62
edits
WikiIslam:Sandbox/Fernando/Mecca: Difference between revisions
WikiIslam:Sandbox/Fernando/Mecca (view source)
Revision as of 12:27, 10 September 2023
, 10 September 2023Standardisation of references, additional note on terminology, additional line of criticism of Gibson, minor corrections.
(reference added) |
(Standardisation of references, additional note on terminology, additional line of criticism of Gibson, minor corrections.) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
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. | 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 | 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). | 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). | ||
| Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
==== Problems with Mecca as the birthplace of Islam to repace '<s>Dearth of archaeological evidence</s>' ==== | ==== Problems with Mecca as the birthplace of Islam to repace '<s>Dearth of archaeological evidence</s>' ==== | ||
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. | 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. | ||
………….. | ………….. | ||
| Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
4. The Abrahamic sanctuary is located by the Quran in Becca/Bakkah rather than Mecca/Makkah (3.96). | 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< | 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<ref>As pointed out by Patricia Crone, ''[https://www.jstor.org/stable/20181949 How Did the Quranic Pagans Make a Living?]'' , also in her ''Collected Studies'' (2016).</ref>. | ||
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. | 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 | 7. There is a rock inscription near Mecca which dates the building of the Ka’bah to 78 AH / 697-698 CE<ref><nowiki>https://www.islamic-awareness.org/history/islam/inscriptions/haram1</nowiki></ref>. | ||
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. | 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. | ||
| Line 112: | Line 112: | ||
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. | 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 | 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 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 down< | 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 down<ref>More evidence for multiple authors is provided by [https://www.academia.edu/75302962/_The_Qur%CA%BE%C4%81n_s_in_Context_s_Journal_Asiatique_309_2_2021_185_202 Tommaso Tesei].</ref> | ||
If Mecca is not the birthplace of Islam, where did it start? Further progress requires, not only more evidence, but an alternative theory. | If Mecca is not the birthplace of Islam, where did it start? Further progress requires, not only more evidence, but an alternative theory. | ||
| Line 122: | Line 122: | ||
………………………'''.''' | ………………………'''.''' | ||
Dan Gibson< | Dan Gibson<ref>Most recently in ''[[Let the Stones Speak]].''</ref> 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. | 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< | 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<ref><nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petra</nowiki>, ‘Climate’ and ‘Byzantine Period’.</ref>. Gibson offers various other arguments in favour of Petra, and Peter Townsend argues more generally for a north Arabian location<ref>''The Mecca Mystery'' (2018).</ref>. | ||
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. | 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. | 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 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 | 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 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. But this would require visiting the sites, rather than just examining ancient texts. | ||
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. | 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 [[Islamic Views on the Shape of the Earth#Direct%20references%20to%20a%20flat%20Earth%20in%20the%20Qur'an|the flat Earth geography of the Quran]], and come to terms with the complications of spherical geometry< | 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 [[Islamic Views on the Shape of the Earth#Direct%20references%20to%20a%20flat%20Earth%20in%20the%20Qur'an|the flat Earth geography of the Quran]], and come to terms with the complications of spherical geometry<ref><nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qibla</nowiki> ‘Calculations with spherical trigonometry’ and ‘North America’.</ref>.) 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 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. | |||
Assuming that the idea of the orientation of a mosque 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. | |||
: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, [[WikiIslam:Source_Editing|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 [[WikiIslam:Citing,_Linking,_and_Quoting|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). [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 22:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC) | :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, [[WikiIslam:Source_Editing|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 [[WikiIslam:Citing,_Linking,_and_Quoting|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). [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 22:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC) | ||
<references responsive="0" /> | |||