| ||
|---|---|---|
Career Views and Perspectives | ||
Thehistoricity of Muhammad refers to the study ofMuhammad as a historical figure and critical examination of sources upon which traditional accounts (theQuran,sīrah,hadith especially) are based. Other historical sources that can be investigated include sealed documents, orders, treaty texts,archaeological findings and internal and external correspondence of neighboring states or communities, as well as the discovery of Muhammad's genetic makeup and kinship through his personal belongings and physical remains (hair, beard, etc.) that are among his alleged legacies.
Prophetic biography, known assīra, along with attributed records of the words, actions, and the silent approval of Muhammad, known ashadith, survive in the historical works of writers from the second and third centuries of theMuslim era (c. 700−1000 CE),[1][2] and give a great deal of information on Muhammad, but the reliability of this information is very much debated in academic circles (hadith studies) due to the gap (oral tradition) between the recorded dates of Muhammad's life and the dates when these events begin to appear in written sources.[3]
The general Islamic view is that the Quran has been preserved from the beginning by both writing and memorization, and its testimony is considered beyond doubt. The earliest Muslim source of information for the life of Muhammad, theQuran, gives very little personal information and itshistoricity is debated.[4][5]
Historian John Burton states
In judging the content, the only resort of the scholar is to the yardstick of probability, and on this basis, it must be repeated, virtually nothing of use to the historian emerges from the sparse record of the early life of the founder of the latest of the great world religions ... so, however far back in the Muslim tradition one now attempts to reach, one simply cannot recover a scrap of information of real use in constructing the human history of Muhammad, beyond the bare fact that he once existed.[6]
Despite any difficulties with the biographical sources, scholars generally see valuable historical information about Muhammad therein and suggest that what is needed are methods to be able to sort out the likely from the unlikely.[7] In practice determining what elements of early narratives about Muhammad's life are likely to be true and which are not is extremely difficult.[8] However, the majority of classical scholars believe that Muhammad existed as a historical figure.[9]
There are a relatively small number of contemporaneous or near-contemporaneous non-Muslim sources which attest to the existence of Muhammad and are valuable both in themselves and for comparison with Muslim sources.[5] As in the case ofMecca, these sources cannot be said to support the traditional Islamic narrative; where there is a lack of pre-Islamic sources that mention it as a pilgrimage center in historical sources before 741 here the author places the region in "midway betweenUr andHarran" rather than the Hejaz- and lacks pre-Islamic archaeological data.[12][a]
The early history of Mecca is still largely shrouded by a lack of clear sources. The city lies in the hinterland of the middle part of western Arabia of which there are sparse textual or archaeological sources available.[14] This lack of knowledge is in contrast to both the northern and southern areas of western Arabia, specifically the Syro-Palestinian frontier and Yemen, where historians have various sources available such as physical remains of shrines, inscriptions, observations by Greco-Roman authors, and information collected by church historians. The area ofHejaz that surrounds Mecca was characterized by its remote, rocky, and inhospitable nature, supporting only meagre settled populations in scattered oases and occasional stretches of fertile land. The Red Sea coast offered no easily accessible ports and the oasis dwellers and bedouins in the region were illiterate.[14]
Possible earlier mentions are not unambiguous. The Greek historianDiodorus Siculus writes aboutArabia in the 1st century BCE in his workBibliotheca historica, describing a holy shrine: "And a temple has been set up there, which is very holy and exceedingly revered by all Arabians".[15] Claims have been made this could be a reference to theKa'bah in Mecca.[16] However, the geographic location Diodorus describes is located in northwest Arabia, around the area ofLeuke Kome, within the formerNabataean Kingdom and the Roman province ofArabia Petraea.[17][18]
Ptolemy lists the names of 50 cities in Arabia, one going by the name of Macoraba. There has been speculation since 1646 that this could be a reference to Mecca. Historically, there has been a general consensus in scholarship that Macoraba mentioned byPtolemy in the 2nd century CE is indeed Mecca, but more recently, this has been questioned.[19][20] Bowersock favors the identity of the former, with his theory being that "Macoraba" is the word "Makkah" followed by the aggrandizingAramaic adjectiverabb (great). The Roman 4th-century historianAmmianus Marcellinus also enumerated many cities of Western Arabia, most of which can be identified. According to Bowersock, he did mention Mecca as "Geapolis" or "Hierapolis", the latter one meaning "holy city" potentially referring to the sanctuary of theKaaba.[21]
Procopius' 6th century statement that theMa'add tribe possessed the coast of western Arabia between theGhassanids and theHimyarites of the south supports the Arabic sources tradition that associatesQuraysh as a branch of the Ma'add and Muhammad as a direct descendant of Ma'add ibn Adnan.[22][23]
.jpg)
The main Islamic source on Muhammad's life are theQuran and accounts of Muhammad's life based onoral traditions known assīra andhadith.
