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 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 seems to be saying that the original shrine, presumably Bakkah, was established by Abraham. It is strange that the original and current center 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 Bakkah is Mecca, then the original direction of prayer was not towards the first sanctuary, which seems strange. As does the claim that it was towards Jerusalem, unless it is assumed that Islam was originally a Jewish cult. So whether or not Bakkah is Mecca, there are difficulties for the traditional assumptions.

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, relayed from God. 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 willfully 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 Bakkah, this was changed for some reason to Petra, then changed back again to Bakkah, 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.

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.

Advice is invited as to whether it is best to incorporate the above into the existing article, or rewrite it.