I understand both of these cities are considered holy, and a trip to Mecca is even required by Islam. But I’m curious how much governing authority these cities have if any.
Let’s say Israel or some terrorist organization sent off a nuke to both of these cities as a response to some devastating future situation – would there be any practical repercussions for the religion of Islam as a whole?
Well a dirty bomb would make pilgrimage problematic, which is one of the Five Pillars of Islam. So it would be a severely traumatic event for observant Muslims.
However Mecca doesn’t have any governing power or regulatory oversight and hasn’t had any in a very long time - there is no central religious hierarchy analogous to a Pope. It’s more analogous to a very large shrine. So the impact could be simultaneously profound ( destruction of the holiest site in Islam ) and negligible all at the same time. The real world implications would be difficult to predict, other than the horror and fury it would generate.
N.B., a pilgrimage to Mecca is only required for Muslims who are able to take one reasonably. If it is far outside your price range, you are in jail, or are too sick to travel, it isn’t required.
I think the idea of a city holding governing power is significantly different from the idea of the city being bombed or otherwise damaged in a practical sense. For the governing example, it could be analogous to asking whether or not the Mayor of Salt Lake City has authority to change LDS/Mormon doctrine or whether the local council government of Canterbury, England can depose the Archbishop of Canterbury. I think the clear answer to both of those questions is no.
What about if it’s radioactive?
Well, the Saudis are mulling over moving the Prophet’s Tomb and putting his ‘remains’ in an unmarked grave, rather like a felon.
That might make the allure of Mecca and Medina less potent, and incidentally relieve their pilgrim problem. Not that that’s the motive. In fact I don’t know what’s the motive. Maybe they don’t. As guardians they have fallen rather short.
***Around 95% of*Mecca’s ancient buildings have already been destroyed in the construction of the Grand Mosque, according to the Gulf Institute, and the Saudi government has already come in for much criticism over what is seen as a disregard for historically and religiously important sites.
If poor old W had suggested this, Islam would have risen in fury.
Mecca has “governing power” over the province of Mecca, and Medina has governing power over the province of Medina, under the government of Saudi Arabia, as far as that goes. But that concerns only the Saudi administrative divisions, not Islam. There is no overall governing power of Islam, except for the somewhat abstract principles of the Qur’an and the Prophet’s sunnah. There is no overall governing power for the interpretation and administration of these, though.
That’s a pretty unfair analogy. The reason relocating Mohammad’s tomb is being considered is because some people are treating it as a holy site. Islam says that people should only worship God. Mohammad was a great man who deserves respect but not worship.
Problem? I thought it was a major source of tourism revenue?
I have no doubt that our present government would consider knocking down Westminster Abbey for fun and profit, and selling the real estate for apartments for Chinese millionaires, but most of us would still resent it. Ir’s scarcely idolatrous to revere ancient sites of holiness quite apart from any religious aspect.
As Muhammad has been buried where he lay in his house, for 1382 years, it seems a little late to worry about it now.
There’s rather a lot of them.
And I see English Wiki, on Medina, now refers to Makkah. Oh joy.
The cities have no more governing power than the City of Washington or the Council of the District of Columbia has governing power over the United States. Municipal administrations only have power over things like zoning regulations and parking meters.
The group in charge of religious sites in Mecca is apparently a sect of Islam that very strongly believes that revering anything like a holy site or holy relic is basically idolatry - people would b worshipping the place or thing instead of Allah. Therefore they are destroying as much of the ancient sites as they can get away with, bit by bit, replacing them with modern structures.
Essentially the same idea as the iconoclasts, or the northern European protestant sects that believe that excessive decoration of churches is idolatry.
I think a lot of people don’t realize that modern conservative Islam is not some ancient tradition. It’s really pretty recent in historic terms. Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab was a contemporary of Benjamin Franklin.
And of Jonathan Edwards, another charmer. Born in the same year even.
These people really ought to be ignored.
Does that also go for people like Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, and every other theologian who happened along after the original founding of the religion?
screws monocle As far as I am concerned it could include the founders of religions as well.
But no, I’m talking about the miserablist old bastards. Certainly Calvin; prolly Aquinas; Whitehead, but not Wesley ( who was after all in the end just a better Anglican ); and we’ll let Augustine go with a caution.
Luther’s fine [ mostly, half the time, however much I disagree with him, he was so damn human ]. The various American gentlemen who made religion strenuous, from Charles Taze Russell — In his youth he was known to chalk Bible verses on fence boards and city sidewalks to draw attention to the punishment of hell awaiting the unfaithful in an attempt to convert unbelievers. Wiki — to David Koresh are just utterly appalling.
And St. Dominic can stay in hell.
Are you lumping Benjamin Franklin in with Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Jonathan Edwards?
No, I was talking about heavy duty religious loonies. I do not admire Mr. Franklin, but he never seemed to impose religious service on others, despite attempting to get the Convention to have daily opening common christian prayers.
They already eliminated the tombs of companions of the prophet who had been buried there for equally as long, so it shouldn’t be a problem. I guess there would be some outcry for the prophet himself but religious zealots are typically impervious to this.
Aside from prestige, the closest thing I can think of to governance is that the Maliki school is from Medina and originally coalesced around that as an identity. But that’s a big stretch.
Mecca and Medina were sacked before, and the Black Stone stolen and the Zamzam well and other sites desecrated. It was eventually ransomed back. The perpetrators, known today as the Qarmatians, were a pretty interesting bunch. More recently, in 1979 the Kaaba was seized by radical militants and held for a couple of weeks before the Saudis took it back with the help of some French (or maybe Pakistani) commandos.
Mecca actually being destroyed in the manner you suggest… it would cause a significant but probably not insurmountable crisis of faith in addition to all the other bad stuff that would result. There are lots of popular traditions about the Prophet’s body (that it won’t decay), the purity of the Zamzam well, and the permanence of the Kaaba that will be challenged.
Abd al-Wahhab was from Najd, ironically Muhammad thought Najd sucked and said the horn of Satan would come from there. Anti-Wahhabists like to use that hadith in their arguments.