WikiIslam - User contributions [en]

Talk:Mecca

2025-07-06T17:52:54Z

Fernando: Contrary to what King repeatedly claims, early Muslims had a reliable method for establishing directions, by the use of homing pigeons.

The section on Gibson's Petra theory ends with the following paragraph.

'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 (also found in the Sanaa 1 palimpsest, so predates canonization) is Old Hijazi and not Nabatean.'

This seems to assume that the overwritten version of Sanaa 1 is older than the Uthmanic, which became the standard. But all that can be inferred safely from the manuscript is that the overwritten copy of the non Uthmanic version was written before the top copy of the Uthmanic version. Sinai discusses evidence that the overwritten version was in fact later, and may have been derived from the Uthmanic version. (When did the consonantal skeleton of the Quran reach closure? Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 77 (2014) pp. 39-40. Available at https://www.jstor.org/stable/24692711 and https://www.jstor.org/stable/24692364).

According to al Bukhari, hadith 4987, Uthman ordered the use of the dialect of the Quraish, who, according to tradition, were the dominant tribe at Mecca. (https://sunnah.com/bukhari/66/9). Which implies that some at least of the components to be incorporated into his version were not originally in the dialect of Mecca.

Fernando

:Fair point, I've removed the palimpsest element. However, I didn't reintroduce the hadith point as that interpretation doesn't take into account the last part of the sentence: "Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, 'In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, ''the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue.''" [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 22:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response.
I think the last section on Gibson's Petra Theory, 'Other criticisms..' would be better named 'King's criticisms', and fails to engage critically with his assertions. I recommend adding the following section after it.
When I get time, I'll comment on King's detailed criticisms of Gibson's classifications of early mosques.

The need for a revised statistical analysis
One of the problems with King’s criticism of Gibson is that it ignores the use of statistics. While it is correct that Gibson’s classifications need to be reviewed impartially, one rejected case of a Petra direction will make little difference to the weight of statistical evidence.

The hypothesis to be tested is that the first Al-Masjid-al-Haram, or Holy Shrine, which Muslims are directed to face when praying, was at Petra rather than Mecca. It is not known when the change was made to Mecca, but given the rock inscription about the building/rebuilding of the Kaaba at Mecca, 78AH is a plausible date. This does not imply that the prayer direction was immediately changed, since there was presumably political conflict about the issue.

Taking Gibson’s list on his qibla tool up to 707, which is the date of the first building Gibson classifies as directed towards Mecca, there are 35 in total. He classifies 4 as parallel, 3 as between, 1 as Jerusalem, and 1 as Mecca. ‘Parallel’ means parallel to the direction between Petra and Mecca, ‘between’ pointing between Petra and Mecca. The remaining 26 he classifies as being directed towards Petra. It may be that some of these cases are unconvincing, or irrelevant because not mosques. So what needs to be done is to review the classifications, and repeat the statistical analysis. Just looking at the figures, a large proportion of Gibson’s Petra classifications would need to be changed to unknown or irrelevant to put his hypothesis in doubt. Better still, some of the buildings he classifies as directed towards Petra would need to be reclassified as Mecca. Certainly one uncertain case discussed above is not enough.

King repeatedly asserts that ‘modern directions’ are irrelevant to understanding old mosque orientations, because the builders had no way of determining them. This is a confusing way of putting things, because directions are physical facts, whether ancient or modern, although the way they are specified involves conventions which are not universal. The predominant modern convention is the use of the four cardinal points: north, south, east and west, which give two cardinal axes. The ancients were capable of determining east – west by observing sunrise and sunset at the equinoxes, and north and south easily follow. They were also familiar with the use of maps. The direction of a line between two locations can then be understood as the angle it makes on a map with either of the two cardinal axes.

The difficulty for the first mosque builders would be to accurately locate both their mosque and the Al-Masjid-al-Haram on a map. One possibility is that they used days and direction of travel. A simpler method of establishing the direction of one location from another is the use of homing pigeons, since the direction can be established without the use of a map. (This is not a joke. According to wikipedia, homing pigeons can fly over one thousand miles, twice the distance between Petra and Baghdad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homing_pigeon) In both cases, the smaller the distance, the more accurate the direction is likely to be.

King does not seem to realise that his repeated assertion that pre modern mosque builders had no way of establishing direction is open to empirical test. If a statistically significant proportion of early mosques are directed towards Petra, then their builders must have had some reliable way of establishing its direction. It is then a secondary problem to discover what their method might have been.

Of the sample discussed above, the 4 parallel mosques are in north Africa, distant from both Petra and Mecca. So it is understandable that the builders should have adopted some locally approved convention. Nor is a between direction is incompatible with the Petra hypothesis, since in a period of political uncertainty, the builders might have been hedging their bets. So there are no clear counterexamples to Gibson's hypothesis, and what appears to be statistically significant evidence in support of it.

Basic statistics
To get an idea of the weight of evidence on Gibson’s side, consider a crude model of the probabilities involved. The orientation of a mosque is a straight line perpendicular to its prayer wall. Allowing for some inaccuracy, it can be accepted that a given mosque is directed to a particular location if this line in within 10 degrees plus or minus of a line to that location. Given the convention that a circular angle is 360 degrees, a circle drawn around the mosque will contain 18 segments of 20 degrees each. The chance of a particular location falling within a given segment is therefore 1/18.

Taking Gibson’s list on his qibla tool up to 707, which is the date of the first building Gibson classifies as directed towards Mecca, there are 35 in total. He classifies 4 as parallel, 3 as between, 1 as Jerusalem, and 1 as Mecca. ‘Parallel’ means parallel to the direction between Petra and Mecca, ‘between’ pointing between Petra and Mecca. The remaining 26 he classifies as being directed towards Petra. Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz is outside the 10 degree error range, at 11.1, the Qasr Humeima is doubtful, and perhaps it is best to ignore the Chinese case. This leaves 22 directed towards Petra.

The probability of a combination of outcomes is obtained by multiplying their individual probabilities. So if the probability of a coin coming down heads is 1/2, the probability of two heads in a row is 1/4, three 1/8 and so on. The probability of an unbroken sequence of heads rapidly decreases with the number of tosses. The probability of Petra falling within the 20 degree error arc of 22 mosques is 1/18 multiplied by itself 22 times, which is a practical impossibility.

To put the point in another way, imagine a roulette wheel with 18 numbers. What is the probability of the same number coming up 22 times? Or, if the same number does come up 22 times, what is the probability that the wheel is biased?

It should be stressed that the above is a crude ways of doing statistics, and Gibson rightly commissioned a professional analysis. But it might be enough to show that the mass of data he has collected should not be ignored.

Fernando
:I don't think any of this is compelling content and we already have more than enough text now on what is an obscure theory. If it ever gains traction in wider academic circles perhaps we will revisit. [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 22:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I've added a brief numerical analysis. You seem to be assuming that statistics can safely be ignored.

Direction finding in the Ancient world -
King repeatedly claims that the early Muslims had no way of determining directions in anything like the modern sense. I pointed out above that they could use homing pigeons, and this point has not been answered, or incorporated into the main article, which remains more an apology for the traditional story than a serious attempt to evaluate evidence for and against. See Grok for more details about pigeons in the ancient world.

Talk:Mecca

2023-10-27T06:22:58Z

Fernando: Simple statistical analysis added 27 October 2023

Talk:Mecca

2023-10-21T09:49:58Z

Fernando: criticism of King's disregard of standard scientific method

2023-09-24T17:16:10Z

Fernando: Uniform references to the Quran. Minor style changes. Major deletion of text

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. (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 Becca/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). 3.95-97 seem to be saying that the original shrine, presumably Becca, was established by Abraham. This is confirmed by 2.125-127. It is strange that the original and current centre 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 Becca is Mecca, then the original direction of prayer was not towards the first sanctuary.

3.97 says pilgrimage to the House is a duty unto Allah for mankind, where the House is presumably the first Sanctuary mentioned in 3.96. 2.144 orders that prayer should be towards 'the Inviolable Place of Worship', which is presumably the House/First Sanctuary. So it is a matter of great importance for Muslims to know where this place is.

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. 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 wilfully 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 Becca, this was changed for some reason to Petra, then changed back again to Becca, 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.

Another suggestion is that the 'B' in Becca is a scribal error, but this is incompatible with the belief widespread among Muslims that the Quran is the inerrant record of he word of God.

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.

In sum: the article would benefit from more references, 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.

: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)
:
:'''Reply to comments 25/08/2023'''
:
:Thanks. I did not understand that 'encyclopedic' in the instructions to new users meant specifically giving references to all sides of a current academic debate.
:Dan Gibson discusses King in his latest book on his site I referenced, and I did not think it necessary to duplicate references within references. Do you know of any other critiques of Gibson?
:It will take me some time to check out your very helpful suggestions, although I am familiar with most of the authors you mention. In the meantime I think it would be useful to get the extra Crone reference and the Gibson/King debate into the existing article. And questioning its assumption that Becca = Mecca. What are the conventions about changing an existing article?
:
::Sounds good. I'm an admin here and wrote a lot of the articles, but I'm not involved in the new user on-boarding process or what ASmith may have advised. I believe there are a bunch of pages via the New Contributors link on the sidebar explaining standards, how to add quote templates etc. An example of a recent newly expanded article which covers an academic debate is the one on Prophecies in the Quran, particularly the section on the Romans prophecy which has a good sprinkling of quotes and citations yet concise enough to hold the reader's interest. Normally new users are expected to make small simple edits to start with, so the gradual approach sounds ok to me. Our pending edits feature is currently broken so you won't have to wait for each edit to be approved. At some point when you've finished ASmith or I can tweak, add templates where necessary etc. [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 22:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
::
::'''06/09/23'''
:Thanks again.
:Please find below a proposed expansion of the article on Mecca. I have used ......... to indicate where the existing text will remain. I would need to standardise the format of the references, and add more quotes from the Quran. The endnotes have not come out very well. I have already added a few references to the existing article.
:

==== 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, 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.

