62
edits
Mecca: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Added references for two objections to the Petra hypothesis
| [unchecked revision] | [unchecked revision] |
m (Added the qualification 'Meccan verses') |
(Added references for two objections to the Petra hypothesis) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
A place called Macoraba in Arabia is mentioned in a geographic work by Ptolemy in the 2nd century CE. Many academic scholars believe this is a reference to Mecca (first proposed in the 16th century), and some even think that the name derives from an ancient South Arabian word for temple, mkrb. Others historians such as Patricia Crone and Ian D. Morris have argued that there is no good reason to believe Macoraba and Mecca are the same place. The idea has never been backed by any significant academic investigation, nor has any other ancient source been shown to describe Mecca or its temple.<ref>See the conclusion in Ian D. Morris (2018) [https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/alusur/article/view/6850 Mecca and Macoraba] in: al-Usur al-wusta vol. 26 (2018)</ref> | A place called Macoraba in Arabia is mentioned in a geographic work by Ptolemy in the 2nd century CE. Many academic scholars believe this is a reference to Mecca (first proposed in the 16th century), and some even think that the name derives from an ancient South Arabian word for temple, mkrb. Others historians such as Patricia Crone and Ian D. Morris have argued that there is no good reason to believe Macoraba and Mecca are the same place. The idea has never been backed by any significant academic investigation, nor has any other ancient source been shown to describe Mecca or its temple.<ref>See the conclusion in Ian D. Morris (2018) [https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/alusur/article/view/6850 Mecca and Macoraba] in: al-Usur al-wusta vol. 26 (2018)</ref> | ||
Historian Patricia Crone is widely considered to have established that Mecca was of no wider importance at the time of Islam's emergence, was not on the major trade route, and traded in goods like leather, wool and other pastoral products.<ref>This was definitively argued by Crone in her 1987 book ''Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam'', and further defended and refined in her 1992 article [https://www.jstor.org/stable/4057061 Serjeant and Meccan Trade] and her 2007 article [https://www.jstor.org/stable/40378894 Quraysh and the Roman Army: Making Sense of the Meccan Leather Trade]</ref> She also pointed out that the audience of the supposedly Meccan verses of the Qur'an are prosperous farmers | Historian Patricia Crone is widely considered to have established that Mecca was of no wider importance at the time of Islam's emergence, was not on the major trade route, and traded in goods like leather, wool and other pastoral products.<ref>This was definitively argued by Crone in her 1987 book ''Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam'', and further defended and refined in her 1992 article [https://www.jstor.org/stable/4057061 Serjeant and Meccan Trade] and her 2007 article [https://www.jstor.org/stable/40378894 Quraysh and the Roman Army: Making Sense of the Meccan Leather Trade]</ref> She also pointed out that the audience of the supposedly Meccan verses of the Qur'an are prosperous farmers who have an interest in the sea and ate fish, activities difficult in the arid wastes around Mecca<ref>''[http://www.jstor.org/stable/20181949 How Did the Quranic Pagans Make a Living?]'' and in her ''Collected Studies'' (2016).</ref>. | ||
===Petra hypothesis=== | ===Petra hypothesis=== | ||
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 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]</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. | |||
==Relevant Quotations== | ==Relevant Quotations== | ||