Did you read the link I posted, cause if you had you would have found out there is little to no archeological evidence that Mecca’s current location matches its historical one.
The article you mentioned tries to be balanced with point and counterpoint. There are some sweeping assumptions being made in that article as well.
I will say that if Mecca was Petra, many historical events occurring between mecca and medina become impossible. Battle of Badr, Uhud, etc. The tribes involved in the above events also didn’t reside in Petra.
It comes across as an outsider’s fun little thought experiment. Very orientalist in its approach.
Do you know why there are sources discussing that it isn’t? Admittedly can’t really even find something reliable worth citing but see some historical Islam groups discussing Makka and Bakka as mentioned in the Quran and attributes to modern Mecca. But this doesn’t seem to be in any mainstream articles or easily found academic paper
I’m not really familiar with the subject but curious what’s the nuance I’m missing since it feels like there’s a weird historical debate here I’d like to read up on
I’m not sure. It’s the first I’ve ever heard of it. The Western academic approach to Islamic studies is historically rooted in refuting Islam’s credibility instead of objectively studying it, so you’ll hear all sorts of wild assertions and conclusions that would make a five year old Muslim laugh. It may be improving these days, but I don’t keep current with this stuff. Anyways, Mecca is literally in the Arabic text of the Quran, so it’s not some translator filling in the gaps with interpretation:
Are mecca and medina even in that circle? Yemen definitely isn’t. Image is definitely false.
There is some debate over where Mecca is currently situated and where it may have been located historically.
Maybe it never existed, and it was just the friends we mecca-long the way.
I don’t normally like to deny the credibility of websites I know nothing about, however
Wat. I think you’re talking about the two different names for the same location… Mecca is in its correct location. Where the Kaaba is.
Did you read the link I posted, cause if you had you would have found out there is little to no archeological evidence that Mecca’s current location matches its historical one.
The article you mentioned tries to be balanced with point and counterpoint. There are some sweeping assumptions being made in that article as well.
I will say that if Mecca was Petra, many historical events occurring between mecca and medina become impossible. Battle of Badr, Uhud, etc. The tribes involved in the above events also didn’t reside in Petra.
It comes across as an outsider’s fun little thought experiment. Very orientalist in its approach.
This kind of surprised me but Wikipedia says mecca at least isn’t referenced in the Quran: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mecca#:~:text=Mecca is generally considered "the,was first revealed to Muhammad.
Not true: https://quran.com/48?startingVerse=24
Do you know why there are sources discussing that it isn’t? Admittedly can’t really even find something reliable worth citing but see some historical Islam groups discussing Makka and Bakka as mentioned in the Quran and attributes to modern Mecca. But this doesn’t seem to be in any mainstream articles or easily found academic paper
I’m not really familiar with the subject but curious what’s the nuance I’m missing since it feels like there’s a weird historical debate here I’d like to read up on
I’m not sure. It’s the first I’ve ever heard of it. The Western academic approach to Islamic studies is historically rooted in refuting Islam’s credibility instead of objectively studying it, so you’ll hear all sorts of wild assertions and conclusions that would make a five year old Muslim laugh. It may be improving these days, but I don’t keep current with this stuff. Anyways, Mecca is literally in the Arabic text of the Quran, so it’s not some translator filling in the gaps with interpretation: