62
edits
WikiIslam:Sandbox/Fernando/Mecca: Difference between revisions
WikiIslam:Sandbox/Fernando/Mecca (view source)
Revision as of 14:50, 25 August 2023
, 25 August 2023Minor changes to the body of the text. Plus a reply to the comments on it with more questions.
Lightyears (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
m (Minor changes to the body of the text. Plus a reply to the comments on it with more questions.) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
It would also be worth giving a reference to the extended discussion by Peter Townsend in ''The Mecca Mystery'' (2018). | 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 Bakkah with Mecca, without giving any evidence to support it, and without recognizing that this identification creates further problems for the Mecca hypothesis. | 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). 3.97 | 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 | 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. | It would be useful to give a summary of all the current evidence against the Mecca hypothesis, perhaps as an introduction. | ||
| Line 32: | Line 34: | ||
'''Is the archaeological evidence incompatible with the Quran itself, as opposed to the traditions which have grown up around it?''' | |||
One possibility is that the original direction of prayer was towards Abraham’s shrine at | 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 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. | 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, | 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. | Advice is invited as to whether it is best to incorporate the above into the existing article, or rewrite it. | ||
| Line 66: | Line 73: | ||
: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. [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 15:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC) | :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. [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk: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? | |||
: | |||