Makka
klei...@astound.net
Makka began. It is my understanding that Saudi rebuilding in recent
years has almost certainly destroyed any archeological evidence that
there might have been. Evidence from coins seems highly unlikely and
new inscriptions are unlikely to be discovered. Note that such "hard"
evidence might yet turn up, but the probability that it will is very
small..
That leaves us with the literary tradition. Even here more evidence
might yet turn up, but I will ignore that possibility.
The non-Muslim records of Makka are surprisingly late. It is my
understanding that there no non-Muslim notices of Makka before the end
of the first Islamic century and only a few in the second century.
But it seems to me that the weight of Muslim tradition in the second
century is too great to be casually dismissed. Makka must have been a
long familiar part of Islam at the end of the first Islamic century.
We remain uncertain where Muhammad began his career. It seems to be an
assured fact that he came to Yathrib with a band of followers
(apparently called Quraysh) from somewhere else. In my opinion, there
is no good reason to believe he started in Makka (the Qur'an does not
so assert).
After Muhammad was settled in Yathrib, according to the generally
accepted traditions, he began a series of "raids" in which he led bands
of armed followers to various places in the Hijaz. In the last of these
raids (other than the raid of Tabuk, which I believe to be
a late addition to the tradition) he and his army attacked, and were
driven away from, the walled city of Ta'if. On the way to Ta'if he is
said to have taken over Makka.
Apart from mentions of one or another person going on Hajj, the next
thing we hear is that when Yazid's army threatened Madina (the renamed
Yathrib) some of the worthies who were in opposition to Yazid fled to
Makka. I assume that actually means Ta'if which makes much better
sense. The original reports may have said that they fled to the Hijaz.
Madina fought back against Yazid's army and its defenders were
massacred. Madina was sacked (apparently the first case of a Muslim
army sacking a Muslim city). We are told that the leader of Yazid's
army died of natural causes very soon thereafter. Moreover first Yazid
and then his successor also died. The Army went back to Damascus
without settling matters in the Hijaz.
The next notice we get is that 'Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr had set himself
up as commander of the faithful (and, it appears, caliph, a title which
he was the first to use) and had built the Ka'aba in Makka. The year is
AH 65. The traditions say that he only re-built the Ka'aba after it had
been destroyed in the fighting with Yazid's army.
'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan who succeeded in Damascus was only able to
destroy Ibn Zubayr's caliphate when he sent al-Hajjaj ibnYusuf against
him in AH 73. The Ka'aba that al-Zubayr had built was destroyed and
al-Hajjaj re-built it. It is my belief that the story about the
destruction of the Ka'aba in AH 65 is a duplicate narration to what
happened in AH 73. In the intervening eight years Ibn al-Zubayr had
established himslelf in what is now Makka and, in effect, had created
the town.
Which is not to say that Makka had not previously been a sacred place,
especially the well Zamzam, and a center of pilgrimage. Only that it
was not a town and not a center of trade where the Quraysh were the
rulers.
Which, as usual, leaves the question: Who then were the Quraysh?