2,743
edits
WikiIslam:Sandbox/Fernando/Mecca: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
WikiIslam:Sandbox/Fernando/Mecca (view source)
Revision as of 15:54, 24 August 2023
, 24 August 2023no edit summary
(New page commenting on an existing article) |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
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. | ||
:Hi, thankyou, it would be good if you can cover this ongoing debate by expanding the existing article. A section for the academic debate on this issue would make for a good section (with subsections) after the brief introductory sections which give the traditonal Islamic history. | |||
:There is indeed a genuine, ongoing academic debate as to whether Mecca or somewhere futher north was the cradle of Islam. There is even an opinion expressed by some scholars (such as Julien Decharneux) that the Quran contains the work of multiple authors in multiple locations. However, there are two things to bear in mind: As an encyclopedic article it needs to reflect the range of this far from settled debate rather than pushing a particular view. Secondly, the North Arabian hypothesis, which has a significant scholarly movement behind it, should be distingished from the more specific Petra theory of Dan Gibson, which is largely distrusted by academic scholars. Gibson's work is worth mentioning (currently the language on the page is a little too assertive in supporting it), but it needs to be clear that this is mostly regarded as a fringe theory by academic scholars. Often they cite David King's response to Gibson when asked about it, which we should also cite for balance. | |||
:If you search for the word Mecca in Professor Sean Anthony's recent AMA on reddit (linked below) he had a number of interesting answers to questions on this topic during the course of the AMA, such as the point about the House being in an uncultivated valley ({{Quran|14|37}}). He also mentions the low regard in which the Petra theory is generally held by academic scholars (I see basically the same response whenever an academic scholar is asked on reddit or twitter about the Petra theory.). | |||
: https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicQuran/comments/13rkbxo/i_am_a_historian_of_late_antiquity_and_the_early/ | |||
:The page also includes an interesting point about the poem attributed to Zuhayr bin Abī Salma of Banu Muzaina which is sometimes brought up in relation to this topic. There is some futher interesting discussion in his twitter comments here https://twitter.com/shahanSean/status/1126172776975482881 (need to be logged into twitter to see the whole thread). | |||
:A good citable source summarising the main features of the debate (aside from the Petra theory) is the beginning of chapter 3 of Nicolai Sinai's book ''The Qur'an: A Historical-Critical Introduction''. Here is an upload of 3 pages from the start of the chapter. | |||
: [https://pasteboard.co/4MBWA29PebT6.jpg] [https://pasteboard.co/9lTQked4dpMA.jpg] [https://pasteboard.co/RyxbtgVqyVY3.jpg] | |||
:It has a useful and citable summary of some of the main points made by both sides. In an encyclopedic article like we are aiming for we need to include points made by the pro-Mecca side of the fence too (the issue of collective amnesia, general agreement that Yathrib/Medina is a genuine Quranic location etc). It also needs to acknowledge that Mecca is mentioned explicitly in {{Quran-range|48|24|25}}. | |||
:More recently, another line of evidence has been raised from a linguistic point of view by the leading expert on Quranic Arabic, Marijn van Putten https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1291290518010449920 Occasionally I cite twitter threads, but a more citable source for his view is his open access book "Quranic Arabic", especially pages 118, 120, 122, and footnote 32 on page 146. https://brill.com/display/title/61587?language=en | |||
:The points you mention above would all be worth setting out in the article, but I suggest leaving out the speculation/set of possible ways to reconcile the evidence with tradition as it comes across too much as our own musings on an already highly contested point (qibla directions). | |||
: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) | |||