When, specifically, and under what circumstances were non-Muslims first barred from Mecca?
October 5, 2005 11:32 AM   Subscribe

When, specifically, and under what circumstances were non-Muslims first barred from Mecca? Is there a scriptural theological basis for this? When was the last time an interloper was caught, and what happened to him (or was it her)? What is the current offical penalty for non-compliance? Foot notes appreciated.
posted by IndigoJones to Law & Government (17 answers total) 1 user marked this as a favorite
 
I read that Spike Lee faked a conversion to Islam in order to get into Mecca. Not sure whether you'd call that "interloping" or not.
posted by Clay201 at 11:55 AM on October 5, 2005


A source for sources.
posted by Pollomacho at 12:07 PM on October 5, 2005


Sir Richard Burton's first hand account of his pilgrimage in 1853.

Related Wikipedia entry.

Neither one says what the penalties were, but they must have been pretty severe because according to Wikipedia, Burton had himself circumcised before the trip, to reduce the chances of being discovered.
posted by alms at 12:32 PM on October 5, 2005


Actually, the Wikipedia link above does quote Burton as saying, "neither Koran or Sultan enjoin the death of Jew or Christian intruding within the columns that note the sanctuary limits, nothing could save a European detected by the populace, or one who after pilgrimage declared himself an unbeliever."

In other words: death penalty, at least it 1853.
posted by alms at 12:36 PM on October 5, 2005


Response by poster: Carsten Niebuhr in his Reisebeschreibung nach Arabien und anderen umliegenden Ländern (1766) also wrote that it has no religious basis, but it wasn't really his area of expertise. Which is actually what made me wonder. He didn't even try, by the way, same reasons as Burton.

Pollomacho- Fordham rules, it must be said early and often, thanks. They're on the favorites list. (Didn't find any answers there, alas.)

Clay201- IMDB says Mr Lee sent in a second all muslim unit to avoid any unpleasantness.
posted by IndigoJones at 2:12 PM on October 5, 2005


There is scriptural evidence according to a couple of the interpretive methodologies of the sunni variant of Islam, mainly under the Maliki and Hanbali (of which the methodology of the Saudis is an offshoot) madhabs. I'll give more detail when I have the time, probably weekend, busy week..

I don't think the current penalty is death - maybe e-mail the saudi embassy to find out? Historically it would be eviction as nobody considered this a hadd, even ta'zir would be hard pushed unless you were trying to commit terrorism/violence.
posted by Mossy at 3:20 PM on October 5, 2005


A very interesting question. The theoretical basis seems to be Qur'an 9:28:
O you who have attained to faith! Those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God are nothing but impure: and so they shall not approach the Invisible House of Worship from this year onwards. And should you fear poverty, then [know that] in time God will enrich you out of His bounty, if He so wills: for, verily, God is all-knowing, wise!
Muhammad Asad (whose edition I quote) comments that "this year" is 9 A.H. (A.D. 630) and that the last sentence "is an allusion to the apprehension on the part of some Muslims... that an exclusion of unbelievers from living in or visiting Mecca might lead to a loss of its position as a center of trade and commerce, and thus to an impoverishment of its inhabitants."

Now, the theoretical problem is that Jews and Christians are not polytheists. You can find a discussion among Muslims about this here (I'll point out that "ALLAHu Alim" means "God is the knower," i.e., "Only God knows the truth of this").

None of which addresses the actual history of the exclusion. The Encyclopedia of Islam article on Mekka ("Makka" in their transliteration) mentions that the early caliphs 'Umar and 'Uthman "brought Christian engineers to build barrages in the high-lying quarters," so obviously Christians were not barred in the mid-seventh century, but I can't find any discussion of the issue (on the other hand, the article is over 40 pages long, so I may have missed something). If anyone can turn up material on this, I'll be as glad as the poster.
posted by languagehat at 3:34 PM on October 5, 2005


Response by poster: Languagehat- interesting link, thank you. Interesting commentary on the trade aspects also. I had vaguely wondered if that had been a concern back then. Now I know.

Mossy- we're counting on you! Thank you in advance.

And anyone else who might have input.
posted by IndigoJones at 5:12 PM on October 5, 2005


The imam answering this question on Ask Islam doesn't say when, exactly, but concurs that "idolators" and Christians initially frequented the city because of its centrality to the tribal societies, and that the ban was "a later invention of the Dark Ages of Islam" -- although I'm not sure what he means by Dark Ages, in this context. The original text (quoted above) mentions only the Grand Mosque itself; the interpretations which extended to the entire city, as well as the entire city of Medina, are certainly now enforced by the Saudi government, though whether it was true in the era before Saudi rule is unclear. For almost a millennium Mecca was under its own Sharif, and it was probably his law that prevailed.

