More on Mecca: There’s a difference bet …
More on Mecca: There’s a difference between the wholesale destruction of architectural heritage and the necessary development of infrastructue and facilities for those who need it (such as the city’s everyday inhabitants, or the poor pilgrims who can’t afford to stay in the Intercontinental).
To be sure the line between the two maybe fine and blurry, but it is not impossible to chart out in pragmatic and piecemeal fashion.
What we’ve seen in Makkah is the complete annihilation of Muslim heritage where preservation may have been possible.
thabet, 
OmarG, 
aziz 3:12 pm on December 18, 2008 Permalink
I particularly weep for the destruction of Jannat al Baqi. These photos that Ali found online are heart-rending.
thabet 3:26 pm on December 18, 2008 Permalink
Yursil Kidwai has some pictures of the Cave of Hira — it’s a rubbish tip.
Muse 10:56 pm on December 18, 2008 Permalink
Aziz, I was going to post the exact comment you just did. My heart just broke a little looking at the Jannat al Baqi pictures.
I’m still skeptical. I remember the blogger BrNaeem once posted a picture from inside the Harum of the looming hotels around it, and I could not imagine how one could focus on anything else but these buildings towering over you. More of the same will completely suck the soul out of the city. Then again, I do hope something is done about the traffic flow around Jammarat. But how much can we trust the Saudi govt to walk that fine line that Thabet mentions?
Muse 10:58 pm on December 18, 2008 Permalink
Btw, has the Saudi govt ever taken any steps to restore the historical sights around Mecca and Medina rather than letting them languish or just razing them?
Muse 1:10 am on December 19, 2008 Permalink
Those pictures of Hira make me want to get a punching bag, write Wahhabi on it, and punch the crap out of it.
thabet 4:20 am on December 19, 2008 Permalink
‘Wahhabism’ (Salafism) as an ideology permits no history or historical memory.
Sofi 8:11 am on December 19, 2008 Permalink
Statisically, i’d say there are more non wahabi muslims than wahabi in this world, and since every muslim has a right of say on this and not just the “custodians”, why is this still allowed to go on?
thabet 9:16 am on December 19, 2008 Permalink
Because we live in a world of nation-states and other Muslim nation-states do not have the power, wealth or ability to put (diplomatic) pressure on Saudi to cease destroying the collective memory/narrative of a billion people.
aziz 9:42 am on December 19, 2008 Permalink
I am positive that they will declare the Kaaba to be an object of shirk one of these days.
OmarG 9:50 am on December 19, 2008 Permalink
Well, when we speak of historical sites, how can we truly authenticate the sites. I mean, even IF dating techniques placed these sites in the 7th century, there is NO surefire way to connect them with early Islamic events.
I think our affection for historical sites is a way for us to use science to validate our faith. I for one, however un-Salafi I may be, somewhat agree with them on de-emphasizing pseudo-historical sites and delinking them from faith.
On the other hand, having said that, I do think we need solid archeaological efforts to recover early texts like the trove found in the 70′s in the foundation of a Yemeni mosque. That, however, would be a search for knowledge and not necessarily validation.
aziz 10:03 am on December 19, 2008 Permalink
omarg, theres an entire body of hostorical record, oral traditions, and written records spanning 1400 years to draw upon. The Wahhabi extremism is a product of the last century only; there were 13 centuries prior to that where these historical places were not only well-known, but also celebrated. The heartbreaking picture of how Jannat al Baqi once looked should be sufficient proof of that.
And rest also assured that teh destriction of these places makes them a permanent fixture of our hearts and remembrances. The salafis may be able to tear them down but they cant erase them from our collective memory.
aziz 10:04 am on December 19, 2008 Permalink
and frankly the remaining evidence of these hostorical sites needs to be suppressed now, for their own protection
OmarG 10:11 am on December 19, 2008 Permalink
@aziz, oral traditions are just that: traditions. Its just the sort of mythology built up around authentic historical and spiritual events that I believe are warned about in the Quran regarding the Companions of the Cave when the people wanted to build a momument around thier cave. History satisfies my intellect but I don’t want to build my faith on it. If I’ve learned anything in the uni, its how murky and subjective history can only be and what a shaky basis it is for anything other than curiosity.