…………..

In sum, the problems with Mecca are

1. No mention in ancient sources.

2. Not on ancient trade routes.

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 ({{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>.

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>.

The first three points only tell against traditional descriptions of Mecca as a bustling centre of trade. They are compatible with the existence of a sanctuary patronised by local tribes. But this raises the difficulty of the absence of Christians in the area, given that the Quran is so heavily influenced by Christianity.

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, 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>.

If Mecca is not the birthplace of Islam, where did it start? Further progress requires, not only more evidence, but an alternative theory.

'''The Petra Hypothesis'''

………………………'''.'''

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.

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><nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petra</nowiki>, ‘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>.

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. 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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

It is also relevant to point out that modern Muslims have no doubt about how to interpret the order to face the Ka’bah. (And have accepted the need to abandon [[Islamic Views on the Shape of the Earth#Direct%20references%20to%20a%20flat%20Earth%20in%20the%20Qur'an|the flat Earth geography of the Quran]], and come to terms with the complications of spherical geometry<ref><nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qibla</nowiki> ‘Calculations with spherical trigonometry’ and ‘North America’.</ref>.) Why should early Muslims have interpreted the Quran any differently?

'''A note on terminology'''

‘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.

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''.'

Altogether, it might be best to stop using the word 'qibla' to avoid verbal confusions about such a contentious issue. The empirical question is then about the orientation of old mosques.

Not that the idea of the orientation of a building is entirely clear. What is in question is the orientation of the prayer wall, which is what the congregation faces when praying. The orientation is the direction of a straight line drawn perpendicular to this wall. It is assumed that the idea of the direction of a line on the Earth’s surface is clear enough, and can be determined by modern technology. The idea of a straight line as the shortest distance between two points would probably have been acceptable to the earliest mosque builders. The direction of a straight line can then be specified by any two places it passes through, without the need for an external frame of reference.

:Thanks for the updates, it is well written. We will also do a bit of editing ourselves to the article in due course, as mentioned. If you need any help with templates when you refine the references, [[WikiIslam:Source_Editing|this page]] explains how to quote or cite verses using the Quote, Quran, and Quran-range templates, as well as the various hadith citation templates. See also [[WikiIslam:Citing,_Linking,_and_Quoting|this page]]. A useful method is to look at the source edit page for an existing article to see how templates are typically used and how different types of sources are typically cited (the Islamic views on the shape of the earth article is a good one for that purpose). [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 22:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
<references responsive="0" />

User talk:Lightyears

2023-09-22T18:03:07Z

Fernando: question about footnotes

WikiIslam:Sandbox/Fernando/Mecca

2023-09-22T17:40:13Z

Fernando: Repetition removed

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. (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 Becca/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). 3.95-97 seem to be saying that the original shrine, presumably Becca, was established by Abraham. This is confirmed by 2.125-127. It is strange that the original and current centre 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 Becca is Mecca, then the original direction of prayer was not towards the first sanctuary.

3.97 says pilgrimage to the House is a duty unto Allah for mankind, where the House is presumably the first Sanctuary mentioned in 3.96. 2.144 orders that prayer should be towards 'the Inviolable Place of Worship', which is presumably the House/First Sanctuary. So it is a matter of great importance for Muslims to know where this place is.

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. 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 wilfully 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 Becca, this was changed for some reason to Petra, then changed back again to Becca, 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.

Another suggestion is that the 'B' in Becca is a scribal error, but this is incompatible with the belief widespread among Muslims that the Quran is the inerrant record of he word of God.

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.

In sum: the article would benefit from more references, 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.

: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)
:
:'''Reply to comments 25/08/2023'''
:
:Thanks. I did not understand that 'encyclopedic' in the instructions to new users meant specifically giving references to all sides of a current academic debate.
:Dan Gibson discusses King in his latest book on his site I referenced, and I did not think it necessary to duplicate references within references. Do you know of any other critiques of Gibson?
:It will take me some time to check out your very helpful suggestions, although I am familiar with most of the authors you mention. In the meantime I think it would be useful to get the extra Crone reference and the Gibson/King debate into the existing article. And questioning its assumption that Becca = Mecca. What are the conventions about changing an existing article?
:
::Sounds good. I'm an admin here and wrote a lot of the articles, but I'm not involved in the new user on-boarding process or what ASmith may have advised. I believe there are a bunch of pages via the New Contributors link on the sidebar explaining standards, how to add quote templates etc. An example of a recent newly expanded article which covers an academic debate is the one on Prophecies in the Quran, particularly the section on the Romans prophecy which has a good sprinkling of quotes and citations yet concise enough to hold the reader's interest. Normally new users are expected to make small simple edits to start with, so the gradual approach sounds ok to me. Our pending edits feature is currently broken so you won't have to wait for each edit to be approved. At some point when you've finished ASmith or I can tweak, add templates where necessary etc. [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 22:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
::
::'''06/09/23'''
:Thanks again.
:Please find below a proposed expansion of the article on Mecca. I have used ......... to indicate where the existing text will remain. I would need to standardise the format of the references, and add more quotes from the Quran. The endnotes have not come out very well. I have already added a few references to the existing article.
:

==== 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.

…………..

In sum, the problems with Mecca are

1. No mention in ancient sources.

2. Not on ancient trade routes.

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).

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.

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>.

The first three points only tell against traditional descriptions of Mecca as a bustling centre of trade. They are compatible with the existence of a sanctuary patronised by local tribes. But this raises the difficulty of the absence of Christians in the area, given that the Quran is so heavily influenced by Christianity.

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 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.

'''The Petra Hypothesis'''

………………………'''.'''

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?

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.

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><nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petra</nowiki>, ‘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>.

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.

King’s position can be summed up as follows.

1. ''‘For the interpretation of orientations of historical mosques, modern qibla directions are irrelevant.’''

2. The oldest mosques were orientated so that the walls have the same orientation to the fixed stars as the Kaaba.

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.

It is also relevant to point out that modern Muslims have no doubt about how to interpret the order to face the Ka’bah. (And have accepted the need to abandon [[Islamic Views on the Shape of the Earth#Direct%20references%20to%20a%20flat%20Earth%20in%20the%20Qur'an|the flat Earth geography of the Quran]], and come to terms with the complications of spherical geometry<ref><nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qibla</nowiki> ‘Calculations with spherical trigonometry’ and ‘North America’.</ref>.) Why should early Muslims have interpreted the Quran any differently?

'''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. 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.

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''.'

Altogether, it might be best to stop using the word 'qibla' to avoid verbal confusions about such a contentious issue. The empirical question is then about the orientation of old mosques.

Not that the idea of the orientation of a building is entirely clear. What is in question is the orientation of the prayer wall, which is what the congregation faces when praying. The orientation is the direction of a straight line drawn perpendicular to this wall. It is assumed that the idea of the direction of a line on the Earth’s surface is clear enough, and can be determined by modern technology. The idea of a straight line as the shortest distance between two points would probably have been acceptable to the earliest mosque builders. The direction of a straight line can then be specified by any two places it passes through, without the need for an external frame of reference.

:Thanks for the updates, it is well written. We will also do a bit of editing ourselves to the article in due course, as mentioned. If you need any help with templates when you refine the references, [[WikiIslam:Source_Editing|this page]] explains how to quote or cite verses using the Quote, Quran, and Quran-range templates, as well as the various hadith citation templates. See also [[WikiIslam:Citing,_Linking,_and_Quoting|this page]]. A useful method is to look at the source edit page for an existing article to see how templates are typically used and how different types of sources are typically cited (the Islamic views on the shape of the earth article is a good one for that purpose). [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 22:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
<references responsive="0" />

WikiIslam:Sandbox/Fernando/Mecca

2023-09-22T17:33:13Z

Fernando: source correction

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. (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 Becca/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). 3.95-97 seem to be saying that the original shrine, presumably Becca, was established by Abraham. This is confirmed by 2.125-127. It is strange that the original and current centre 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 Becca is Mecca, then the original direction of prayer was not towards the first sanctuary.

3.97 says pilgrimage to the House is a duty unto Allah for mankind, where the House is presumably the first Sanctuary mentioned in 3.96. 2.144 orders that prayer should be towards 'the Inviolable Place of Worship', which is presumably the House/First Sanctuary. So it is a matter of great importance for Muslims to know where this place is.

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. 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 wilfully 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 Becca, this was changed for some reason to Petra, then changed back again to Becca, 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.

Another suggestion is that the 'B' in Becca is a scribal error, but this is incompatible with the belief widespread among Muslims that the Quran is the inerrant record of he word of God.

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.

In sum: the article would benefit from more references, 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.