| Quran |
|---|
According to traditional Islamic scholarship, all of the Quran was written down by Muhammad'scompanions while he was alive (during CE 610–632[24]), but it was primarily an orally related document. Following the death of Muhammad the Quran ceased to be revealed, and companions who had memorized the Quran began to die off (particularly after theBattle of Yamama in 633).[25] Worried that parts of the Quran might be irretrievably lost, senior companionUmar urged CaliphAbu Bakr to order the collection of the pieces of the Quran which had hitherto been scattered among "palm-leaf stalks, thin white stones, ... [and] men who knew it by heart, ..."[26] and put them together.[25][27] Under CaliphUthman, a committee of five copied the scraps into a single volume, "monitoring the text as they went", resolving disagreements about verses, tracking down a lost verse.[28] Thismuṣḥaf – that became known as the "Uthmanic codex" – was finished around 650 CE,[29][30] whereupon Uthman issued an order for all other existing personal and individual copies and dialects of the Quran (known asAhruf) to be burnt.[31][32]
As to the historicity of the Quran itself, some scholars also disagree. Some argue "the Quran is convincingly the words of Muhammad" (F.E. Peters),[33] with the parchment of an early copy of Quran – theBirmingham manuscript, whose text differs only slightly to modern versions – being dated to roughly around the lifetime of Muhammad.[34] Some Western scholars,[35] however, question the accuracy of some of the Quran's historical accounts and whether the holy book existed in any form before the last decade of the seventh century (Patricia Crone andMichael Cook);[36] and/or argue it is a "cocktail of texts", some of which may have been existent a hundred years before Muhammad, that evolved (Gerd R. Puin),[36][37][38] or was redacted (J. Wansbrough),[39][40] to form the Quran. A group of researchers explores the irregularities and repetitions in the Quranic text in a way that refutes the traditional claim that it was preserved by memorization alongside writing. According to them, anoral period shaped the Quran as a text and order, and the repetitions and irregularities mentioned were remnants of this period.[41]
It is also possible that the content of the Quran itself may provide data regarding the date and probably nearby geography of writing of the text. Sources based on some archaeological data give the construction date ofMasjid al-Haram, an architectural work mentioned 16 times in the Quran, as 78 AH[42] an additional finding that sheds light on the evolutionary history of the Quranic texts mentioned,[43] which is known to continue even during the time ofHajjaj,[44][45] in a similar situation that can be seen withal-Aksa, though different suggestions have been put forward to explain.[b] These structures, -expected to be somewhere near Muhammad-[c] which were placed in cities like Mecca and Jerusalem, which are thousands of kilometers apart today, with interpretationsbased on narrations and miracles, were only a night walk away according to the outward and literal meaning of the verse.Surah Al-Isra17:1
The Quran primarily addresses a single "Messenger of God," Muhammad. Unlike the hundreds of references in the Quran to the stories of prophets such as Moses and Jesus, provides very little information about Muhammad himself,[52][53]his companions,[54] or his contemporaries. The individuals to whom the expressions used in Quranic polemics belong and the contexts in which they were used are merely notes made incommentaries written in later centuries. An exception is his slave/adopted sonZayd, whose name is mentioned in the verses (Al-Aḥzāb;37) in the context of his -divorced- wife being taken intoMuhammad's marriages.