Don’t get me wrong, though. I think its worthwhile to preserve historical sites and not bulldoze cemetaries if only as being representative of how things looked and felt in past eras of a city’s history. But, I’m not going to get teary-eyed over places which have changed drastically enough to be unrecognizable to 7th century Muslims.
Sofi 10:18 am on December 19, 2008 Permalink
>>Because we live in a world of nation-states and other Muslim nation-states do not have the power, wealth or ability to put (diplomatic) pressure on Saudi to cease destroying the collective memory/narrative of a billion people.
Or perhaps its something alot simpler than that: ordinary Muslims on the streets are still ignorant to the destruction. Some, a minority, are hell-bent on inciting terror in other countries, to innocent people, all in the name of Islam but isn’t this something that is supposed to lie in the heart of our faith? its so tragic!
aziz 11:10 am on December 19, 2008 Permalink
oral traditions are just that: traditions.
I think you drasticlaly underestimate oral traditions. The Qur’an was an oral tradition for decades, until it was written down, remember. Entire cultures have preserved themselves solely orally – I am thinking of the Lakota Sioux and other native American tribes. In fact oral traditions in many ways are more robust to tampering than written ones, because written traditions can be subtly modified and the modifications gain legitimacy, whereas oral ones have many redundant verifiers. Its a common Western conceit that oral traditions are inferior, but if you study them you realize that the spoken word has as much power, if not more, gthan the written.
And I did say after all that oral traditions are just one aspect of the record. There rae wrtten records, and plenty of historical evidence. For obvious reasons much of that has gone underground; it certainly isnt going to be available on the english-language-indexed internet. Its stuff you need to go to a library – and be able to read Arabic source material. But its there. How else do you think the wahabbis know what to destroy?
if you dont agree with the value in presrving the cave of Hira, where the Prophet sat and receiveed the divine Word, then thats certainly a valid opinion. But what harm does it do to you if those of us who do value it, seek to preserve it? its the detsruction of knowledge that shoudl alarm you, regardless of whether you intend to partake of that knowledge or not.
Sofi, suppose tomorrow every muslim were made aware of the destruction. What could they do? What can you do? What can I do?
Sofi 11:44 am on December 19, 2008 Permalink
I’d like to remain optimistic if that were ever the case, Aziz! I don’t want to underestimate the Power of the People and lobbying..despite what is currently going on. What is the alternative anyway? Defeatism? Nope. We have faith and that will continue to drive us, IA.
w/s.
Muse 5:18 pm on December 19, 2008 Permalink
Thabet, if Wahhabism does not allow for historical memory, how do they claim to be following the early generations of Muslims? It would seem to me that they should be foremost in preserving their legacy in all aspects, including the protection of their physical spaces to the extent possible. Do they think that because the early generations did not preserve historical spaces (is this true?), we need not do it either? What’s the logic?
OmarG 5:35 pm on December 19, 2008 Permalink
From what I gather, the unofficial logic would be that physical spaces are irrelevant and can lead to a sort of person-worship. Judging from the ways that some Muslim cultures have historically promoted some persons as worthy of some sort of veneration, I think they are right about people doing that. The Quran even mentions it, too. The Wahhabi stance did not emerge in a vacuum; it emerged from the what they say were the near pantheistic tendencies of some Sufi groups towards venerating persons, especially Companions.
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 4:48 pm on December 20, 2008 Permalink
I have been reluctant to enter this discussion for two main reasons, one — theological discussions of any complexity on internet comment forums are not usually beneficial and two — I have no reason to defend the Sa’udi rulers nor would I accept the notion that their primary motivations are theological.
