WikiIslam:Sandbox/Fernando/Mecca: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search

WikiIslam:Sandbox/Fernando/Mecca (view source)

Revision as of 17:16, 24 September 2023

2,767 bytes removed ,  24 September 2023
Uniform references to the Quran. Minor style changes. Major deletion of text
m (Repetition removed)
(Uniform references to the Quran. Minor style changes. Major deletion of text)
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 of 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, which encloses the Ka’bah, or 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 100: Line 100:
3. No archaeological remains, in spite of extensive excavations for new buildings.
3. No archaeological remains, in spite of extensive excavations for new buildings.


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 ({{Quran|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<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>.
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 ({{Quran-range|37|133|138}}, {{Quran|11|89}}),which were somewhere near the Dead Sea.


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>.
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>.
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.  In any case, if a non obvious translation is proposed, it needs to be supported by examples of its use elsewhere.  
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.  In any case, if a non obvious translation is proposed, it needs to be supported by examples of its use elsewhere.  


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 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, but somewhere further north.  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 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 [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>  
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 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 [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<ref>[https://nabataea.net/explore/founding_of_islam/ 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 {{Quran|2|144}}, 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?
Dan Gibson<ref>[https://nabataea.net/explore/founding_of_islam/ 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 Holy Mosque ({{Quran|2|144}}), 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 if not to Mecca, when did it change?


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.
Line 130: Line 130:
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.  If Petra contained a sanctuary, it is plausible 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.
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.  If Petra contained a sanctuary, it is plausible 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.


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 however a detailed rejection by David King<ref>https://www.academia.edu/87024335/MOSQUE_ORIENTATIONS</ref>, a long time specialist on the study of mosque orientation.  King’s criticism is long, repetitive and abusive, and what follows is not claimed to be a definitive interpretation. Rather the aim is to extract testable hypotheses which are alternatives to Gibson’s Petra hypothesis.
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 however a detailed rejection by David King<ref>https://www.academia.edu/87024335/MOSQUE_ORIENTATIONS</ref>, a long time specialist on the study of mosque orientation.  King’s criticism is long, repetitive and abusive.  Fortunately, most of it can be ignored, since it deals with centuries of mosque building. Only the earliest are relevant to the question of the birthplace of Islam.  Given the rock inscription, 78AH is a convenient cut off date.


King’s position can be summed up as follows.
The basis of King’s position is the repeated assertion that ''‘For the interpretation of orientations of historical mosques, modern qibla directions are irrelevant.’''  This claim is clearly false.  If, for instance, it were discovered that all mosques face Mecca to within a reasonable degree of accuracy, it could be concluded that the builders understood the command of the Quran in the obvious way, had the technical ability to fulfil it, and believed the Holy Shrine to be at Mecca.  The problem for the traditional history of Islam is that no early mosques face Mecca, whereas a large proportion of the earliest face Petra.


1. ''‘For the interpretation of orientations of historical mosques, modern qibla directions are irrelevant.’''
King seems to think that mosque builders were not even trying to face Mecca in any obvious sense, because they had no way of doing so. A hypothesis which raises theological difficulties which he does not consider.  If early Muslims had no way of establishing the direction to the Holy Shrine, they had no way of obeying the command of the Quran to face it when praying.  The Quran repeatedly warns that anyone who disobeys will be tortured for all eternity in hell.  Are we to suppose that all Muslims living distant from the Shrine before the invention of GPS are currently suffering the eternal punishment?  Have Muslims currently worshipping in misaligned mosques mended their ways?


2. The oldest mosques were orientated so that the walls have the same orientation to the fixed stars as the Kaaba.
In sum, King offers no plausible alternative to the obvious interpretation of the Quranic command to pray towards the Holy Shrine, and Gibson has supplied the best evidence to date of where the builders of the first mosques thought it was. He 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.  Anyone who dislikes Gibson’s Petra hypothesis needs to show either that his measurements are wrong, or the statistical analysis faulty.
 
OR  3. The oldest mosques were orientated so that the wall have the same orientation to the cardinal points as the Kaaba.
 
1. is a direct quote, and is clearly false.  If, for instance, it were discovered that all mosques face Mecca to within a reasonable degree of accuracy, it could be concluded that the builders understood  the command of the Quran in the obvious way, had the technical ability to fulfil it, and believed the Holy Shrine to be at Mecca.
 
So let us try a variant, 1’.  There was no attempt to orientate the oldest mosques towards Mecca, because they did not have the ability to do so.  Which raises the question, what were they trying to do?
 
As a first approximation, hypotheses 2 and 3 can be taken as equivalent. But what would be the point of such a convention?  It might be thought that what would be achieved is that worshippers would be facing in the same direction as those at Mecca.  But there are two problems with this idea.  It is a considerable stretch to interpret ‘facing’ as 'facing in the same direction as you would if you were at the Ka’bah’, however ‘direction’ may be interpreted.  More seriously, worshippers at Mecca can be facing in any direction, depending which side of the Kaaba they are on.
 