: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)
:
:'''Reply to comments 25/08/2023'''
:
:Thanks. I did not understand that 'encyclopedic' in the instructions to new users meant specifically giving references to all sides of a current academic debate.
:Dan Gibson discusses King in his latest book on his site I referenced, and I did not think it necessary to duplicate references within references. Do you know of any other critiques of Gibson?
:It will take me some time to check out your very helpful suggestions, although I am familiar with most of the authors you mention. In the meantime I think it would be useful to get the extra Crone reference and the Gibson/King debate into the existing article. And questioning its assumption that Becca = Mecca. What are the conventions about changing an existing article?
:
::Sounds good. I'm an admin here and wrote a lot of the articles, but I'm not involved in the new user on-boarding process or what ASmith may have advised. I believe there are a bunch of pages via the New Contributors link on the sidebar explaining standards, how to add quote templates etc. An example of a recent newly expanded article which covers an academic debate is the one on Prophecies in the Quran, particularly the section on the Romans prophecy which has a good sprinkling of quotes and citations yet concise enough to hold the reader's interest. Normally new users are expected to make small simple edits to start with, so the gradual approach sounds ok to me. Our pending edits feature is currently broken so you won't have to wait for each edit to be approved. At some point when you've finished ASmith or I can tweak, add templates where necessary etc. [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 22:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
::
::'''06/09/23'''
:Thanks again.
:Please find below a proposed expansion of the article on Mecca. I have used ......... to indicate where the existing text will remain. I would need to standardise the format of the references, and add more quotes from the Quran. The endnotes have not come out very well. I have already added a few references to the existing article.
:

==== 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.

…………..

In sum, the problems with Mecca are

1. No mention in ancient sources.

2. Not on ancient trade routes.

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).

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.

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>.

The first three points only tell against traditional descriptions of Mecca as a bustling centre of trade. They are compatible with the existence of a sanctuary patronised by local tribes. But this raises the difficulty of the absence of Christians in the area, given that the Quran is so heavily influenced by Christianity.

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 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.

'''The Petra Hypothesis'''

………………………'''.'''

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?

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.

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><nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petra</nowiki>, ‘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>.

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.

King’s position can be summed up as follows.

1. ''‘For the interpretation of orientations of historical mosques, modern qibla directions are irrelevant.’''

2. The oldest mosques were orientated so that the walls have the same orientation to the fixed stars as the Kaaba.

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’, 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.

If the early mosque builders were not trying to face Mecca, what were they trying to do? The accepted interpretation of the Quran is that Muslims must face it when praying, so it is generally assumed that mosques are built to indicate the required direction. It is an implication of King’s theory that some early builders interpreted the word translated as ‘face’ to mean ‘facing in the same direction as you would if you were at the Ka’bah’. Which is a bit of a stretch. It is possible that at certain times and places the builders had no way of determining the direction of the Ka’bah, so they did the best they could by giving their mosques the same orientation to the fixed stars. But it is impossible to test this hypothesis without an explanation of what they understood by orientation, and how they thought it could be measured.

It is also relevant to point out that modern Muslims have no doubt about how to interpret the order to face the Ka’bah. (And have accepted the need to abandon [[Islamic Views on the Shape of the Earth#Direct%20references%20to%20a%20flat%20Earth%20in%20the%20Qur'an|the flat Earth geography of the Quran]], and come to terms with the complications of spherical geometry<ref><nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qibla</nowiki> ‘Calculations with spherical trigonometry’ and ‘North America’.</ref>.) Why should early Muslims have interpreted the Quran any differently?

'''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. 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.

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''.'

Altogether, it might be best to stop using the word 'qibla' to avoid verbal confusions about such a contentious issue. The empirical question is then about the orientation of old mosques.

Not that the idea of the orientation of a building is entirely clear. What is in question is the orientation of the prayer wall, which is what the congregation faces when praying. The orientation is the direction of a straight line drawn perpendicular to this wall. It is assumed that the idea of the direction of a line on the Earth’s surface is clear enough, and can be determined by modern technology. The idea of a straight line as the shortest distance between two points would probably have been acceptable to the earliest mosque builders. The direction of a straight line can then be specified by any two places it passes through, without the need for an external frame of reference.

:Thanks for the updates, it is well written. We will also do a bit of editing ourselves to the article in due course, as mentioned. If you need any help with templates when you refine the references, [[WikiIslam:Source_Editing|this page]] explains how to quote or cite verses using the Quote, Quran, and Quran-range templates, as well as the various hadith citation templates. See also [[WikiIslam:Citing,_Linking,_and_Quoting|this page]]. A useful method is to look at the source edit page for an existing article to see how templates are typically used and how different types of sources are typically cited (the Islamic views on the shape of the earth article is a good one for that purpose). [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 22:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
<references responsive="0" />

WikiIslam:Sandbox/Fernando/Mecca

2023-09-22T17:29:53Z

Fernando: reference correction

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. (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 Becca/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). 3.95-97 seem to be saying that the original shrine, presumably Becca, was established by Abraham. This is confirmed by 2.125-127. It is strange that the original and current centre 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 Becca is Mecca, then the original direction of prayer was not towards the first sanctuary.

3.97 says pilgrimage to the House is a duty unto Allah for mankind, where the House is presumably the first Sanctuary mentioned in 3.96. 2.144 orders that prayer should be towards 'the Inviolable Place of Worship', which is presumably the House/First Sanctuary. So it is a matter of great importance for Muslims to know where this place is.

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. 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 wilfully 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 Becca, this was changed for some reason to Petra, then changed back again to Becca, 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.

Another suggestion is that the 'B' in Becca is a scribal error, but this is incompatible with the belief widespread among Muslims that the Quran is the inerrant record of he word of God.

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.

In sum: the article would benefit from more references, 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.

: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)
:
:'''Reply to comments 25/08/2023'''
:
:Thanks. I did not understand that 'encyclopedic' in the instructions to new users meant specifically giving references to all sides of a current academic debate.
:Dan Gibson discusses King in his latest book on his site I referenced, and I did not think it necessary to duplicate references within references. Do you know of any other critiques of Gibson?
:It will take me some time to check out your very helpful suggestions, although I am familiar with most of the authors you mention. In the meantime I think it would be useful to get the extra Crone reference and the Gibson/King debate into the existing article. And questioning its assumption that Becca = Mecca. What are the conventions about changing an existing article?
:
::Sounds good. I'm an admin here and wrote a lot of the articles, but I'm not involved in the new user on-boarding process or what ASmith may have advised. I believe there are a bunch of pages via the New Contributors link on the sidebar explaining standards, how to add quote templates etc. An example of a recent newly expanded article which covers an academic debate is the one on Prophecies in the Quran, particularly the section on the Romans prophecy which has a good sprinkling of quotes and citations yet concise enough to hold the reader's interest. Normally new users are expected to make small simple edits to start with, so the gradual approach sounds ok to me. Our pending edits feature is currently broken so you won't have to wait for each edit to be approved. At some point when you've finished ASmith or I can tweak, add templates where necessary etc. [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 22:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
::
::'''06/09/23'''
:Thanks again.
:Please find below a proposed expansion of the article on Mecca. I have used ......... to indicate where the existing text will remain. I would need to standardise the format of the references, and add more quotes from the Quran. The endnotes have not come out very well. I have already added a few references to the existing article.
:

==== 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.

…………..

In sum, the problems with Mecca are

1. No mention in ancient sources.

2. Not on ancient trade routes.

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).

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.

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>.

The first three points only tell against traditional descriptions of Mecca as a bustling centre of trade. They are compatible with the existence of a sanctuary patronised by local tribes. But this raises the difficulty of the absence of Christians in the area, given that the Quran is so heavily influenced by Christianity.

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 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.

'''The Petra Hypothesis'''

………………………'''.'''

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 <nowiki>{{Quran|2|144}}</nowiki>, 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?

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.

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><nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petra</nowiki>, ‘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>.

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.

King’s position can be summed up as follows.

1. ''‘For the interpretation of orientations of historical mosques, modern qibla directions are irrelevant.’''

2. The oldest mosques were orientated so that the walls have the same orientation to the fixed stars as the Kaaba.

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’, 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.

If the early mosque builders were not trying to face Mecca, what were they trying to do? The accepted interpretation of the Quran is that Muslims must face it when praying, so it is generally assumed that mosques are built to indicate the required direction. It is an implication of King’s theory that some early builders interpreted the word translated as ‘face’ to mean ‘facing in the same direction as you would if you were at the Ka’bah’. Which is a bit of a stretch. It is possible that at certain times and places the builders had no way of determining the direction of the Ka’bah, so they did the best they could by giving their mosques the same orientation to the fixed stars. But it is impossible to test this hypothesis without an explanation of what they understood by orientation, and how they thought it could be measured.

It is also relevant to point out that modern Muslims have no doubt about how to interpret the order to face the Ka’bah. (And have accepted the need to abandon [[Islamic Views on the Shape of the Earth#Direct%20references%20to%20a%20flat%20Earth%20in%20the%20Qur'an|the flat Earth geography of the Quran]], and come to terms with the complications of spherical geometry<ref><nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qibla</nowiki> ‘Calculations with spherical trigonometry’ and ‘North America’.</ref>.) Why should early Muslims have interpreted the Quran any differently?

'''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. 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.

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''.'

Altogether, it might be best to stop using the word 'qibla' to avoid verbal confusions about such a contentious issue. The empirical question is then about the orientation of old mosques.

Not that the idea of the orientation of a building is entirely clear. What is in question is the orientation of the prayer wall, which is what the congregation faces when praying. The orientation is the direction of a straight line drawn perpendicular to this wall. It is assumed that the idea of the direction of a line on the Earth’s surface is clear enough, and can be determined by modern technology. The idea of a straight line as the shortest distance between two points would probably have been acceptable to the earliest mosque builders. The direction of a straight line can then be specified by any two places it passes through, without the need for an external frame of reference.