I do, however, find the relentless “Wahhabi” namecalling to be a little tiresome. In general in the Shari’ah there is certainly room for being wary of the building up of religious monuments or tombs or what have you. These have been one of the most common pathways to shirk and the Prophet (saw) warned us about them.
Once, Umm Salamah, the Prophet’s wife mentioned to him (saw) the beautiful churches she had seen while in Abyssinia. The Prophet (saw) told her, “Those people, whenever a pious person died amongst them, would build places of worship over their graves, and carve out images of them. Such people are the worst of mankind in the sight of Allah. (Reported in Bukhari and Muslim)
‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (May Allah be pleased with him) said to Abu al-Hayyaj al-Asadi, “Should I not send you with (the same commandments) that the Prophet (saw) sent me with? That you do not find any image except you destroy it, and any raised grave except that you level it.” (Reported in Sahih Muslim)
There was also a famous incident during the khilafa of ‘Umar (ra) when the Muslims were going to a tree claiming it was the tree under which the Prophet (saw) took the Bay’at al-Ridwan before the Treaty of Hudaybiyah which is mentioned in the Qur’an. ‘Umar heard that some of the tabi’een were going to pray at this tree. ‘Umar ordered that the tree be cut down out of concern that in the future people would start to engage in shirk at the tree. (I’ve heard some scholars explain that ‘Umar ordered it be cut down because people were going to the wrong tree but in any event, to the people of the time, it appeared he was ‘destroying their heritage.’)
My point is not that any of these evidences justify what Sa’udi is doing or not. I do not really know the details nor have I ever heard their side of the story although I have read many impassioned cries of grief at the way the Muslim heritage is being destroyed. Some of these have come from people I love and respect very much so I don’t doubt that they may very well be correct and in any event, as I said I have absolutely no interest in defending the Sa’udis about anything and even when they do do the right thing, my first guess was they are doing it for the wrong reason.
Still, I think the concern to prevent shirk is more real and has a much stronger basis in the life and legacy of our Prophet (saw) than the people who spend their life yelling Wahhabi Wahhabi admit.
So, OmarG is right that there are valid reasons to be concerned about such issues. Also, OmarG is right to claim that we should really investigate further the historical evolution of Makkah Mukarramah. Makkah has certainly changed drastically over the years and this is certainly not the first era in which political authorities used the holy places according to their own interests and opinions. So, in no way should an assumption be made that the way Makkah looked 100 years ago was how it looked 1400 years ago.
Also, one thing that always kinda bugs me about this whole issue and it’s just a consequence of living in the west, but the people who I always hear protesting the construction boom are, as far as I know, people who when they do go to Makkah stay in fancy hotels near the Ka’bah so it seems like there’s some tension there.
I agree with Sofi though that if it is something about which the whole ummah would object campaigns of awareness should occur and pressure can be brought in different ways. I guess my point in this post is to provide some advice for those with these concerns some considerations they should take into account to inshAllah make their arguments stronger.
Allaah knows best.
thabet 12:32 am on December 21, 2008 Permalink
Who said this was the case?
You, and OmarG, are misinformed.
No one has said Makka is the same as it was 1400+ years ago and no one is using this as the basis to ‘scientifically’ validate their faith.
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 8:21 am on December 21, 2008 Permalink
thabet,
I know that no one is saying that literally but it seems to be an assumption that underlies some of the arguments.
As I said, my advice is to make it clearer what exactly people are objecting to, since often statements are made about sites relating to the Prophet (saw) and the companions which leave the impression that we are talking about things that have existed in exactly the same condition for 1400 years and are suddenly being changed now.
I don’t really understand OmarG’s statements about ‘scientific’ validation either.
thabet 9:24 am on December 21, 2008 Permalink
Abu Noor,
I disagree it is an underlining argument.