Probably the clearest biographical account of Muhammad in the Quran is the brief mention of his followers' settlement inYathrib after their expulsion by theQuraysh, and of military encounters such as theMuslim victory at Badr.[54]
Modern scholars differ in their assessment of the Quran as a historical source about Muhammad's life. According to theEncyclopedia of Islam, the "Qur'an responds constantly and often candidly to Muhammad's changing historical circumstances and contains a wealth of hidden data that are relevant to the task of the quest for the historical Muhammad."[4] In contrast, Solomon A. Nigosian writes that the Quran tells us very little about the life of Muhammad.[5] Unlike the Bible's narratives of the life ofMoses orJesus, Michael Cook notes that
while the Koran tells many stories after its fashion, that of Muhammad is not among them. There are references to events in his life, but they are only references, not narratives. In addition, the book is not given to mentioning names in the context of its own time. Muhammad himself is named four times, and a couple of his contemporaries once each ... and for this reason it is almost impossible to relate the scripture to his life without going outside it.[55]
Unlike theQuran, thehadith andsīra are devoted to Muhammad, his life, his words, deeds, approval, and example to Muslims in general.
Much is believed to be known about Muhammad fromSira literature:
The life of Muhammad is known as theSira and was lived in the full light of history. Everything he did and said was recorded. Because he could not read and write himself, he was constantly served by a group of 45 scribes who wrote down his sayings, instructions, and his activities. Muhammad himself insisted on documenting his important decisions. Nearly three hundred of his documents have come down to us, including political treaties, military enlistments, assignments of officials, and state correspondence written on tanned leather. We thus know his life to the minutest details: how he spoke, sat, slept (sic), dressed, walked; his behavior as a husband, father, nephew; his attitudes toward women, children, animals; his business transactions and stance toward the poor and the oppressed ...[58][59][60]
In thesīra literature, the most important extant biography are the two recensions ofIbn Ishaq's (d. 768), now known asSīrat Rasūl Allah ("Biography/Life of the Messenger/Apostle of Allah"), which survive in the works of his editors, most notablyIbn Hisham (d. 834) and Yunus b. Bukayr (d.814–815), although not in its original form.[4] According to Ibn Hisham, Ibn Ishaq wrote his biography some 120 to 130 years after Muhammad's death. Many, but not all, scholars accept the accuracy of these biographies, though their accuracy is unascertainable.[5]
After Ibn Ishaq, there are a number of shorter accounts (some of which are earlier than Ibn Ishaq) recorded in different forms (seeList of earliest writers of sīra). Other biographies of Muhammad includeal-Waqidi's (d. 822) and thenIbn Sa'd's (d.844–45). Al-Waqidi is often criticized by earlyMuslim historians who state that the author is unreliable.[4] These are not "biographies" in the modern sense of the word, but rather accounts of Muhammad's military expeditions, his sayings, thereasons for and interpretations of verses in the Quran.[4]
Secular historians have been much more critical ofSīra.Tom Holland notes that Ibn Hisham credits angels with helping Muslims to victory at theBattle of Badr, and wonders why he should be considered a reliable historical source any more thanHomer (who portrayedgods as influencing battles in his epic poem theIliad).[61]
Henri Lammens complains of contradictions in the Traditions about Muhammad's life, including on the number of his children and wives. Some accounts have him having one child, others two, and still another claimed he had twelve children, including eight boys.[62][d] While most accounts state he had nine wives, "some passages of the sira speak of twenty three wives."[62] Muhammad is thought to have lived between 60 and 65 years according to tradition.[65]
According to Wim Raven, it is often noted that a coherent image of Muhammad cannot be formed from the literature of sīra, whose authenticity and factual value have been questioned on a number of different grounds.[66] He lists the following arguments against the authenticity of sīra, followed here by counter-arguments:
Nevertheless, other content of sīra, like theConstitution of Medina, are generally considered to be authentic by both Muslim and non-Muslim historians.[66]
Thehadith collections include traditional,hagiographic accounts ofverbal and physical traditions attributed to Muhammad, and for many, often explain what a verse in the Quran is referring to in regards to Muhammad.[71] Unlike the Quran, hadiths are not universally accepted by Muslims.[72][73][74]
EarlyMuslim scholars were concerned that some hadiths (and sīra reports) were fabricated, and thus they developed a science of hadith criticism (seeHadith studies) to distinguish between genuine sayings and those that were forged, recorded using different words, or were wrongly ascribed to Muhammad.
