WikiIslam

Mecca: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

Mecca (view source)

Revision as of 22:25, 23 October 2023

37 bytes added ,  23 October 2023
no edit summary
[checked revision][checked revision]
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
Line 42: Line 42:
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, some explanation is required of why Abraham should have wanted to travel so far south from the Promised Land. Both problems could be solved by accepting that Becca is not Mecca, but somewhere further north.
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, some explanation is required of why Abraham should have wanted to travel so far south from the Promised Land. Both problems could be solved by accepting that Becca is not Mecca, but somewhere further north.


For advocates of a non-Hijazi origin, the only plausible solution to problems five and six, the fish eating farmers familiar with the cities of Lot, is to accept that some verses of the Qur’an were not written in either Mecca or Medina (which has an even lower rainfall 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<ref>More evidence for multiple authors is provided by Tommaso Tesei ''The Qurʾān(s) in Context(s)'' ''Journal Asiatique 309.2'' (2021) pp. 185-[https://www.academia.edu/75302962 202]</ref>.
For advocates of a non-Hijazi origin, the only plausible solution to problems five and six, the fish eating farmers familiar with the cities of Lot, is to accept that some verses of the Qur’an were not written in either Mecca or Medina (which has an even lower rainfall 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.<ref>More evidence for multiple authors is provided by Tommaso Tesei ''The Qurʾān(s) in Context(s)'' ''Journal Asiatique 309.2'' (2021) pp. 185-[https://www.academia.edu/75302962 202]</ref>


A useful overview of some of the main points in the academic debate on the Meccan origins of Islam is provided by Nicolai Sinai in chapter 3 of his book, ''The Qur'an: A Historical-Critical Introduction''.<ref name="Sinai2017">Nicolai Sinai, ''The Qur'an: A Historical-Critical Introduction'' Edinburgh University Press, 2017, Chapter 3: The Qur'anic Milieu</ref>
A useful overview of some of the main points in the academic debate on the Meccan origins of Islam is provided by Nicolai Sinai in chapter 3 of his book, ''The Qur'an: A Historical-Critical Introduction''.<ref name="Sinai2017">Nicolai Sinai, ''The Qur'an: A Historical-Critical Introduction'' Edinburgh University Press, 2017, Chapter 3: The Qur'anic Milieu</ref>
Line 60: Line 60:
Gibson argues that 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>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petra, ‘''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>.
Gibson argues that 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>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petra, ‘''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>.


One specific point against Petra is that it is not near the Dead Sea and thus the cities 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 possible 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.
One specific point against Petra is that it is not near the Dead Sea and thus the cities of Lot, or not near enough, although if Mecca is the only competition for the original shrine, it is much nearer. If Petra contained a sanctuary, it is possible that it would have been visited by farmers from further north. Advocates of the theory argue that in any case, the Quran is inconsistent in a number of ways and that the best that can be hoped for is to get a partial match to what it suggests about its historical context.


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 name="Sinai2017" />.  Advocates counter that 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 name="Sinai2017" /> Advocates counter that 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 significant linguistic problem with a Nabatean origin theory has been raised by Marijn van Putten, a leading academic scholar on early Arabic and in particular Quranic Arabic, who has argued in detail that the dialect evident in the Uthmanic rasm of the Quran is Old Hijazi and not Nabatean.<ref>Marijn van Putten, [https://brill.com/view/title/61587 Quranic Arabic: From its Hijazi origins to its classical reading traditions], Leiden: Brill, 2022 isbn: 9789004506251 (Open access pdf download, also available [https://www.academia.edu/71626921 here])<BR />
====Criticisms of Gibson====
See especially pages 118, 120, 122, and footnote 32 on page 146.</ref>
 