What is being criticised is the careless, and often seemingly greedy*, flattening or mistreatment of old cities, which have been ‘Islamic’ right from year dot (for Muslims). Are you honestly telling me these places, and those like Hira, hold ZERO significance for Muslims?
This may or may not include areas which can be attributed to early persons that are highly respected, revered and loved by Muslims. This may also include architecture that forms part of Muslim history., i.e. many Ottoman-era mosques, castles, etc. (Ottomans having being around for approx. 600 years are an important part of Islamic history, whether one likes them or not.) That’s what I meant by ‘wahhabism’ not allowing historical memory.
We are talking about cultural heritage in much the same way the dozens of old churches around London are part of the cultural heritage of the UK. (And apparently, Saudi funded agencies carried out similar destruction of some mosques in the Balkans in the name of ‘reconstruction’.)
I agree that all political dynasties leave their stamp on Makka. Personally, I didn’t say it was wrong for the Saudis to build new buildings or in a ‘modern’ style (I do not have a strong opinion on the architectural style of the proposed developments, though I know many Muslims dislike the idea of Madina or Makka looking like a ‘western’ city).
*Hajj is a massive business for the Saudis and these are ultimately business decisions. Let’s not fool ourselves with pious platitudes about opposing shirk and helping poor pilgrims.
abunoor 10:43 am on December 21, 2008 Permalink
thabet,
I think our only real disagreement on this issue is that I don’t understand why you continue to throw around the term “Wahhabism.” Especially since you say explicitly here that the motivations are not ‘religious’ what is the value of injecting ‘wahhabism’ into the discussion?
abunoor 10:50 am on December 21, 2008 Permalink
I appreciate history as much as the next person. I wouldn’t argue for maintaining structures such as tombs which the Prophet (saw) explicitly warned against. Other than that, I certainly see the value in maintaining our history, although I continue to be a little turned off by the phenomenon of Muslims who chose to migrate to and live in the west but who wish to be able to keep Madina and Makka as quaint history museums for them to be able to visit and who complain about the construction of fancy hotels near the Haram and then stay at those same hotels when they do visit the cities.
I just want to reiterate what I said initially, though, that I respect many people who raise these concerns and I could be totally wrong and misguided. I have not been blessed to be able to afford travelling to either Makkah or Madina. May Allaah (swt) allow me to do some at some point. (And I hope you can be there with me thabet and we can share a meal and a tent…if not, then in jannah inshAllaah).
OmarG 11:10 am on December 21, 2008 Permalink
Abu Nor, by scientific validation I mean that perhaps when people see these places, it reinforces their iman because the archaeology confirms their faith. Its sort of like the whole “Science in the Quran” phenomenon where educated Muslims in the West (usually in the sciences) have their iman validated because science “confirms” something written in the Quran. Or at least, they interpret it that way because of the reliance on science in the West as an arbiter of absolute truth.
So, in a similar way, I suspect people want to see these sites and be able to say, “wow, it really DID happen because I saw the places with my own eyes!” even if only in the back of their minds. I may or may not be over-analyzing it, so this theory’s mileage may vary.
thabet 9:07 am on December 22, 2008 Permalink
Abu Noor, I agree that the term is thrown around easily. It is very common amongst lots of people from the Subcontinent to throw the label at people.
I used it with ‘quotes’ for a reason to signify the problematic use of the term, but nonetheless note that it has certain usage. It can be used to signify a certain approach to religion, which admittedly carries very negative connotations.
I don’t think it is a coincidence that shiny new towers are going to be built on top of places that many Muslims the world over regard as very scared (rightly or wrongly) and part of the religious and cultural heritage by a government that promotes a very specific attitude to religion (although I have been told by people ‘in the know’ that some Saudi ulama also dislike some of the re-developments).
Thank you for this dua. Amin.
thabet 9:09 am on December 22, 2008 Permalink
I think you’re over-analysing (and without much data!). People live by much, much more than scientific facts. It’s why you’re Muslim, afterall…