:Thanks for the updates, it is well written. We will also do a bit of editing ourselves to the article in due course, as mentioned. If you need any help with templates when you refine the references, [[WikiIslam:Source_Editing|this page]] explains how to quote or cite verses using the Quote, Quran, and Quran-range templates, as well as the various hadith citation templates. See also [[WikiIslam:Citing,_Linking,_and_Quoting|this page]]. A useful method is to look at the source edit page for an existing article to see how templates are typically used and how different types of sources are typically cited (the Islamic views on the shape of the earth article is a good one for that purpose). [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 22:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
<references responsive="0" />

WikiIslam:Sandbox/Fernando/Mecca

2023-09-22T17:27:52Z

Fernando: quran reference

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. (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 Becca/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). 3.95-97 seem to be saying that the original shrine, presumably Becca, was established by Abraham. This is confirmed by 2.125-127. It is strange that the original and current centre 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 Becca is Mecca, then the original direction of prayer was not towards the first sanctuary.

3.97 says pilgrimage to the House is a duty unto Allah for mankind, where the House is presumably the first Sanctuary mentioned in 3.96. 2.144 orders that prayer should be towards 'the Inviolable Place of Worship', which is presumably the House/First Sanctuary. So it is a matter of great importance for Muslims to know where this place is.

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. 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 wilfully 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 Becca, this was changed for some reason to Petra, then changed back again to Becca, 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.

Another suggestion is that the 'B' in Becca is a scribal error, but this is incompatible with the belief widespread among Muslims that the Quran is the inerrant record of he word of God.

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.

In sum: the article would benefit from more references, 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.

: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)
:
:'''Reply to comments 25/08/2023'''
:
:Thanks. I did not understand that 'encyclopedic' in the instructions to new users meant specifically giving references to all sides of a current academic debate.
:Dan Gibson discusses King in his latest book on his site I referenced, and I did not think it necessary to duplicate references within references. Do you know of any other critiques of Gibson?
:It will take me some time to check out your very helpful suggestions, although I am familiar with most of the authors you mention. In the meantime I think it would be useful to get the extra Crone reference and the Gibson/King debate into the existing article. And questioning its assumption that Becca = Mecca. What are the conventions about changing an existing article?
:
::Sounds good. I'm an admin here and wrote a lot of the articles, but I'm not involved in the new user on-boarding process or what ASmith may have advised. I believe there are a bunch of pages via the New Contributors link on the sidebar explaining standards, how to add quote templates etc. An example of a recent newly expanded article which covers an academic debate is the one on Prophecies in the Quran, particularly the section on the Romans prophecy which has a good sprinkling of quotes and citations yet concise enough to hold the reader's interest. Normally new users are expected to make small simple edits to start with, so the gradual approach sounds ok to me. Our pending edits feature is currently broken so you won't have to wait for each edit to be approved. At some point when you've finished ASmith or I can tweak, add templates where necessary etc. [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 22:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
::
::'''06/09/23'''
:Thanks again.
:Please find below a proposed expansion of the article on Mecca. I have used ......... to indicate where the existing text will remain. I would need to standardise the format of the references, and add more quotes from the Quran. The endnotes have not come out very well. I have already added a few references to the existing article.
:

==== 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.

…………..

In sum, the problems with Mecca are

1. No mention in ancient sources.

2. Not on ancient trade routes.

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).

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.

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>.

The first three points only tell against traditional descriptions of Mecca as a bustling centre of trade. They are compatible with the existence of a sanctuary patronised by local tribes. But this raises the difficulty of the absence of Christians in the area, given that the Quran is so heavily influenced by Christianity.

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 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.

'''The Petra Hypothesis'''

………………………'''.'''

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 <nowiki>{{quran|2|144}}</nowiki>, 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?

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.

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><nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petra</nowiki>, ‘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>.

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.

King’s position can be summed up as follows.

1. ''‘For the interpretation of orientations of historical mosques, modern qibla directions are irrelevant.’''

2. The oldest mosques were orientated so that the walls have the same orientation to the fixed stars as the Kaaba.

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’, 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.

If the early mosque builders were not trying to face Mecca, what were they trying to do? The accepted interpretation of the Quran is that Muslims must face it when praying, so it is generally assumed that mosques are built to indicate the required direction. It is an implication of King’s theory that some early builders interpreted the word translated as ‘face’ to mean ‘facing in the same direction as you would if you were at the Ka’bah’. Which is a bit of a stretch. It is possible that at certain times and places the builders had no way of determining the direction of the Ka’bah, so they did the best they could by giving their mosques the same orientation to the fixed stars. But it is impossible to test this hypothesis without an explanation of what they understood by orientation, and how they thought it could be measured.

It is also relevant to point out that modern Muslims have no doubt about how to interpret the order to face the Ka’bah. (And have accepted the need to abandon [[Islamic Views on the Shape of the Earth#Direct%20references%20to%20a%20flat%20Earth%20in%20the%20Qur'an|the flat Earth geography of the Quran]], and come to terms with the complications of spherical geometry<ref><nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qibla</nowiki> ‘Calculations with spherical trigonometry’ and ‘North America’.</ref>.) Why should early Muslims have interpreted the Quran any differently?

'''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. 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.

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''.'

Altogether, it might be best to stop using the word 'qibla' to avoid verbal confusions about such a contentious issue. The empirical question is then about the orientation of old mosques.

Not that the idea of the orientation of a building is entirely clear. What is in question is the orientation of the prayer wall, which is what the congregation faces when praying. The orientation is the direction of a straight line drawn perpendicular to this wall. It is assumed that the idea of the direction of a line on the Earth’s surface is clear enough, and can be determined by modern technology. The idea of a straight line as the shortest distance between two points would probably have been acceptable to the earliest mosque builders. The direction of a straight line can then be specified by any two places it passes through, without the need for an external frame of reference.

:Thanks for the updates, it is well written. We will also do a bit of editing ourselves to the article in due course, as mentioned. If you need any help with templates when you refine the references, [[WikiIslam:Source_Editing|this page]] explains how to quote or cite verses using the Quote, Quran, and Quran-range templates, as well as the various hadith citation templates. See also [[WikiIslam:Citing,_Linking,_and_Quoting|this page]]. A useful method is to look at the source edit page for an existing article to see how templates are typically used and how different types of sources are typically cited (the Islamic views on the shape of the earth article is a good one for that purpose). [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 22:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
<references responsive="0" />

WikiIslam:Sandbox/Fernando/Mecca

2023-09-22T17:13:38Z

Fernando:

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. (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 Becca/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). 3.95-97 seem to be saying that the original shrine, presumably Becca, was established by Abraham. This is confirmed by 2.125-127. It is strange that the original and current centre 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 Becca is Mecca, then the original direction of prayer was not towards the first sanctuary.

3.97 says pilgrimage to the House is a duty unto Allah for mankind, where the House is presumably the first Sanctuary mentioned in 3.96. 2.144 orders that prayer should be towards 'the Inviolable Place of Worship', which is presumably the House/First Sanctuary. So it is a matter of great importance for Muslims to know where this place is.

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. 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 wilfully 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 Becca, this was changed for some reason to Petra, then changed back again to Becca, 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.

Another suggestion is that the 'B' in Becca is a scribal error, but this is incompatible with the belief widespread among Muslims that the Quran is the inerrant record of he word of God.

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.

In sum: the article would benefit from more references, 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.

: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)
:
:'''Reply to comments 25/08/2023'''
:
:Thanks. I did not understand that 'encyclopedic' in the instructions to new users meant specifically giving references to all sides of a current academic debate.
:Dan Gibson discusses King in his latest book on his site I referenced, and I did not think it necessary to duplicate references within references. Do you know of any other critiques of Gibson?
:It will take me some time to check out your very helpful suggestions, although I am familiar with most of the authors you mention. In the meantime I think it would be useful to get the extra Crone reference and the Gibson/King debate into the existing article. And questioning its assumption that Becca = Mecca. What are the conventions about changing an existing article?
:
::Sounds good. I'm an admin here and wrote a lot of the articles, but I'm not involved in the new user on-boarding process or what ASmith may have advised. I believe there are a bunch of pages via the New Contributors link on the sidebar explaining standards, how to add quote templates etc. An example of a recent newly expanded article which covers an academic debate is the one on Prophecies in the Quran, particularly the section on the Romans prophecy which has a good sprinkling of quotes and citations yet concise enough to hold the reader's interest. Normally new users are expected to make small simple edits to start with, so the gradual approach sounds ok to me. Our pending edits feature is currently broken so you won't have to wait for each edit to be approved. At some point when you've finished ASmith or I can tweak, add templates where necessary etc. [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 22:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
::
::'''06/09/23'''
:Thanks again.
:Please find below a proposed expansion of the article on Mecca. I have used ......... to indicate where the existing text will remain. I would need to standardise the format of the references, and add more quotes from the Quran. The endnotes have not come out very well. I have already added a few references to the existing article.
:

==== 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.

…………..

In sum, the problems with Mecca are

1. No mention in ancient sources.

2. Not on ancient trade routes.

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).

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.

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>.

The first three points only tell against traditional descriptions of Mecca as a bustling centre of trade. They are compatible with the existence of a sanctuary patronised by local tribes. But this raises the difficulty of the absence of Christians in the area, given that the Quran is so heavily influenced by Christianity.

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 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.