In general, the majority of western academics view thehadith collections with considerable caution.[75]Bernard Lewis states that "The collection and recording of Hadith did not take place until several generations after the death of the Prophet. During that period the opportunities and motives for falsification were almost unlimited."[76] In addition to fabrication, the meaning of a hadith may have substantially drifted from its original telling by the time it was written down.[8]
The main feature of hadith is that ofIsnad (chains of transmission), which are the basis of determining the authenticity of the reports in traditional Islamic scholarship. According to Stephen Humphreys, while a number of "very capable" modern scholars defended the general authenticity ofisnads, most modern scholars regardisnads with "deep suspicion",[77] due to the potential forisnads, like hadith, to be fabricated.[75]
Jonathan A. C. Brown, aSunni Muslim American scholar ofIslamic studies who follows theHanbali school of jurisprudence,[78] asserts that the hadith tradition is a "common sense science" or a "common sense tradition" and is "one of the biggest accomplishments in human intellectual history ... in its breadth, in its depth, in its complexity and in its internal consistency."[79]
.jpg)
Early Islamic history is also reflected in sources written inGreek,Syriac,Armenian, andHebrew by Jewish and Christian communities, all of which are dated after 633 CE.[5] These sources contain some essential differences with regard to Muslim sources, in particular regarding the chronology and Muhammad's attitude towards the Jews andPalestine.[5] According to Nevo and Koren, no Byzantine or Syriac sources provide any detail on "Muhammad's early career [...] which predate the Muslim literature on the subject".[80]
According to Syriac and Byzantine sources studied by historian S.P. Brock,[81] "The title 'prophet' [applied to Muhammad] is not very common, 'apostle' even less so. Normally he is simply described as the first of the Arab kings, and it would be generally true to say that the Syriac sources of this period see the conquests primarily as Arab, and not Muslim".[82][83]
There is a reference recording the Arab conquest of Syria (known asFragment on the Arab Conquests), that mentions Muhammad. This very faded note is preserved onfolio 1 ofBL Add. 14,461, a codex containing theGospel of Matthew and theGospel of Mark. This note appears to have been penned soon after thebattle of Gabitha (636 CE) at which the Arabs effected a crushing defeat of the Byzantines. Wright was first to draw the attention to the fragment and suggested that "it seems to be a nearly contemporary notice",[84] a view which was also endorsed by Nöldeke.[85] The purpose of jotting this note in the book of Gospels appears to be commemorative as the author appears to have realized how momentous the events of his time were. The words "we saw" are positive evidence that the author was a contemporary. The author also talks aboutolive oil, cattle, ruined villages, suggesting that he belonged to peasant stock, i.e., parish priest or a monk who could read and write. It is worthwhile cautioning that the condition of the text is fragmentary and many of the readings unclear or disputable. Thelacunae (gaps in the text) are supplied in square brackets:
... and in January, they took the word for their lives (did) [the sons of]Emesa [i.e., ̣Hiṃs)], and many villages were ruined with killing by [the Arabs of] Muḥammad and a great number of people were killed and captives [were taken] fromGalilee as far as Bēth [...] and those Arabs pitched camp beside [Damascus?] [...] and we saw everywhe[re...] and o[l]ive oil which they brought and them. And on the t[wenty six]th of May went S[ac[ella]rius]... cattle [...] [...] from the vicinity of Emesa and the Romans chased them [...] and on the tenth [of August] the Romans fled from the vicinity of Damascus [...] many [people] some 10,000. And at the turn [of the ye]ar the Romans came; and on the twentieth of August in the year n[ine hundred and forty-]seven there gathered inGabitha [...] the Romans and great many people were ki[lled of] [the R]omans, [s]ome fifty thousand [...][86][87]
The 7th-centuryChronicle of 640 was published by Wright who first brought to attention the mention of an early date of 947AG (635–36 CE).[88] The contents of this manuscript has puzzled many scholars for their apparent lack of coherence as it contains an assembly of texts with diverse nature.[89][90] In relation to Arabs of Mohammed, there are two important dates mentioned in this manuscript.
