prayer was not towards the first sanctuary.

3.97 says pilgrimage to the House is a duty unto Allah for mankind, where the House is presumably the first Sanctuary mentioned in 3.96. 2.144 orders that prayer should be towards 'the Inviolable Place of Worship', which is presumably the House/First Sanctuary. So it is a matter of great importance for Muslims to know where this place is.

It would be useful to give a summary of all the current evidence against the Mecca hypothesis, perhaps as an introduction.

Absence of archaeological evidence.

Absence of documentary evidence.

Evidence in the Quran itself that it was originally revealed in a fertile area near the Dead Sea.

Archaeological evidence that the earliest mosques were not orientated to Mecca, or Jerusalem.

And that the reorientation towards Mecca was not completed until after 1500 CE.

Is the archaeological evidence incompatible with the Quran itself, as opposed to the traditions which have grown up around it?

What might seem incompatible with the historical accuracy of the Quran is the fact that the orientation of mosques was changed after the death of its prophet, and not, as asserted by 2.142-145, on his instructions. It is however possible that there were two changes in direction, one in the Prophet’s lifetime, towards Petra, and then later changes well after his death. The difficulty with this hypothesis is that it implies that later Muslims wilfully ignored the instructions of their prophet, and fabricated an elaborate mythology about Mecca to justify their disobedience. It also leaves a mystery about the original direction of prayer, and why God decided to change it twice.

One possibility is that the original direction of prayer was towards Abraham’s shrine at Becca, this was changed for some reason to Petra, then changed back again to Becca, which in the meantime had been renamed Mecca. Perhaps later Muslims realized there had been a mistake. But they have left no record of their evidence for deciding Mecca was the correct direction. Since mosques not orientated towards Mecca were being built as late as 1500 CE, it seems likely that such evidence would have survived.

Another possibility is that all mosque builders were trying to orientate towards Mecca, but failed because of technical incompetence. There are three problems with this explanation. The orientations are too systematic to be due to chance. If the problem was merely technical, there would be some record of discussions of how it could be solved. Finally, up until 706 CE most mosques faced towards Petra, so there were techniques for getting the orientation right.

Another suggestion is that the 'B' in Becca is a scribal error, but this is incompatible with the belief widespread among Muslims that the Quran is the inerrant record of he word of God.

No doubt there are other possible ways of reconciling the evidence with both the Quran and the traditions, but perhaps further speculation is best left to Muslim scholars, who have the motivation of wanting to ensure that millions of pilgrims are going to the right place, and that they are praying in the correct direction five times a day. In sum: the article would benefit from more references, and a stronger case can be made against Mecca as the cradle of Islam.

In sum: the article would benefit from more references, a stronger case can be made against Mecca as the cradle of Islam.

Advice is invited as to whether it is best to incorporate the above into the existing article, or rewrite it.

Hi, thankyou, it would be good if you can cover this ongoing debate by expanding the existing article. A section for the academic debate on this issue would make for a good section (with subsections) after the brief introductory sections which give the traditonal Islamic history.

There is indeed a genuine, ongoing academic debate as to whether Mecca or somewhere futher north was the cradle of Islam. There is even an opinion expressed by some scholars (such as Julien Decharneux) that the Quran contains the work of multiple authors in multiple locations. However, there are two things to bear in mind: As an encyclopedic article it needs to reflect the range of this far from settled debate rather than pushing a particular view. Secondly, the North Arabian hypothesis, which has a significant scholarly movement behind it, should be distingished from the more specific Petra theory of Dan Gibson, which is largely distrusted by academic scholars. Gibson's work is worth mentioning (currently the language on the page is a little too assertive in supporting it), but it needs to be clear that this is mostly regarded as a fringe theory by academic scholars. Often they cite David King's response to Gibson when asked about it, which we should also cite for balance.

If you search for the word Mecca in Professor Sean Anthony's recent AMA on reddit (linked below) he had a number of interesting answers to questions on this topic during the course of the AMA, such as the point about the House being in an uncultivated valley (Quran 14:37). He also mentions the low regard in which the Petra theory is generally held by academic scholars (I see basically the same response whenever an academic scholar is asked on reddit or twitter about the Petra theory.).

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicQuran/comments/13rkbxo/i_am_a_historian_of_late_antiquity_and_the_early/

The page also includes an interesting point about the poem attributed to Zuhayr bin Abī Salma of Banu Muzaina which is sometimes brought up in relation to this topic. There is some futher interesting discussion in his twitter comments here https://twitter.com/shahanSean/status/1126172776975482881 (need to be logged into twitter to see the whole thread).

A good citable source summarising the main features of the debate (aside from the Petra theory) is the beginning of chapter 3 of Nicolai Sinai's book The Qur'an: A Historical-Critical Introduction. Here is an upload of 3 pages from the start of the chapter.