'''The Petra Hypothesis'''

………………………'''.'''

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, 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?

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.

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><nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petra</nowiki>, ‘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>.

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.

King’s position can be summed up as follows.

1. ''‘For the interpretation of orientations of historical mosques, modern qibla directions are irrelevant.’''

2. The oldest mosques were orientated so that the walls have the same orientation to the fixed stars as the Kaaba.

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’, 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.

If the early mosque builders were not trying to face Mecca, what were they trying to do? The accepted interpretation of the Quran is that Muslims must face it when praying, so it is generally assumed that mosques are built to indicate the required direction. It is an implication of King’s theory that some early builders interpreted the word translated as ‘face’ to mean ‘facing in the same direction as you would if you were at the Ka’bah’. Which is a bit of a stretch. It is possible that at certain times and places the builders had no way of determining the direction of the Ka’bah, so they did the best they could by giving their mosques the same orientation to the fixed stars. But it is impossible to test this hypothesis without an explanation of what they understood by orientation, and how they thought it could be measured.

It is also relevant to point out that modern Muslims have no doubt about how to interpret the order to face the Ka’bah. (And have accepted the need to abandon [[Islamic Views on the Shape of the Earth#Direct%20references%20to%20a%20flat%20Earth%20in%20the%20Qur'an|the flat Earth geography of the Quran]], and come to terms with the complications of spherical geometry<ref><nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qibla</nowiki> ‘Calculations with spherical trigonometry’ and ‘North America’.</ref>.) Why should early Muslims have interpreted the Quran any differently?

'''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. 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.

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''.'

Altogether, it might be best to stop using the word 'qibla' to avoid verbal confusions about such a contentious issue. The empirical question is then about the orientation of old mosques.

Not that the idea of the orientation of a building is entirely clear. What is in question is the orientation of the prayer wall, which is what the congregation faces when praying. The orientation is the direction of a straight line drawn perpendicular to this wall. It is assumed that the idea of the direction of a line on the Earth’s surface is clear enough, and can be determined by modern technology. The idea of a straight line as the shortest distance between two points would probably have been acceptable to the earliest mosque builders. The direction of a straight line can then be specified by any two places it passes through, without the need for an external frame of reference.

:Thanks for the updates, it is well written. We will also do a bit of editing ourselves to the article in due course, as mentioned. If you need any help with templates when you refine the references, [[WikiIslam:Source_Editing|this page]] explains how to quote or cite verses using the Quote, Quran, and Quran-range templates, as well as the various hadith citation templates. See also [[WikiIslam:Citing,_Linking,_and_Quoting|this page]]. A useful method is to look at the source edit page for an existing article to see how templates are typically used and how different types of sources are typically cited (the Islamic views on the shape of the earth article is a good one for that purpose). [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 22:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
<references responsive="0" />

WikiIslam:Sandbox/Fernando/Mecca

2023-09-22T17:11:57Z

Fernando:

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. (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 Becca/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). 3.95-97 seem to be saying that the original shrine, presumably Becca, was established by Abraham. This is confirmed by 2.125-127. It is strange that the original and current centre 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 Becca is Mecca, then the original direction of prayer was not towards the first sanctuary.

3.97 says pilgrimage to the House is a duty unto Allah for mankind, where the House is presumably the first Sanctuary mentioned in 3.96. 2.144 orders that prayer should be towards 'the Inviolable Place of Worship', which is presumably the House/First Sanctuary. So it is a matter of great importance for Muslims to know where this place is.

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. 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 wilfully 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 Becca, this was changed for some reason to Petra, then changed back again to Becca, 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.

Another suggestion is that the 'B' in Becca is a scribal error, but this is incompatible with the belief widespread among Muslims that the Quran is the inerrant record of he word of God.

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.

In sum: the article would benefit from more references, 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.

: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)
:
:'''Reply to comments 25/08/2023'''
:
:Thanks. I did not understand that 'encyclopedic' in the instructions to new users meant specifically giving references to all sides of a current academic debate.
:Dan Gibson discusses King in his latest book on his site I referenced, and I did not think it necessary to duplicate references within references. Do you know of any other critiques of Gibson?
:It will take me some time to check out your very helpful suggestions, although I am familiar with most of the authors you mention. In the meantime I think it would be useful to get the extra Crone reference and the Gibson/King debate into the existing article. And questioning its assumption that Becca = Mecca. What are the conventions about changing an existing article?
:
::Sounds good. I'm an admin here and wrote a lot of the articles, but I'm not involved in the new user on-boarding process or what ASmith may have advised. I believe there are a bunch of pages via the New Contributors link on the sidebar explaining standards, how to add quote templates etc. An example of a recent newly expanded article which covers an academic debate is the one on Prophecies in the Quran, particularly the section on the Romans prophecy which has a good sprinkling of quotes and citations yet concise enough to hold the reader's interest. Normally new users are expected to make small simple edits to start with, so the gradual approach sounds ok to me. Our pending edits feature is currently broken so you won't have to wait for each edit to be approved. At some point when you've finished ASmith or I can tweak, add templates where necessary etc. [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 22:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
::
::'''06/09/23'''
:Thanks again.
:Please find below a proposed expansion of the article on Mecca. I have used ......... to indicate where the existing text will remain. I would need to standardise the format of the references, and add more quotes from the Quran. The endnotes have not come out very well. I have already added a few references to the existing article.
:

==== 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.

…………..

In sum, the problems with Mecca are

1. No mention in ancient sources.

2. Not on ancient trade routes.

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).

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.

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>.

The first three points only tell against traditional descriptions of Mecca as a bustling centre of trade. They are compatible with the existence of a sanctuary patronised by local tribes. But this raises the difficulty of the absence of Christians in the area, given that the Quran is so heavily influenced by Christianity.

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 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.

'''The Petra Hypothesis'''

………………………'''.'''

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, 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?

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.

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><nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petra</nowiki>, ‘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>.

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.

King’s position can be summed up as follows.

1. ''‘For the interpretation of orientations of historical mosques, modern qibla directions are irrelevant.’''

2. The oldest mosques were orientated so that the walls have the same orientation to the fixed stars as the Kaaba.

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’, 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.

If the early mosque builders were not trying to face Mecca, what were they trying to do? The accepted interpretation of the Quran is that Muslims must face it when praying, so it is generally assumed that mosques are built to indicate the required direction. It is an implication of King’s theory that some early builders interpreted the word translated as ‘face’ to mean ‘facing in the same direction as you would if you were at the Ka’bah’. Which is a bit of a stretch. It is possible that at certain times and places the builders had no way of determining the direction of the Ka’bah, so they did the best they could by giving their mosques the same orientation to the fixed stars. But it is impossible to test this hypothesis without an explanation of what they understood by orientation, and how they thought it could be measured.

It is also relevant to point out that modern Muslims have no doubt about how to interpret the order to face the Ka’bah. (And have accepted the need to abandon [[Islamic Views on the Shape of the Earth#Direct%20references%20to%20a%20flat%20Earth%20in%20the%20Qur'an|the flat Earth geography of the Quran]], and come to terms with the complications of spherical geometry<ref><nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qibla</nowiki> ‘Calculations with spherical trigonometry’ and ‘North America’.</ref>.) Why should early Muslims have interpreted the Quran any differently?

'''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. 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.

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''.'

Altogether, it might be best to stop using the word 'qibla' to avoid verbal confusions about such a contentious issue. The empirical question is then about the orientation of old mosques.

Not that the idea of the orientation of a building is entirely clear. What is in question is the orientation of the prayer wall, which is what the congregation faces when praying. The orientation is the direction of a straight line drawn perpendicular to this wall. It is assumed that the idea of the direction of a line on the Earth’s surface is clear enough, and can be determined by modern technology. The idea of a straight line as the shortest distance between two points would probably have been acceptable to the earliest mosque builders. The direction of a straight line can then be specified by any two places it passes through, without the need for an external frame of reference.

:Thanks for the updates, it is well written. We will also do a bit of editing ourselves to the article in due course, as mentioned. If you need any help with templates when you refine the references, [[WikiIslam:Source_Editing|this page]] explains how to quote or cite verses using the Quote, Quran, and Quran-range templates, as well as the various hadith citation templates. See also [[WikiIslam:Citing,_Linking,_and_Quoting|this page]]. A useful method is to look at the source edit page for an existing article to see how templates are typically used and how different types of sources are typically cited (the Islamic views on the shape of the earth article is a good one for that purpose). [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 22:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
<references responsive="0" />

User talk:Lightyears

2023-09-22T17:02:13Z

Fernando:

WikiIslam:Sandbox/Fernando/Mecca

2023-09-22T16:46:55Z

Fernando: A longer critique of David A. King on qiblas

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. (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 Becca/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). 3.95-97 seem to be saying that the original shrine, presumably Becca, was established by Abraham. This is confirmed by 2.125-127. It is strange that the original and current centre 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 Becca is Mecca, then the original direction of prayer was not towards the first sanctuary.

3.97 says pilgrimage to the House is a duty unto Allah for mankind, where the House is presumably the first Sanctuary mentioned in 3.96. 2.144 orders that prayer should be towards 'the Inviolable Place of Worship', which is presumably the House/First Sanctuary. So it is a matter of great importance for Muslims to know where this place is.

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. 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 wilfully 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 Becca, this was changed for some reason to Petra, then changed back again to Becca, 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.

Another suggestion is that the 'B' in Becca is a scribal error, but this is incompatible with the belief widespread among Muslims that the Quran is the inerrant record of he word of God.