====Other criticisms of Gibson====
David A. King, who is a leading academic scholar on the Qibla and early Arab astronomy, has written a number of articles fiercely criticising Gibson's work.<ref name="King2017">[https://muslimheritage.com/pibla-back-to-qibla/ From Petra back to Makka – From “Pibla” back to Qibla] by David King, 22 August 2017 on muslimheritage.com</ref><ref>[https://muslimheritage.com/the-petra-fallacy/ The Petra Fallacy: Early Mosques do face the Sacred Kaaba in Mecca] by David King, 15 September 2020 - muslimheritage.com</ref> The most fundamental problem with Gibson's hypothesis, argues King, is that Muslims did not apply mathematical geometry nor accurate coordinates for locations when determining the Qibla until the 9th century. He says that the first mathematical determination of the qibla known to us comes from Baghdad c. 825 CE. Even centuries after and despite such advances, it was common for Muslims to use a variety of non-mathematical, "folk astronomy" methods for determining the Qibla.  
David A. King, who is a leading academic scholar on the Qibla and early Arab astronomy, has written a number of articles fiercely criticising Gibson's work.<ref name="King2017">[https://muslimheritage.com/pibla-back-to-qibla/ From Petra back to Makka – From “Pibla” back to Qibla] by David King, 22 August 2017 on muslimheritage.com</ref><ref>[https://muslimheritage.com/the-petra-fallacy/ The Petra Fallacy: Early Mosques do face the Sacred Kaaba in Mecca] by David King, 15 September 2020 - muslimheritage.com</ref> The most fundamental problem with Gibson's hypothesis, argues King, is that Muslims did not apply mathematical geometry nor accurate coordinates for locations when determining the Qibla until the 9th century. He says that the first mathematical determination of the qibla known to us comes from Baghdad c. 825 CE. Even centuries after and despite such advances, it was common for Muslims to use a variety of non-mathematical, "folk astronomy" methods for determining the Qibla.  


Line 74: Line 71:
King argues that folk astronomy methods such as these would have been used also by the first generations since they had not yet encountered and embraced mathematical methods nor accurate location coordinates. The first generations in Iraq were said to have used the winter sunset direction (which accords with the Ka'bah-sector orientation method outlined above) and this is what some early mosques show, just as some early Egyptian mosques are aligned to winter sunrise. According to King, many other mosques cited by Gibson as evidence for his theory were in fact aligned based on the foundations of pre-Islamic edifices.<ref name="King2017" />  
King argues that folk astronomy methods such as these would have been used also by the first generations since they had not yet encountered and embraced mathematical methods nor accurate location coordinates. The first generations in Iraq were said to have used the winter sunset direction (which accords with the Ka'bah-sector orientation method outlined above) and this is what some early mosques show, just as some early Egyptian mosques are aligned to winter sunrise. According to King, many other mosques cited by Gibson as evidence for his theory were in fact aligned based on the foundations of pre-Islamic edifices.<ref name="King2017" />  


King has also repeatedly emphasised that it is a basic fallacy even in principle to use exact individual directions or a statistical correlation of the sort asserted by Gibson to identify a specific directional intent on the part of early mosque builders, however strong or weak the correlation and the reliability of Gibson's underlying data may be (though King also questions Gibson's data). For centuries, those undisposed towards mathematical methods had only the very vaguest and often a highly inaccurate notion of the actual direction of Mecca, let alone anywhere else, and employed methods based on sacred geography, tradition, or roughly suitable pre-Islamic foundations that did not aspire in any way to accuracy. Gibson, recognising this problem, proposes various means by which the early mosque builders could have calculated accurate directions. However, these claims again receive scathing criticism from King.<ref name="King2017" />
King has repeatedly emphasised that it is a basic fallacy even in principle to use exact individual directions or a statistical correlation of the sort asserted by Gibson to identify a specific directional intent on the part of early mosque builders, however strong or weak the correlation and the reliability of Gibson's underlying data may be (though King also questions Gibson's data). For centuries, those undisposed towards mathematical methods had only the very vaguest and often a highly inaccurate notion of the actual direction of Mecca, let alone anywhere else, and employed methods based on sacred geography, tradition, or roughly suitable pre-Islamic foundations that did not aspire in any way to accuracy. Gibson, recognising this problem, proposes various means by which the early mosque builders could have calculated accurate directions. However, these claims again receive scathing criticism from King.<ref name="King2017" />


