62
edits
Mecca: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→The Petra hypothesis: Link added
| [unchecked revision] | [unchecked revision] |
(Extensive additions, especially about the Petra hypothesis.) |
m (→The Petra hypothesis: Link added) |
||
| Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
A point against Petra is that it is not near the Dead Sea and thus the cities 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 possible that it would have been visited by farmers from further north. In any case, the Quran is inconsistent in a number of ways. The best that can be hoped for is to get a partial match to what it suggests about its historical context. | A point against Petra is that it is not near the Dead Sea and thus the cities 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 possible 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 the reaction from scholars in the field has been silence rather than the lively debate which might have been expected. The best that can be found is a detailed rejection by David King<ref | 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 the reaction from scholars in the field has been silence rather than the lively debate which might have been expected. The best that can be found is 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 while no early mosques do face Mecca, a large proportion face Petra. | 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 while no early mosques do face Mecca, a large proportion face Petra. | ||