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.

In sum: the article would benefit from more references, 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.

: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)
:
:'''Reply to comments 25/08/2023'''
:
:Thanks. I did not understand that 'encyclopedic' in the instructions to new users meant specifically giving references to all sides of a current academic debate.
:Dan Gibson discusses King in his latest book on his site I referenced, and I did not think it necessary to duplicate references within references. Do you know of any other critiques of Gibson?
:It will take me some time to check out your very helpful suggestions, although I am familiar with most of the authors you mention. In the meantime I think it would be useful to get the extra Crone reference and the Gibson/King debate into the existing article. And questioning its assumption that Becca = Mecca. What are the conventions about changing an existing article?
:
::Sounds good. I'm an admin here and wrote a lot of the articles, but I'm not involved in the new user on-boarding process or what ASmith may have advised. I believe there are a bunch of pages via the New Contributors link on the sidebar explaining standards, how to add quote templates etc. An example of a recent newly expanded article which covers an academic debate is the one on Prophecies in the Quran, particularly the section on the Romans prophecy which has a good sprinkling of quotes and citations yet concise enough to hold the reader's interest. Normally new users are expected to make small simple edits to start with, so the gradual approach sounds ok to me. Our pending edits feature is currently broken so you won't have to wait for each edit to be approved. At some point when you've finished ASmith or I can tweak, add templates where necessary etc. [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 22:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
::
::'''06/09/23'''
:Thanks again.
:Please find below a proposed expansion of the article on Mecca. I have used ......... to indicate where the existing text will remain. I would need to standardise the format of the references, and add more quotes from the Quran. The endnotes have not come out very well. I have already added a few references to the existing article.
:

==== 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.

…………..

In sum, the problems with Mecca are

1. No mention in ancient sources.

2. Not on ancient trade routes.

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).

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.

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>.

The first three points only tell against traditional descriptions of Mecca as a bustling centre of trade. They are compatible with the existence of a sanctuary patronised by local tribes. But this raises the difficulty of the absence of Christians in the area, given that the Quran is so heavily influenced by Christianity.

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 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.

'''The Petra Hypothesis'''

………………………'''.'''

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, 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?

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.

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><nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petra</nowiki>, ‘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>.

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.

King’s position can be summed up as follows.

1. ''‘For the interpretation of orientations of historical mosques, modern qibla directions are irrelevant.’''

2. The oldest mosques were orientated so that the walls have the same orientation to the fixed stars as the Kaaba.

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’, 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’ (Q71.19 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.

If the early mosque builders were not trying to face Mecca, what were they trying to do? The accepted interpretation of the Quran is that Muslims must face it when praying, so it is generally assumed that mosques are built to indicate the required direction. It is an implication of King’s theory that some early builders interpreted the word translated as ‘face’ to mean ‘facing in the same direction as you would if you were at the Ka’bah’. Which is a bit of a stretch. It is possible that at certain times and places the builders had no way of determining the direction of the Ka’bah, so they did the best they could by giving their mosques the same orientation to the fixed stars. But it is impossible to test this hypothesis without an explanation of what they understood by orientation, and how they thought it could be measured.

It is also relevant to point out that modern Muslims have no doubt about how to interpret the order to face the Ka’bah. (And have accepted the need to abandon [[Islamic Views on the Shape of the Earth#Direct%20references%20to%20a%20flat%20Earth%20in%20the%20Qur'an|the flat Earth geography of the Quran]], and come to terms with the complications of spherical geometry<ref><nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qibla</nowiki> ‘Calculations with spherical trigonometry’ and ‘North America’.</ref>.) Why should early Muslims have interpreted the Quran any differently?

'''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. 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.

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''.'

Altogether, it might be best to stop using the word 'qibla' to avoid verbal confusions about such a contentious issue. The empirical question is then about the orientation of old mosques.

Not that the idea of the orientation of a building is entirely clear. What is in question is the orientation of the prayer wall, which is what the congregation faces when praying. The orientation is the direction of a straight line drawn perpendicular to this wall. It is assumed that the idea of the direction of a line on the Earth’s surface is clear enough, and can be determined by modern technology. The idea of a straight line as the shortest distance between two points would probably have been acceptable to the earliest mosque builders. The direction of a straight line can then be specified by any two places it passes through, without the need for an external frame of reference.

:Thanks for the updates, it is well written. We will also do a bit of editing ourselves to the article in due course, as mentioned. If you need any help with templates when you refine the references, [[WikiIslam:Source_Editing|this page]] explains how to quote or cite verses using the Quote, Quran, and Quran-range templates, as well as the various hadith citation templates. See also [[WikiIslam:Citing,_Linking,_and_Quoting|this page]]. A useful method is to look at the source edit page for an existing article to see how templates are typically used and how different types of sources are typically cited (the Islamic views on the shape of the earth article is a good one for that purpose). [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 22:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
<references responsive="0" />

WikiIslam:Sandbox/Fernando/Mecca

2023-09-17T20:46:03Z

Fernando: Refinement of remarks on King, and the notion of the orientation of a building.

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. (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 Becca/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). 3.95-97 seem to be saying that the original shrine, presumably Becca, was established by Abraham. This is confirmed by 2.125-127. It is strange that the original and current centre 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 Becca is Mecca, then the original direction of prayer was not towards the first sanctuary.

3.97 says pilgrimage to the House is a duty unto Allah for mankind, where the House is presumably the first Sanctuary mentioned in 3.96. 2.144 orders that prayer should be towards 'the Inviolable Place of Worship', which is presumably the House/First Sanctuary. So it is a matter of great importance for Muslims to know where this place is.

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. 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 wilfully 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 Becca, this was changed for some reason to Petra, then changed back again to Becca, 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.

Another suggestion is that the 'B' in Becca is a scribal error, but this is incompatible with the belief widespread among Muslims that the Quran is the inerrant record of he word of God.

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.

In sum: the article would benefit from more references, 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.

: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)
:
:'''Reply to comments 25/08/2023'''
:
:Thanks. I did not understand that 'encyclopedic' in the instructions to new users meant specifically giving references to all sides of a current academic debate.
:Dan Gibson discusses King in his latest book on his site I referenced, and I did not think it necessary to duplicate references within references. Do you know of any other critiques of Gibson?
:It will take me some time to check out your very helpful suggestions, although I am familiar with most of the authors you mention. In the meantime I think it would be useful to get the extra Crone reference and the Gibson/King debate into the existing article. And questioning its assumption that Becca = Mecca. What are the conventions about changing an existing article?
:
::Sounds good. I'm an admin here and wrote a lot of the articles, but I'm not involved in the new user on-boarding process or what ASmith may have advised. I believe there are a bunch of pages via the New Contributors link on the sidebar explaining standards, how to add quote templates etc. An example of a recent newly expanded article which covers an academic debate is the one on Prophecies in the Quran, particularly the section on the Romans prophecy which has a good sprinkling of quotes and citations yet concise enough to hold the reader's interest. Normally new users are expected to make small simple edits to start with, so the gradual approach sounds ok to me. Our pending edits feature is currently broken so you won't have to wait for each edit to be approved. At some point when you've finished ASmith or I can tweak, add templates where necessary etc. [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 22:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
::
::'''06/09/23'''
:Thanks again.
:Please find below a proposed expansion of the article on Mecca. I have used ......... to indicate where the existing text will remain. I would need to standardise the format of the references, and add more quotes from the Quran. The endnotes have not come out very well. I have already added a few references to the existing article.
:

==== 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.

…………..

In sum, the problems with Mecca are

1. No mention in ancient sources.

2. Not on ancient trade routes.

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).

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.

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>.

The first three points only tell against traditional descriptions of Mecca as a bustling centre of trade. They are compatible with the existence of a sanctuary patronised by local tribes. But this raises the difficulty of the absence of Christians in the area, given that the Quran is so heavily influenced by Christianity.

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.

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 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.

'''The Petra Hypothesis'''

………………………'''.'''

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, 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?

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.

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><nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petra</nowiki>, ‘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>.

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 a trenchant criticism from David A. King, a long time expert on mosque orientation. His main point seems to be that geographical orientation is irrelevant to understanding early mosques, because their builders had no way of determining the direction of Mecca, and did not try. Rather they orientated their buildings with the Ka’bah rather than towards it. There are a number of problems with this suggestion, one of which is that King never clearly explains what he means by orientation, or how it is to be measured. Another is that King does not seem to recognise that his claims are hypotheses which need to be tested by empirical evidence.

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.

If the early mosque builders were not trying to face Mecca, what were they trying to do? The accepted interpretation of the Quran is that Muslims must face it when praying, so it is generally assumed that mosques are built to indicate the required direction. It is an implication of King’s theory that some early builders interpreted the word translated as ‘face’ to mean ‘facing in the same direction as you would if you were at the Ka’bah’. Which is a bit of a stretch. It is possible that at certain times and places the builders had no way of determining the direction of the Ka’bah, so they did the best they could by giving their mosques the same orientation to the fixed stars. But it is impossible to test this hypothesis without an explanation of what they understood by orientation, and how they thought it could be measured.

It is also relevant to point out that modern Muslims have no doubt about how to interpret the order to face the Ka’bah. (And have accepted the need to abandon [[Islamic Views on the Shape of the Earth#Direct%20references%20to%20a%20flat%20Earth%20in%20the%20Qur'an|the flat Earth geography of the Quran]], and come to terms with the complications of spherical geometry<ref><nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qibla</nowiki> ‘Calculations with spherical trigonometry’ and ‘North America’.</ref>.) Why should early Muslims have interpreted the Quran any differently?