AG 945, indiction VII: On Friday, 4 February, [i.e., 634 CE / Dhul Qa'dah 12 AH] at the ninth hour, there was a battle between the Romans and the Arabs of Maḥmet [Syriactayyāyē d-MḤMT] in Palestine twelve miles east of Gaza. The Romans fled, leaving behind thepatrician Jordan [SyriacBRYRDN], whom the Arabs killed. Some 40,000 [according to the original edition, but the more recent English translation reads "4000" without comment] poor villagers of Palestine were killed there, Christians, Jews andSamaritans. The Arabs ravaged the whole region.[91]
AG 947, indiction IX: The Arabs invaded the whole of Syria and went down to Persia and conquered it; the Arabs climbed mountain ofMardin and killed many monks there in [the monasteries of] Qedar and Bnata (Benōthō).[92] There died the blessed man Simon, doorkeeper of Qedar, brother of Thomas the priest.[93][94]
It is the first date above which is of great importance as it provides the first explicit reference to Muhammad in a non-Muslim source. The account is usually identified with thebattle of Dathin.[95][96] According to Hoyland, "its precise dating inspires confidence that it ultimately derives from first-hand knowledge".[97]
Another account of the early seventh century comes fromSebeos who was anArmenian bishop of theHouse of Bagratuni. His account indicates he was writing at a time when memories of sudden eruption of the Arabs were fresh. He knows Muhammad's name, that he was a merchant by profession, and hints that his life was suddenly changed by a divinely inspired revelation.[98] Sebeos is the first non-Muslim author to present a theory for the rise of Islam that pays attention to what the Muslims themselves thought they were doing.[99]
At that time a certain man from along those same sons of Ismael, whose name was Mahmet [i.e., Muḥammad], a merchant, as if by God's command appeared to them as a preacher [and] the path of truth. He taught them to recognize the God of Abraham, especially because he was learnt and informed in the history of Moses. Now because the command was from on high, at a single order they all came together in unity of religion. Abandoning their vain cults, they turned to the living God who had appeared to their father Abraham. So, Mahmet legislated for them: not to eat carrion, not to drink wine, not to speak falsely, and not to engage in fornication. He said: 'With an oath God promised this land to Abraham and his seed after him for ever. And he brought about as he promised during that time while he loved Israel. But now you are the sons of Abraham and God is accomplishing his promise to Abraham and his seed for you. Love sincerely only the God of Abraham, and go and seize the land which God gave to your father Abraham. No one will be able to resist you in battle, because God is with you.[100]
From this chronicle, there are indications that he lived through many of the events he relates. He maintains that the account of Arab conquests derives from the fugitives who had been eyewitnesses thereof. He concludes withMu'awiya's ascendancy in theArab civil war (656–661 CE), which suggests that he was writing soon after this date.