While King critically engages with a large sample of Gibson's mosque datapoints,<ref name="King2017" /><ref>[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330221815_King_The_Petra_fallacy_The_Petra_fallacy_-_Early_mosques_do_face_the_Sacred_Kaaba_in_Mecca_but_Dan_Gibson_doesn%27t_know_how_Comparing_historical_orientations_with_modern_directions_can_lead_to_false_re King: The Petra fallacy The Petra fallacy - Early mosques do face the Sacred Kaaba in Mecca but Dan Gibson doesn't know how / Comparing historical orientations with modern directions can lead to false results] - David King, December 2018</ref> another one discussed by Gibson is particularly interesting. The small mosque at the Humayma archaeological site in southern Jordan is located between Mecca and Petra, a mere 43km from the latter, yet its mihrab faces south towards Mecca, not towards Petra. Gibson claims without citing any evidence that it was built later than the next-door early 8th century Umayyad qasr (palace), which despite not being a mosque, Gibson also claims without evidence is intentionally oriented towards Petra.<ref>See [https://thesacredcity.ca/humeima.html Humeima Farm House] by Dan Gibson</ref> However, archaeologists have dated both the mosque and qasr to the same time in the early 8th century, supported by foundation pottery at both buildings as well as historical texts which mention the Abbasid family building a palace and mosque at that location during the Umayyad period.<ref>John Oleson and Rebecca Foote, [https://maxvanberchem.org/fr/activites-scientifiques/projets/archeologie/11-archeologie/54-humeima-excavation-project HUMEIMA EXCAVATION PROJECT, 1995-96] - Max van Berchem Foundation, Geneva, 1996</ref><ref>A photo of the mosque is available [http://jordanheritage.jo/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/%D8%A2%D8%AB%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%85%D9%8A%D9%85%D8%A9-2-1024x676.jpg here]</ref>
While King critically engages with a large sample of Gibson's mosque datapoints,<ref name="King2017" /><ref>[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330221815_King_The_Petra_fallacy_The_Petra_fallacy_-_Early_mosques_do_face_the_Sacred_Kaaba_in_Mecca_but_Dan_Gibson_doesn%27t_know_how_Comparing_historical_orientations_with_modern_directions_can_lead_to_false_re King: The Petra fallacy The Petra fallacy - Early mosques do face the Sacred Kaaba in Mecca but Dan Gibson doesn't know how / Comparing historical orientations with modern directions can lead to false results] - David King, December 2018</ref> another one discussed by Gibson is particularly interesting. The small mosque at the Humayma archaeological site in southern Jordan is located between Mecca and Petra, a mere 43km from the latter, yet its mihrab faces south towards Mecca, not towards Petra. Gibson claims without citing any evidence that it was built later than the next-door early 8th century Umayyad qasr (palace), which despite not being a mosque, Gibson also claims without evidence is intentionally oriented towards Petra.<ref>See [https://thesacredcity.ca/humeima.html Humeima Farm House] by Dan Gibson</ref> However, archaeologists have dated both the mosque and qasr to the same time in the early 8th century, supported by foundation pottery at both buildings as well as historical texts which mention the Abbasid family building a palace and mosque at that location during the Umayyad period.<ref>John Oleson and Rebecca Foote, [https://maxvanberchem.org/fr/activites-scientifiques/projets/archeologie/11-archeologie/54-humeima-excavation-project HUMEIMA EXCAVATION PROJECT, 1995-96] - Max van Berchem Foundation, Geneva, 1996</ref><ref>A photo of the mosque is available [http://jordanheritage.jo/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/%D8%A2%D8%AB%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%85%D9%8A%D9%85%D8%A9-2-1024x676.jpg here]</ref>


==Points raised by proponents of a Meccan origin==
A significant linguistic problem with a Nabatean origin theory has been raised by Marijn van Putten, a leading academic scholar on early Arabic and in particular Quranic Arabic, who has argued in detail that the dialect evident in the Uthmanic rasm of the Quran is Old Hijazi and not Nabatean.<ref>Marijn van Putten, [https://brill.com/view/title/61587 Quranic Arabic: From its Hijazi origins to its classical reading traditions], Leiden: Brill, 2022 isbn: 9789004506251 (Open access pdf download, also available [https://www.academia.edu/71626921 here])<BR />
See especially pages 118, 120, 122, and footnote 32 on page 146.</ref>
 
==Points supporting the traditional Meccan setting==
Those who favour the traditional Meccan setting for Muhammad's early career as a prophet point out a very direct reference to Mecca in the Quran itself:
Those who favour the traditional Meccan setting for Muhammad's early career as a prophet point out a very direct reference to Mecca in the Quran itself:


Lightyears
Editors, em-bypass-2, Reviewers, rollback, Administrators
2,743

edits

Retrieved from "http://wikiislamica.net/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/137528"