[1] [2] [3]

It has a useful and citable summary of some of the main points made by both sides. In an encyclopedic article like we are aiming for we need to include points made by the pro-Mecca side of the fence too (the issue of collective amnesia, general agreement that Yathrib/Medina is a genuine Quranic location etc). It also needs to acknowledge that Mecca is mentioned explicitly in Quran 48:24-25.

More recently, another line of evidence has been raised from a linguistic point of view by the leading expert on Quranic Arabic, Marijn van Putten https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1291290518010449920 Occasionally I cite twitter threads, but a more citable source for his view is his open access book "Quranic Arabic", especially pages 118, 120, 122, and footnote 32 on page 146. https://brill.com/display/title/61587?language=en

The points you mention above would all be worth setting out in the article, but I suggest leaving out the speculation/set of possible ways to reconcile the evidence with tradition as it comes across too much as our own musings on an already highly contested point (qibla directions).

In short, WikiIslam shouldn't take a position on such an academically uncertain and contested issue, but it would be great if you can set out the main points which feature in the debate, bringing it as up to date as reasonably possible. A model of the tone and approach would be the section on the Academic debate regarding Uthman vs Abd al Malik section in the Textual History of the Quran article. Lightyears (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Reply to comments 25/08/2023

Thanks. I did not understand that 'encyclopedic' in the instructions to new users meant specifically giving references to all sides of a current academic debate.

Dan Gibson discusses King in his latest book on his site I referenced, and I did not think it necessary to duplicate references within references. Do you know of any other critiques of Gibson?

It will take me some time to check out your very helpful suggestions, although I am familiar with most of the authors you mention. In the meantime I think it would be useful to get the extra Crone reference and the Gibson/King debate into the existing article. And questioning its assumption that Becca = Mecca. What are the conventions about changing an existing article?

Sounds good. I'm an admin here and wrote a lot of the articles, but I'm not involved in the new user on-boarding process or what ASmith may have advised. I believe there are a bunch of pages via the New Contributors link on the sidebar explaining standards, how to add quote templates etc. An example of a recent newly expanded article which covers an academic debate is the one on Prophecies in the Quran, particularly the section on the Romans prophecy which has a good sprinkling of quotes and citations yet concise enough to hold the reader's interest. Normally new users are expected to make small simple edits to start with, so the gradual approach sounds ok to me. Our pending edits feature is currently broken so you won't have to wait for each edit to be approved. At some point when you've finished ASmith or I can tweak, add templates where necessary etc. Lightyears (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

06/09/23

Thanks again.

Please find below a proposed expansion of the article on Mecca. I have used ......... to indicate where the existing text will remain. I would need to standardise the format of the references, and add more quotes from the Quran. The endnotes have not come out very well. I have already added a few references to the existing article.

Problems with Mecca as the birthplace of Islam to repace 'Dearth of archaeological evidence'

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, or the Ka’bah, the 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.

…………..

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 (3.96).

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^[1].

6. Who are said to share their location with Lot of Sodom and Gomorrah (37.133-138, 11.89),which were somewhere near the Dead Sea.

7. There is a rock inscription near Mecca which dates the building of the Ka’bah to 78 AH / 697-698 CE^[2].

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’. 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. 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^[3]

If Mecca is not the birthplace of Islam, where did it start? Further progress requires, not only more evidence, but an alternative theory.

The Petra Hypothesis

……………………….

Dan Gibson^[4] has recently provided both an alternative to the Mecca hypothesis and new evidence, by measuring the orientations of early mosques. The Quran orders Muslims to face the Ka’bah Quran 2:144, and the accepted interpretation is that they must face Mecca when praying. 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 when did it change to Mecca?

Gibson has found that the earliest mosques face Petra rather than Mecca, but there was a gradual reorientation to Mecca over a period of centuries. Which 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.

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^[5]. Gibson offers various other arguments in favour of Petra, and Peter Townsend argues more generally for a north Arabian location^[6].

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^[7], a long time specialist on the study of mosque orientation. King’s criticism is long, repetitive and abusive, and what follows is not claimed to be a definitive interpretation. Rather the aim is to extract testable hypotheses which are alternatives to Gibson’s Petra hypothesis.

King’s position can be summed up as follows.

1. ‘For the interpretation of orientations of historical mosques, modern qibla directions are irrelevant.’

2. The oldest mosques were orientated so that the walls have the same orientation to the fixed stars as the Kaaba.

OR 3. The oldest mosques were orientated so that the wall have the same orientation to the cardinal points as the Kaaba.

1. is a direct quote, and 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.

So let us try a variant, 1’. There was no attempt to orientate the oldest mosques towards Mecca, because they did not have the ability to do so. Which raises the question, what were they trying to do?

As a first approximation, hypotheses 2 and 3 can be taken as equivalent. But what would be the point of such a convention? It might be thought that what would be achieved is that worshippers would be facing in the same direction as those at Mecca. But there are two problems with this idea. It is a considerable stretch to interpret ‘facing’ as 'facing in the same direction as you would if you were at the Ka’bah’, however ‘direction’ may be interpreted. More seriously, worshippers at Mecca can be facing in any direction, depending which side of the Kaaba they are on.