Though the Quran contains few and rudimentary details of the prophet's life, most of the biographical information about Muhammad comes from the sirah (biographical literature), especially the work of Ibn Ishaq (d. 768).[101] These sources normally provide a historical trail of names that lead, in some cases, to an eyewitness and sometimes converge with other earlier sources near the time of the prophet.[101] Though "there is no compelling reason to suggest that the basic scaffolding of the traditional Islamic account of Muhammad's life is historical", a much more detailed biography is difficult to be understood as historically certain knowledge.[101] According to Wim Raven, attempts to distinguish between the historical elements and the unhistorical elements of many of the reports of Muhammad have been problematic.[102] According to F. E. Peters, despite any difficulties with the biographical sources, scholars generally see valuable historical information about Muhammad therein and suggest that what is needed are methods to be able to sort out the likely from the unlikely.[7]
In the 1970s, theRevisionist School of Islamic Studies raised fundamental doubts about the reliability of traditional Islamic sources and applied thehistorical-critical methods to the early Islamic period, including the veracity of the conventional account of Muhammad. A major source of difficulty in the quest for the historical Muhammad is the modern lack of knowledge about pre-Islamic Arabia.[33] According toHarald Motzki, "On the one hand, it is not possible to write a historical biography of the Prophet without being accused of using the sources uncritically, while on the other hand, when using the sources critically, it is simply not possible to write such a biography."[5]
In 1952, French ArabistRégis Blachère, author of a critical biography of Muhammad that took "fully into account the skeptical conclusions" ofIgnác Goldziher andHenri Lammens, i.e. that Islamic hadith had been corrupted and could not be considered reliable sources of information, wrote
We no longer have any sources that would allow us to write a detailed history of Muhammad with a rigorous and continuous chronology. To resign oneself to a partial or total ignorance is necessary, above all for everything that concerns the period prior to Muhammad's divine call [ca. 610 CE]. All a truly scientific biography can achieve is to lay out the successive problems engendered by this preapostolate period, sketch out the general background atmosphere in which Muhammad received his divine call, give in broad brush strokes the development of his apostleship at Mecca, try with a greater chance of success to put in order the known facts, and finally put back into the penumbra all that remains uncertain. To want to go further is to fall into hagiography or romanticization.[103]
Michael Cook laments that comparing Ibn Ishaq with the later commentatorAl-Waqid—who based his writing on Ibn Ishaq but added much colorful but made-up detail—reveals how oral history can be contaminated by the fiction of storytellers (qussa).[104] "We have seen what half a century of story-telling could achieve between Ibn Ishaq and al-Waqidi, at a time when we know that much material had already been committed to writing. What the same processes may have brought about in the century before Ibn Ishaq is something we can only guess at."[105]
Overall, Cook takes the view that evidence independent of Islamic tradition "precludes any doubts as to whether Muhammad was a real person" and clearly shows that he became the central figure of a new religion in the decades following his death. He reports, though, that this evidence conflicts with the Islamic view in some aspects, associating Muhammad with Israel rather than Inner Arabia, complicating the question of his sole authorship or transmission of the Quran, and suggesting that there were Jews as well as Arabs among his followers.[106]
Cook's fellowrevisionistPatricia Crone complains thatSīrat is written "not by a grandchild, but a great grandchild of the Prophet's generation", that it is written from the point of view of theulama andAbbasid, so that "we shall never know ... how theUmayyad caliphs remembered their prophet".[107]
While Crone argues that Muhammad was a person whose existence is supported by various sources, she takes a view that Muhammad's traditional association with the Arabian Peninsula may be "doctrinally inspired", and is put in doubt by the Quran itself, which describes agricultural activity that could not have taken place there, as well as making a reference to the site ofSodom which appears to place Muhammad's community close to theDead Sea.[108]