'''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. 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.

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''.'

Altogether, it might be best to stop using the word 'qibla' to avoid verbal confusions about such a contentious issue. The empirical question is then about the orientation of old mosques.

Not that the idea of the orientation of a building is entirely clear. What is in question is the orientation of the prayer wall, which is what the congregation faces when praying. The orientation is the direction of a straight line drawn perpendicular to this wall. It is assumed that the idea of the direction of a line on the Earth’s surface is clear enough, and can be determined by modern technology. The idea of a straight line as the shortest distance between two points would probably have been acceptable to the earliest mosque builders. The direction of a straight line can then be specified by any two places it passes through, without the need for an external frame of reference.

:Thanks for the updates, it is well written. We will also do a bit of editing ourselves to the article in due course, as mentioned. If you need any help with templates when you refine the references, [[WikiIslam:Source_Editing|this page]] explains how to quote or cite verses using the Quote, Quran, and Quran-range templates, as well as the various hadith citation templates. See also [[WikiIslam:Citing,_Linking,_and_Quoting|this page]]. A useful method is to look at the source edit page for an existing article to see how templates are typically used and how different types of sources are typically cited (the Islamic views on the shape of the earth article is a good one for that purpose). [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 22:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
<references responsive="0" />

WikiIslam:Sandbox/Fernando/Mecca

2023-09-11T23:46:54Z

Fernando: Expansion of the Note on terminology, and elaboration of a possible objection to Gibson

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. (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 Becca/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). 3.95-97 seem to be saying that the original shrine, presumably Becca, was established by Abraham. This is confirmed by 2.125-127. It is strange that the original and current centre 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 Becca is Mecca, then the original direction of prayer was not towards the first sanctuary.

3.97 says pilgrimage to the House is a duty unto Allah for mankind, where the House is presumably the first Sanctuary mentioned in 3.96. 2.144 orders that prayer should be towards 'the Inviolable Place of Worship', which is presumably the House/First Sanctuary. So it is a matter of great importance for Muslims to know where this place is.

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. 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 wilfully 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 Becca, this was changed for some reason to Petra, then changed back again to Becca, 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.

Another suggestion is that the 'B' in Becca is a scribal error, but this is incompatible with the belief widespread among Muslims that the Quran is the inerrant record of he word of God.

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.

In sum: the article would benefit from more references, 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.

: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)
:
:'''Reply to comments 25/08/2023'''
:
:Thanks. I did not understand that 'encyclopedic' in the instructions to new users meant specifically giving references to all sides of a current academic debate.
:Dan Gibson discusses King in his latest book on his site I referenced, and I did not think it necessary to duplicate references within references. Do you know of any other critiques of Gibson?
:It will take me some time to check out your very helpful suggestions, although I am familiar with most of the authors you mention. In the meantime I think it would be useful to get the extra Crone reference and the Gibson/King debate into the existing article. And questioning its assumption that Becca = Mecca. What are the conventions about changing an existing article?
:
::Sounds good. I'm an admin here and wrote a lot of the articles, but I'm not involved in the new user on-boarding process or what ASmith may have advised. I believe there are a bunch of pages via the New Contributors link on the sidebar explaining standards, how to add quote templates etc. An example of a recent newly expanded article which covers an academic debate is the one on Prophecies in the Quran, particularly the section on the Romans prophecy which has a good sprinkling of quotes and citations yet concise enough to hold the reader's interest. Normally new users are expected to make small simple edits to start with, so the gradual approach sounds ok to me. Our pending edits feature is currently broken so you won't have to wait for each edit to be approved. At some point when you've finished ASmith or I can tweak, add templates where necessary etc. [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 22:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
::
::'''06/09/23'''
:Thanks again.
:Please find below a proposed expansion of the article on Mecca. I have used ......... to indicate where the existing text will remain. I would need to standardise the format of the references, and add more quotes from the Quran. The endnotes have not come out very well. I have already added a few references to the existing article.
:

==== 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.

…………..

In sum, the problems with Mecca are

1. No mention in ancient sources.

2. Not on ancient trade routes.

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).

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.

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>.

The first three points only tell against traditional descriptions of Mecca as a bustling centre of trade. They are compatible with the existence of a sanctuary patronised by local tribes. But this raises the difficulty of the absence of Christians in the area, given that the Quran is so heavily influenced by Christianity.

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.

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 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.

'''The Petra Hypothesis'''

………………………'''.'''

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, 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?

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.

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><nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petra</nowiki>, ‘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>.

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 a trenchant criticism from David A. King, a long time expert on mosque orientation. His main point seems to be that geographical orientation is irrelevant to understanding early mosques, because their builders had no way of determining the direction of Mecca, and did not try. Rather they orientated their buildings with the Ka’bah rather than towards it, by aiming for the same alignment with the fixed stars. There are a number of problems with this suggestion.

Primarily, 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.

If the early mosque builders were not trying to face Mecca, what were they trying to do? The accepted interpretation of the Quran is that Muslims must face it when praying, so it is generally assumed that mosques are built to indicate the required direction. It is an implication of King’s theory that some early builders interpreted the word translated as ‘face’ to mean ‘facing in the same direction as you would if you were at the Ka’bah’. Which is a bit of a stretch. Another possibility is that at certain times and places the builders had no way of determining the direction of the Ka’bah, so they did the best they could by giving their mosques the same orientation to the fixed stars. It is not clear from the data that they succeeded even in this. Or indeed that they were trying.

It is also relevant to point out that modern Muslims have no doubt about how to interpret the order to face the Ka’bah. (And have accepted the need to abandon [[Islamic Views on the Shape of the Earth#Direct%20references%20to%20a%20flat%20Earth%20in%20the%20Qur'an|the flat Earth geography of the Quran]], and come to terms with the complications of spherical geometry<ref><nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qibla</nowiki> ‘Calculations with spherical trigonometry’ and ‘North America’.</ref>.) Why should early Muslims have interpreted the Quran any differently?

'''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. 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.

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''.'

Altogether, it might be best to stop using the word 'qibla' to avoid verbal confusions about such a contentious issue. The empirical question is then simply about the orientation of old mosques.

Not that the idea of the orientation of a building is entirely clear. What is in question is the orientation of the prayer wall, which is what the congregation faces when praying. The orientation is the direction of a straight line drawn perpendicular to this wall. It is assumed that the idea of the direction of a line on the Earth’s surface is clear enough, and can be determined by modern technology. The idea of a straight line as the shortest distance between two points would probably have been acceptable to the earliest mosque builders. The direction of a straight line can then be specified by any two places it passes through,

:Thanks for the updates, it is well written. We will also do a bit of editing ourselves to the article in due course, as mentioned. If you need any help with templates when you refine the references, [[WikiIslam:Source_Editing|this page]] explains how to quote or cite verses using the Quote, Quran, and Quran-range templates, as well as the various hadith citation templates. See also [[WikiIslam:Citing,_Linking,_and_Quoting|this page]]. A useful method is to look at the source edit page for an existing article to see how templates are typically used and how different types of sources are typically cited (the Islamic views on the shape of the earth article is a good one for that purpose). [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 22:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
<references responsive="0" />

WikiIslam:Sandbox/Fernando/Mecca

2023-09-10T23:13:19Z

Fernando: Removed comment about south facing mosques

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. (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 Becca/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). 3.95-97 seem to be saying that the original shrine, presumably Becca, was established by Abraham. This is confirmed by 2.125-127. It is strange that the original and current centre 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 Becca is Mecca, then the original direction of prayer was not towards the first sanctuary.

3.97 says pilgrimage to the House is a duty unto Allah for mankind, where the House is presumably the first Sanctuary mentioned in 3.96. 2.144 orders that prayer should be towards 'the Inviolable Place of Worship', which is presumably the House/First Sanctuary. So it is a matter of great importance for Muslims to know where this place is.

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. 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 wilfully 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 Becca, this was changed for some reason to Petra, then changed back again to Becca, 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.

Another suggestion is that the 'B' in Becca is a scribal error, but this is incompatible with the belief widespread among Muslims that the Quran is the inerrant record of he word of God.

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.

In sum: the article would benefit from more references, 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.

: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)
:
:'''Reply to comments 25/08/2023'''
:
:Thanks. I did not understand that 'encyclopedic' in the instructions to new users meant specifically giving references to all sides of a current academic debate.
:Dan Gibson discusses King in his latest book on his site I referenced, and I did not think it necessary to duplicate references within references. Do you know of any other critiques of Gibson?
:It will take me some time to check out your very helpful suggestions, although I am familiar with most of the authors you mention. In the meantime I think it would be useful to get the extra Crone reference and the Gibson/King debate into the existing article. And questioning its assumption that Becca = Mecca. What are the conventions about changing an existing article?
:
::Sounds good. I'm an admin here and wrote a lot of the articles, but I'm not involved in the new user on-boarding process or what ASmith may have advised. I believe there are a bunch of pages via the New Contributors link on the sidebar explaining standards, how to add quote templates etc. An example of a recent newly expanded article which covers an academic debate is the one on Prophecies in the Quran, particularly the section on the Romans prophecy which has a good sprinkling of quotes and citations yet concise enough to hold the reader's interest. Normally new users are expected to make small simple edits to start with, so the gradual approach sounds ok to me. Our pending edits feature is currently broken so you won't have to wait for each edit to be approved. At some point when you've finished ASmith or I can tweak, add templates where necessary etc. [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 22:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
::
::'''06/09/23'''
:Thanks again.
:Please find below a proposed expansion of the article on Mecca. I have used ......... to indicate where the existing text will remain. I would need to standardise the format of the references, and add more quotes from the Quran. The endnotes have not come out very well. I have already added a few references to the existing article.
:

==== 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.