Which suggests hypothesis 4 - The oldest mosques were orientated so the prayer direction was the same as that at Mecca or Petra. This is consistent with Gibson’s data on ‘parallel’ mosques. Towards the end of the seventh century the prayer direction of mosques he describes as ‘Western Umayyad’ became parallel to a line between Petra and Mecca. This does not however solve the problem about the earliest mosques, or tell us whether the target was Mecca or Petra.

An orientation the same as the Kaaba might seem better than nothing. But in fact it only raises further questions. Most fundamentally: what geometry did the builders think applicable to their problem? The author of the Quran believed in a flat Earth, ‘spread out like a carpet’ (Quran 71:19 etc.,Islamic Views on the Shape of the Earth). To which Euclidean geometry applies. We now know that the Earth is round, as did the ancient Greeks, so that the calculation of angles and distances requires spherical geometry. Flat maps can be useful for small areas, but become increasingly distorted as the area covered grows larger. This is relevant to the problem of what ‘the same’ means when applied to the orientation of buildings.

In the case of rectangular buildings like the Kaaba, it could mean that the longest axes are parallel. Which in turn could mean: at the same angle to a great circle drawn, say, through the midpoint. Or alternatively: at the same angle to an orthogonal frame of reference based on the fixed stars. These two standards will only give the same result at the equator.

King’s hypotheses also raise theological difficulties. 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? Is there any discussion of the problem by Muslim scholars, ancient or modern?

In sum, King offers no plausible alternative to the obvious interpretation of the Quranic command to pray towards the Holy Shrine, and Gibson has supplied the best evidence to date of where the builders of the first mosques thought it was.

Gibson claims to have established that too many of the early mosques face Petra to be due to chance. How they did this is a matter of speculation, but their success is a statistical fact. It is also a fact that after a period of uncertainty, later mosques succeed in being orientated with Mecca with a greater than random success rate. Anyone who dislikes Gibson’s Petra hypothesis needs to show either that his measurements are wrong, or the statistical analysis faulty.

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 the flat Earth geography of the Quran, and come to terms with the complications of spherical geometry^[8].) Why should early Muslims have interpreted the Quran any differently?

A note on terminology

It is not clear whether the Masjid-al-Haram and the Kaaba are the same, or the Kaaba is in the Masjid. For the purposes of the present discussion the distinction is irrelevant. (‘Kaaba’ is the spelling favoured by my spell checker.)

‘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. Where the builder's intention has to be inferred from the likely candidates for the location of the Kaaba.

Gibson in his glossary defines 'qibla' as 'The direction one should face when performing Islamic rituals. According to Surah 2 Muslims should face Masjid al-Haram'. So the direction will depend on where one thinks the Masjid al-Haram is, or was. But it is uncontroversial that the original direction of prayer was towards Jerusalem, which is not in contention as the site of the original Masjid. (Although a more plausible location for Abraham.) Gibson also says things like 'And so in one town we have evidence of three different qiblas' (page 95). Which can only mean the actual orientation of the buildings, rather than the correct orientation. To be consistent, the definition needs to be changed to 'The direction the builders thought one should face.....' Or perhaps he should insist that the only true qibla is towards Petra.

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

Altogether, it might be best to stop using the word 'qibla' to avoid verbal confusions about such a contentious issue. The empirical question is then about the orientation of old mosques.

Not that the idea of the orientation of a building is entirely clear. What is in question is the orientation of the prayer wall, which is what the congregation faces when praying. The orientation is the direction of a straight line drawn perpendicular to this wall. It is assumed that the idea of the direction of a line on the Earth’s surface is clear enough, and can be determined by modern technology. The idea of a straight line as the shortest distance between two points would probably have been acceptable to the earliest mosque builders. The direction of a straight line can then be specified by any two places it passes through, without the need for an external frame of reference.

Thanks for the updates, it is well written. We will also do a bit of editing ourselves to the article in due course, as mentioned. If you need any help with templates when you refine the references, this page explains how to quote or cite verses using the Quote, Quran, and Quran-range templates, as well as the various hadith citation templates. See also this page. A useful method is to look at the source edit page for an existing article to see how templates are typically used and how different types of sources are typically cited (the Islamic views on the shape of the earth article is a good one for that purpose). Lightyears (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

1. ↑ As pointed out by Patricia Crone, How Did the Quranic Pagans Make a Living? , also in her Collected Studies (2016).
2. ↑ https://www.islamic-awareness.org/history/islam/inscriptions/haram1
3. ↑ More evidence for multiple authors is provided by Tommaso Tesei.
4. ↑ Most recently in Let the Stones Speak.
5. ↑ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petra, ‘Climate’ and ‘Byzantine Period’.
6. ↑ The Mecca Mystery (2018).
7. ↑ https://www.academia.edu/87024335/MOSQUE_ORIENTATIONS
8. ↑ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qibla ‘Calculations with spherical trigonometry’ and ‘North America’.