Concerning the dates of Muhammad's life, Lawrence Conrad writes that "well into the second century A.H. [Islamic] scholarly opinion on the birth date of the Prophet displayed a range of variance of 85 years. On the assumption that chronology is crucial to the stabilization of any tradition of historical narrative, whether transmitted orally or in writing, one can see in this state of affairs a clear indication thatsīra studies in the second century were still in a state of flux".[57] Since second century A.H. scholarly opinion is the earliest scholarly opinion, and assuming the closer scholars were to the actual event the more likely their sources are to be accurate, this suggests a surprising lack of information among Islamic scholars about basic information on Muhammad.[109]
Robert Hoyland suggests his historical importance may have been exaggerated by his followers, writing that "other" Arab leaders "in other locations" had preceded Muhammad in attacking the weakened Byzantine and Persian empires, but these had been "airbrushed out of history by later Muslim writers". Hoyland and other historians argue that the original Arab invaders were not all Muslims.[110]
Some historians have posited the belief that Muhammad may be mythical. In their 2003 bookCrossroads to Islam,Yehuda D. Nevo and Judith Koren advanced a thesis, based on an extensive examination of archaeological evidence from theNegev desert from theEarly Islamic period, that Muhammad may never have existed, with monotheistic Islam only coming into existence some time after he is supposed to have lived. This has been described as "plausible or at least arguable" by David Cook ofRice University, but also compared toHolocaust denial by historianColin Wells, who suggests that the authors deal with some of the evidence illogically.[111]
In 2007,Karl-Heinz Ohlig suggested that the person of Muhammed was not central to early Islam at all, and that at this very early stage Islam was in fact an Arabic Christian sect which had objections to the concept of thetrinity, and that the later hadith and biographies are in large partlegends, instrumental in severing Islam from its Christian roots and building a full-blown new religion.[112] In 2008,Sven Kalisch, a former Muslim convert and Germany's first professor of Islamic theology, also questioned whether the prophet Muhammad existed.[113] In 2011,Hans Jansen, a Dutch scholar, expressed similar views.[114]
Popular writer, blogger, and critic of Islam,Robert Spencer, has argued thatMuhammad did not exist and proposes that he was made up by Arab leaders. He defended his ideas in his book titledDid Muhammad Exist.
Richard Carrier suggested minimal historical existence of Muhammad, but insisted that he is not qualified to make this suggestion.[115]
The tacit assumption is that Muhammad is a historical figure whose traditional biography is a reasonably accurate account of his life.
Literary was invoked but never defined (see thehelp page).Great confusion is introduced into the Arab descriptions of the Noble Sanctuary by the indiscriminate use of the terms Al Masjid or Al Masjid al Akså, Jami' or Jami al Aksâ; and nothing but an intimate acquaintance with the locality described will prevent a translator, ever and again, misunderstanding the text he has before him-since the native authorities use the technical terms in an extraordinarily inexact manner, often confounding the whole, and its part, under the single denomination of "Masjid." Further, the usage of various writers differs considerably on these points : Mukaddasi invariably speaks of the whole Haram Area as Al Masjid, or as Al Masjid al Aksî, "the Akså Mosque," or "the mosque," while the Main-building of the mosque, at the south end of the Haram Area, which we generally term the Aksa, he refers to as Al Mughattâ, "the Covered-part." Thus he writes "the mosque is entered by thirteen gates," meaning the gates of the Haram Area. So also "on the right of the court," means along the west wall of the Haram Area; "on the left side" means the east wall; and "at the back" denotes the northern boundary wall of the Haram Area. Nasir-i-Khusrau, who wrote in Persian, uses for the Main-building of the Aksâ Mosque the Persian word Pushish, that is, "Covered part," which exactly translates the Arabic Al Mughatta. On some occasions, however, the Akså Mosque (as we call it) is spoken of by Näsir as the Maksurah, a term used especially to denote the railed-off oratory of the Sultan, facing the Mihrâb, and hence in an extended sense applied to the building which includes the same. The great Court of the Haram Area, Nâsir always speaks of as the Masjid, or the Masjid al Akså, or again as the Friday Mosque (Masjid-i-Jum'ah).
