62
edits
Mecca: Difference between revisions
→Petra hypothesis: Reference 6 updated
| [unchecked revision] | [checked revision] |
(→Petra hypothesis: Reference added) |
(→Petra hypothesis: Reference 6 updated) |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
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, because ample archaeological evidence demonstrates that for roughly a century after Muhammad's death Muslim prayed toward Petra as their ''qibla''<ref>Numerous videos by Dan Gibson arguing for the Petra hypothesis are available on YouTube, and there is a recent summary of the evidence at [https://nabataea.net/explore/founding_of_islam/ nabataea.net].</ref>, and because studies have demonstrated the prevalence of Syriac words in the Qur'an, many critical scholars have been led to hypothesize that the Mecca we know today may not have been the Mecca known by early Muslims. Mounting evidence suggests that the city Muhammad lived in, preached in, and came to conquer, may in fact have been Petra, located in Syria, or at least somewhere in the vicinity of northern Arabia, though this is disputed. This interpretation collides heavily with the explicit statements of Islamic scriptures and conforms more readily with Islamic scriptures' implicit, geographical descriptions of Mecca, as well as with the archaeological evidence available to us today. | 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, because ample archaeological evidence demonstrates that for roughly a century after Muhammad's death Muslim prayed toward Petra as their ''qibla''<ref>Numerous videos by Dan Gibson arguing for the Petra hypothesis are available on YouTube, and there is a recent summary of the evidence at [https://nabataea.net/explore/founding_of_islam/ nabataea.net].</ref>, and because studies have demonstrated the prevalence of Syriac words in the Qur'an, many critical scholars have been led to hypothesize that the Mecca we know today may not have been the Mecca known by early Muslims. Mounting evidence suggests that the city Muhammad lived in, preached in, and came to conquer, may in fact have been Petra, located in Syria, or at least somewhere in the vicinity of northern Arabia, though this is disputed. This interpretation collides heavily with the explicit statements of Islamic scriptures and conforms more readily with Islamic scriptures' implicit, geographical descriptions of Mecca, as well as with the archaeological evidence available to us today. | ||
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<ref>Nicolai Sinai, ''Qur'an : a historical-critical introduction'' (2017), Ch. 3.</ref>. But 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 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<ref>Nicolai Sinai, ''Qur'an : a historical-critical introduction'' (2017), Ch. 3 'Yet in the end....'.</ref>. But 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. | ||
Van Putten<ref>Marijn van [https://www.academia.edu/71626921/Quranic_Arabic_From_its_Hijazi_Origins_to_its_Classical_Reading_Traditions_Studies_in_Semitic_Languages_and_Linguistics_106_ Putten]. See especially pages 118, 120, 122, and footnote 32 on page 146.</ref> has argued in detail that the dialect of the Quran is Hijazi rather than Nabatean, but this is of doubtful relevance to the Mecca/Petra debate. It is uncontroversial that the first official edition of the Qur'an was produced under Uthman at Medina, so it would have been natural to use the local dialect<ref>According to al Bukhari, Uthman ordered the use of the Hijazi dialect. Hadith [https://sunnah.com/bukhari/66/9 4987]. Which suggests that it had to be imposed.</ref>. | Van Putten<ref>Marijn van [https://www.academia.edu/71626921/Quranic_Arabic_From_its_Hijazi_Origins_to_its_Classical_Reading_Traditions_Studies_in_Semitic_Languages_and_Linguistics_106_ Putten]. See especially pages 118, 120, 122, and footnote 32 on page 146.</ref> has argued in detail that the dialect of the Quran is Hijazi rather than Nabatean, but this is of doubtful relevance to the Mecca/Petra debate. It is uncontroversial that the first official edition of the Qur'an was produced under Uthman at Medina, so it would have been natural to use the local dialect<ref>According to al Bukhari, Uthman ordered the use of the Hijazi dialect. Hadith [https://sunnah.com/bukhari/66/9 4987]. Which suggests that it had to be imposed.</ref>. | ||