Which suggests hypothesis 4 - The oldest mosques were orientated so the prayer direction was the same as that at Mecca or Petra.  This is consistent with Gibson’s data on ‘parallel’ mosques.  Towards the end of the seventh century the prayer direction of  mosques he describes as ‘Western Umayyad’ became parallel to a line between Petra and Mecca.  This does not however solve the problem about the earliest mosques, or tell us whether the target was Mecca or Petra.
 
An orientation the same as the Kaaba might seem better than nothing. But in fact it only raises further questions.  Most fundamentally: what geometry did the builders think applicable to their problem? The author of the Quran believed in a flat Earth, ‘spread out like a carpet’ ({{quran|71|19}} etc.,[[Islamic Views on the Shape of the Earth]]).  To which Euclidean geometry applies.  We now know that the Earth is round, as did the ancient Greeks, so that the calculation of angles and distances requires spherical geometry. Flat maps can be useful for small areas, but become increasingly distorted as the area covered grows larger.  This is relevant to the problem of what ‘the same’ means when applied to the orientation of buildings.
 
In the case of rectangular buildings like the Kaaba, it could mean that the longest axes are parallel.  Which in turn could mean: at the same angle to a great circle drawn, say, through the midpoint.  Or alternatively: at the same angle to an orthogonal frame of reference based on the fixed stars.  These two standards will only give the same result at the equator.
 
King’s hypotheses also raise theological difficulties.  If early Muslims had no way of establishing the direction to the Holy Shrine, they had no way of obeying the command of the Quran to face it when praying.  The Quran repeatedly warns that anyone who disobeys will be tortured for all eternity in hell.  Are we to suppose that all Muslims living distant from the Shrine before the invention of GPS are currently suffering the eternal punishment?  Have Muslims currently worshipping in misaligned mosques mended their ways?  Is there any discussion of the problem by Muslim scholars, ancient or modern?
 
In sum, King offers no plausible alternative to the obvious interpretation of the Quranic command to pray towards the Holy Shrine, and Gibson has supplied the best evidence to date of where the builders of the first mosques thought it was.
 
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, and in any case early mosques did not have a mihrab to identify the prayer wall.  However, Gibson does take care to justify his identification of prayer walls, so unless further data is obtained on site, there is no reason to question his judgement.
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, and in any case early mosques did not have a mihrab to identify the prayer wall.  However, Gibson does take care to justify his identification of prayer walls, so unless further data is obtained on site, there is no reason to question his judgement.
Line 164: Line 144:
'''A note on terminology'''
'''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 either 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.  Or, more realistically, to what degree of accuracy they coincide.  Even with this clarification the question is ambiguous, since the answer will depend on whether the Kaaba is assumed to be at Mecca, or where the builder thought it was.  The question could be made more precise by distinguishing between the Mecca qibla and the builder's intended qibla, although the latter can only be guessed at from the actual orientation.
 
‘Qibla’ is commonly used to mean either 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.  Or, more realistically, to what degree of accuracy they coincide.  Even with this clarification the question is ambiguous, since the answer will depend on whether the Kaaba is assumed to be at Mecca, or where the builder thought it was.  The question could be made more precise by distinguishing between the Mecca qibla and the builder's intended qibla.  Where the builder's intention has to be inferred from the likely candidates for the location of the Kaaba.


Gibson in his glossary defines 'qibla' as 'The direction one should face when performing Islamic rituals. According to Surah 2 Muslims should face Masjid al-Haram'.  So the direction will depend on where one thinks the Masjid al-Haram is, or was.  But it is uncontroversial that the original direction of prayer was towards Jerusalem, which is not in contention as the site of the original Masjid.  (Although a more plausible location for Abraham.)  Gibson also says things like 'And so in one town we have evidence of three different qiblas' (page 95).  Which can only mean the actual orientation of the buildings, rather than the correct orientation.  To be consistent, the definition needs to be changed to 'The direction the builders thought one should face.....' Or perhaps he should insist that the only true qibla is towards Petra.
Gibson in his glossary defines 'qibla' as 'The direction one should face when performing Islamic rituals. According to Surah 2 Muslims should face Masjid al-Haram'.  So the direction will depend on where one thinks the Masjid al-Haram is, or was.  But it is uncontroversial that the original direction of prayer was towards Jerusalem, which is not in contention as the site of the original Masjid.  (Although a more plausible location for Abraham.)  Gibson also says things like 'And so in one town we have evidence of three different qiblas' (page 95).  Which can only mean the actual orientation of the buildings, rather than the correct orientation.  To be consistent, the definition needs to be changed to 'The location the builders thought one should face.....'  


In the article on the [[Ka'aba|Kaaba]] yet another definition is given.  'In this capacity, as the direction of prayer, the Ka'aba is referred to as the ''Qibla''.'  
In the article on the [[Ka'aba|Kaaba]] yet another definition is given.  'In this capacity, as the direction of prayer, the Ka'aba is referred to as the ''Qibla''.'  
Fernando
62

edits

Retrieved from "http://wikiislamica.net/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/137240"

Navigation menu