Sous la domination musulmane il fut agrandi, et c'est (aujourd'hui) la grande mosquée connue par les Musulmans sous le nom de Mesdjid el-Acsa مسجد الأقصى. Il n'en existe pas au monde qui l'égale en grandeur, si l'on en excepte toutefois la grande mosquée de Cordoue en Andalousie; car, d'après ce qu'on rapporte, le toit de cette mosquée est plus grand que celui de la Mesdjid el-Acsa. Au surplus, l'aire de cette dernière forme un parallelogramme dont la hauteur est de deux cents brasses (ba'a), et le base de cents quatre-vingts. La moitié de cet espace, celle qui est voisin du Mihrab, est couverte d'un toit (ou plutôt d'un dôme) en pierres soutenu par plusieurs rangs de colonnes; l'autre est à ciel ouvert. Au centre de l'édifice est un grand dôme connu sous le nom de Dôme de la roche; il fut orné d'arabesques en or et d'autres beaux ouvrages, par les soins de divers califes musulmans. Le dôme est percé de quatre portes; en face de celle qui est à l'occident, on voit l'autel sur lequel les enfants d'Israël offraient leurs sacrifices; auprès de la porte orientale est l'église nommée le saint des saints, d'une construction élégante; au midi est une chapelle qui était à l'usage des Musulmans; mais les chrétiens s'en sont emparés de vive force et elle est restée en leur pouvoir jusqu'à l'époque de la composition du présent ouvrage. Ils ont converti cette chapelle en un couvent où résident des religieux de l'ordre des templiers, c'est-à-dire des serviteurs de la maison de Dieu.Also atWilliams, G.; Willis, R. (1849)."Account of Jerusalem during the Frank Occupation, extracted from the Universal Geography of Edrisi. Climate III. sect. 5. Translated by P. Amédée Jaubert. Tome 1. pp. 341—345.".The Holy City: Historical, Topographical, and Antiquarian Notices of Jerusalem. J.W. Parker.Archived from the original on 19 July 2023. Retrieved31 July 2022.
QuotingMujir al-Din: "Verily, 'Al-Aqsa' is a name for the whole mosque which is surrounded by the wall, the length and width of which are mentioned here, for the building that exists in the southern part of the Mosque, and the other ones such as the Dome of the Rock and the corridors and other [buildings] are novel"
THE AKSÀ MOSQUE. The great mosque of Jerusalem, Al Masjid al Aksà, the "Further Mosque," derives its name from the traditional Night Journey of Muhammad, to which allusion is made in the words of the Kuran (xvii. I)... the term "Mosque" being here taken to denote the whole area of the Noble Sanctuary, and not the Main-building of the Aksà only, which, in the Prophet's days, did not exist.
…the term Masjid (whence, through the Spanish Mezquita, our word Mosque) denotes the whole of the sacred edifice, comprising the main building and the court, with its lateral arcades and minor chapels. The earliest specimen of the Arab mosque consisted of an open courtyard, within which, round its four walls, run colonades or cloisters to give shelter to the worshippers. On the side of the court towards the Kiblah (in the direction of Mekka), and facing which the worshipper must stand, the colonade, instead of being single, is, for the convenience of the increased numbers of the congregation, widened out to form the Jami' or place of assembly… coming now to the Noble Sanctuary at Jerusalem, we must remember that the term 'Masjid' belongs not only to the Aksa mosque (more properly the Jami' or place of assembly for prayer), but to the whole enclosure with the Dome of the Rock in the middle, and all the other minor domes and chapels.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)two of the hill monasteries behind Mardin
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) found and translated inIbn Warraq, ed. (2000). "1. Studies on Muhammad and the Rise of Islam".The Quest for the Historical Muhammad. Prometheus. p. 51.ISBN 9781573927871.Islam topics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Methodology |
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Topics |
| ||||||
| Related | |||||||