…………..

In sum, the problems with Mecca are

1. No mention in ancient sources.

2. Not on ancient trade routes.

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).

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.

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>.

The first three points only tell against traditional descriptions of Mecca as a bustling centre of trade. They are compatible with the existence of a sanctuary patronised by local tribes. But this raises the difficulty of the absence of Christians in the area, given that the Quran is so heavily influenced by Christianity.

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.

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 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 Hejaz. 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.

'''The Petra Hypothesis'''

………………………'''.'''

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, 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?

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.

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><nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petra</nowiki>, ‘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>.

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. 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 a trenchant criticism from David A. King, a long time expert on mosque orientation. His main point seems to be that geographical orientation is irrelevant to understanding early mosques, because their builders had no way of determining the direction of Mecca, and did not try. Rather they orientated their buildings with the Ka’bah rather than towards it, by aiming for the same alignment with the fixed stars. There are a number of problems with this suggestion.

Primarily, 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. But this would require visiting the sites, rather than just examining ancient texts.

If the early mosque builders were not trying to face Mecca, what were they trying to do? The accepted interpretation of the Quran is that Muslims must face it when praying, so it is generally assumed that mosques are built to indicate the required direction. It is an implication of King’s theory that some early builders interpreted the word translated as ‘face’ to mean ‘facing in the same direction as you would if you were at the Ka’bah’. Which is a bit of a stretch. Another possibility is that at certain times and places the builders had no way of determining the direction of the Ka’bah, so they did the best they could by giving their mosques the same orientation to the fixed stars. It is not clear from the data that they succeeded even in this. Or indeed that they were trying.

It is also relevant to point out that modern Muslims have no doubt about how to interpret the order to face the Ka’bah. (And have accepted the need to abandon [[Islamic Views on the Shape of the Earth#Direct%20references%20to%20a%20flat%20Earth%20in%20the%20Qur'an|the flat Earth geography of the Quran]], and come to terms with the complications of spherical geometry<ref><nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qibla</nowiki> ‘Calculations with spherical trigonometry’ and ‘North America’.</ref>.) Why should early Muslims have interpreted the Quran any differently?

'''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 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.

Assuming that the idea of the orientation of a mosque is entirely clear. What is in question is the orientation of the prayer wall, which is what the congregation faces when praying. The orientation is the direction of a straight line drawn perpendicular to this wall. It is assumed that the idea of the direction of a line on the Earth’s surface is clear enough, and can be determined by modern technology. The idea of a straight line as the shortest distance between two points would probably have been acceptable to the earliest mosque builders.

:Thanks for the updates, it is well written. We will also do a bit of editing ourselves to the article in due course, as mentioned. If you need any help with templates when you refine the references, [[WikiIslam:Source_Editing|this page]] explains how to quote or cite verses using the Quote, Quran, and Quran-range templates, as well as the various hadith citation templates. See also [[WikiIslam:Citing,_Linking,_and_Quoting|this page]]. A useful method is to look at the source edit page for an existing article to see how templates are typically used and how different types of sources are typically cited (the Islamic views on the shape of the earth article is a good one for that purpose). [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 22:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
<references responsive="0" />

Talk:Historical Attestation of Muhammad

2023-09-10T19:52:53Z

2023-09-10T12:27:37Z

Fernando: Standardisation of references, additional note on terminology, additional line of criticism of Gibson, minor corrections.

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. (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 Becca/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). 3.95-97 seem to be saying that the original shrine, presumably Becca, was established by Abraham. This is confirmed by 2.125-127. It is strange that the original and current centre 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 Becca is Mecca, then the original direction of prayer was not towards the first sanctuary.

3.97 says pilgrimage to the House is a duty unto Allah for mankind, where the House is presumably the first Sanctuary mentioned in 3.96. 2.144 orders that prayer should be towards 'the Inviolable Place of Worship', which is presumably the House/First Sanctuary. So it is a matter of great importance for Muslims to know where this place is.

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. 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 wilfully 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 Becca, this was changed for some reason to Petra, then changed back again to Becca, 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.

Another suggestion is that the 'B' in Becca is a scribal error, but this is incompatible with the belief widespread among Muslims that the Quran is the inerrant record of he word of God.

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.

In sum: the article would benefit from more references, 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.

: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)
:
:'''Reply to comments 25/08/2023'''
:
:Thanks. I did not understand that 'encyclopedic' in the instructions to new users meant specifically giving references to all sides of a current academic debate.
:Dan Gibson discusses King in his latest book on his site I referenced, and I did not think it necessary to duplicate references within references. Do you know of any other critiques of Gibson?
:It will take me some time to check out your very helpful suggestions, although I am familiar with most of the authors you mention. In the meantime I think it would be useful to get the extra Crone reference and the Gibson/King debate into the existing article. And questioning its assumption that Becca = Mecca. What are the conventions about changing an existing article?
:
::Sounds good. I'm an admin here and wrote a lot of the articles, but I'm not involved in the new user on-boarding process or what ASmith may have advised. I believe there are a bunch of pages via the New Contributors link on the sidebar explaining standards, how to add quote templates etc. An example of a recent newly expanded article which covers an academic debate is the one on Prophecies in the Quran, particularly the section on the Romans prophecy which has a good sprinkling of quotes and citations yet concise enough to hold the reader's interest. Normally new users are expected to make small simple edits to start with, so the gradual approach sounds ok to me. Our pending edits feature is currently broken so you won't have to wait for each edit to be approved. At some point when you've finished ASmith or I can tweak, add templates where necessary etc. [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 22:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
::
::'''06/09/23'''
:Thanks again.
:Please find below a proposed expansion of the article on Mecca. I have used ......... to indicate where the existing text will remain. I would need to standardise the format of the references, and add more quotes from the Quran. The endnotes have not come out very well. I have already added a few references to the existing article.
:

==== 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.

…………..

In sum, the problems with Mecca are

1. No mention in ancient sources.

2. Not on ancient trade routes.

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).

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.

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>.

The first three points only tell against traditional descriptions of Mecca as a bustling centre of trade. They are compatible with the existence of a sanctuary patronised by local tribes. But this raises the difficulty of the absence of Christians in the area, given that the Quran is so heavily influenced by Christianity.

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.

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 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 Hejaz. 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.

'''The Petra Hypothesis'''

………………………'''.'''

Dan Gibson<ref>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, 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?

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.

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><nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petra</nowiki>, ‘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>.

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. 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 a trenchant criticism from David A. King, a long time expert on mosque orientation. His main point seems to be that geographical orientation is irrelevant to understanding early mosques, because their builders had no way of determining the direction of Mecca, and did not try. Rather they orientated their buildings with the Ka’bah rather than towards it, by aiming for the same alignment with the fixed stars. There are a number of problems with this suggestion.

Primarily, 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. But this would require visiting the sites, rather than just examining ancient texts.

If the early mosque builders were not trying to face Mecca, what were they trying to do? The accepted interpretation of the Quran is that Muslims must face it when praying, so it is generally assumed that mosques are built to indicate the required direction. It is an implication of King’s theory that some early builders interpreted the word translated as ‘face’ to mean ‘facing in the same direction as you would if you were at the Ka’bah’. Which is a bit of a stretch. Another possibility is that at certain times and places the builders had no way of determining the direction of the Ka’bah, so they did the best they could by giving their mosques the same orientation to the fixed stars. It is not clear from the data that they succeeded even in this. Or indeed that they were trying. Many mosques face south, in obedience to the Prophet’s command to pray towards Mecca when he was in Medina.

It is also relevant to point out that modern Muslims have no doubt about how to interpret the order to face the Ka’bah. (And have accepted the need to abandon [[Islamic Views on the Shape of the Earth#Direct%20references%20to%20a%20flat%20Earth%20in%20the%20Qur'an|the flat Earth geography of the Quran]], and come to terms with the complications of spherical geometry<ref><nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qibla</nowiki> ‘Calculations with spherical trigonometry’ and ‘North America’.</ref>.) Why should early Muslims have interpreted the Quran any differently?

'''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 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.

Assuming that the idea of the orientation of a mosque is entirely clear. What is in question is the orientation of the prayer wall, which is what the congregation faces when praying. The orientation is the direction of a straight line drawn perpendicular to this wall. It is assumed that the idea of the direction of a line on the Earth’s surface is clear enough, and can be determined by modern technology. The idea of a straight line as the shortest distance between two points would probably have been acceptable to the earliest mosque builders.

:Thanks for the updates, it is well written. We will also do a bit of editing ourselves to the article in due course, as mentioned. If you need any help with templates when you refine the references, [[WikiIslam:Source_Editing|this page]] explains how to quote or cite verses using the Quote, Quran, and Quran-range templates, as well as the various hadith citation templates. See also [[WikiIslam:Citing,_Linking,_and_Quoting|this page]]. A useful method is to look at the source edit page for an existing article to see how templates are typically used and how different types of sources are typically cited (the Islamic views on the shape of the earth article is a good one for that purpose). [[User:Lightyears|Lightyears]] ([[User talk:Lightyears|talk]]) 22:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
<references responsive="0" />