WikiIslam:Sandbox/Fernando/Mecca

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^[1]. (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 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 farmersⁱ.

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

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

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.

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 and 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 Hejaz. 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 downⁱⁱⁱ.

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^iv 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, 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^v. Gibson offers various other arguments in favour of Petra, as does Peter Townsend^vi.

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. 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 non Muslim scholars, it is understandable that there is much hostility to Gibson’s hypothesis. Yet little has been published against it. There is a trenchant criticism from David A. King, a long time expert on mosque orientation. His main point seems to be that geographical orientation is irrelevant to understanding early mosques, because their builders had no way of determining the direction of Mecca, and did not try. Rather they orientated their buildings with the Ka’bah rather than towards it, by aiming for the same alignment with the fixed stars. There are a number of problems with this suggestion.

Primarily, 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 facing 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.

If the early mosque builders were not trying to face Mecca, what were they trying to do? The accepted interpretation of the Quran is that Muslims must face it when praying, so it is generally assumed that mosques are built to indicate the required direction. It is an implication of King’s theory that some early builders interpreted the word translated as ‘face’ to mean ‘facing in the same direction as you would if you were at the Ka’bah’. Which is a bit of a stretch. Another possibility is that at certain times and places the builders had no way of determining the direction of the Ka’bah, so they did the best they could by giving their mosques the same orientation to the fixed stars. It is not clear from the data that they succeeded even in this. Or indeed that they were trying. Many mosques face south, in obedience to the Prophet’s command to pray towards Mecca when he was in Medina.

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^vii.) Why should early Muslims have interpreted the Quran any differently?

iAs pointed out by Patricia Crone, How Did the Quranic Pagans Make a Living? , also in her Collected Studies (2016).

iihttps://www.islamic-awareness.org/history/islam/inscriptions/haram1

iiiMore evidence for multiple authors is provided by Tommaso Tesei.

ivMost recently in Let the Stones Speak.

vhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petra, ‘Climate’ and ‘Byzantine Period’.

viThe Mecca Mystery (2018).

viihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qibla ‘Calculations with spherical trigonometry’ and ‘North America’.

↑ 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, and in her Collected Studies (2016).

[1] 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, and in her Collected Studies (2016).

[1]