Personally, I'm guessing that this may have been something that was instituted by early Wahabbism, i.e. in the mid-18th century or afterward as their influence increased. (The House of Saud has always been Wahabbi.) It's an ascetic, rejectionist sect that even today is seeking to strip Islam of the slightest hint of accretionism. Their fierce brand of Islam is so strict that they're happily destroying the historic character of Mecca in order to better reflect their theology (cf.)
posted by dhartung at 6:23 PM on October 5, 2005


OK, Burckhardt -- a Swiss-British convert to Islam (perhaps insincere), and one of the first Westerners to write of Mecca -- stated in 1811:

none but a Moslem could be permitted to see the holy cities

So it was established tradition or law by that point.
posted by dhartung at 9:23 PM on October 5, 2005


Besides, the Wahhabis only had control of Mecca and Medina for a few years in the early 19th century (until they unified Arabia in the early 20th, that is), and after they were kicked out by Mehmet/Muhammad Ali any innovations they introduced were promptly repealed.

I had vaguely wondered if that had been a concern back then. Now I know.

Well, you know what a well-informed modern Muslim thinks. If you're talking about actual history ("how it really was"), some scholars think Mecca was not in fact an important center of trade in the early Islamic period (excerpt here).
posted by languagehat at 7:37 AM on October 6, 2005


Response by poster: If you're talking about actual history...

Okay, now I know even more better. Another one for the must read list.

I'd just add, this is becoming more interesting than I had hoped or expected, thanks to all and please don't stop now.

(BTW, Languagehat, Abun-Nasr has most proven useful, for which thank you as well. Recommend a book, get a recommendation, I always say. I notice you don't have Alex Shoumatoff's Russian Blood on your Librarything list. It really should be.)
posted by IndigoJones at 8:24 AM on October 6, 2005


You know, I could have sworn I had that, but I may be thinking of Ignatieff's Russian Album. On the other hand, it may just be hiding. What you have to realize about my LibraryThing catalog is that I started with the books at the front of the shelves and am only now working my way to the books hidden behind them in the back rows, so there are still a number of russkii books to come. Anyway, I'm glad you like Abun-Nasr!
posted by languagehat at 12:52 PM on October 6, 2005


Indigo: I was going to send you an e-mail, but you don't list an address. If you'll write me, I'll send you a resource on Islam I don't want to publicize here for fear it will disappear.
posted by languagehat at 2:41 PM on October 7, 2005


Response by poster: I really should, and so I shall.

indigojones2@yahoo.com (you wouldn't have thought there was more than one, would you?)

Many thanks, I look forward to new worlds.
posted by IndigoJones at 9:28 AM on October 9, 2005


I'm afraid given the events of this weekend I've only now had a few minutes to rummage - for a proper answer I would recommend enquiring at the non-muslim section of www.sunniforum.com, or, for the salafi take, submitting a question at www.islamqa.com (which is the "official" saudi version of salafism, as distinct from bin Laden's type ( vs jihadi)).

From what I've seen though, people of the book with whom there was a treaty were allowed to enter the area for quite a while, as cited by sidi Faraz in his reference to radd al muthar (you can find it at feqh.al-islam.com if you can read arabic) and other Hanafi works.

The position of the Maliki madhab was indeed one of complete prohibition based on the above cited ayat of surah tawbah (9:28) - indeed, this prohibition extends in the Maliki madhab to all masjid which are endowments (waqf - not many nowadays in the west) as the associated evidences point to non-muslims being ritually impure and hence to be kept away from the place of purity. Looking at Ibn Qudamah's Mughni (which is very good for Hanbali reference) and some excerpts I have from it (regrettebly I lack the book and my arabic is shocking), this appears to be similar to the Hanbali view as stated before, which would be predominant in that area as the Maliki and Hanbali madhabs were predominant in that area as opposed to the Hanafi and Shafi which evolved in Iraq. Looking further there are quotes from the likes of Imam Malik saying that nonbelievers should be expelled from the entire arabian peninsula, save perhaps for the purpose of trade and then restricted to three days (which would not really be sufficient to get to Makkah).

Sorry if none of that made good sense, am exhausted. Do ask on those links above.

Would you mind sneding me the resource languagehat? I'm always curious to see as many as I can.
posted by Mossy at 3:47 PM on October 9, 2005


Just remembered sr Bewley's excellent online (mainly Maliki) resources and found this: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ABewley/tawba2.html

Check down to ayat 28 for the appropriate tafsir for this situation which cites the position of the Imams (Abu Hanifa, Shafi etc). This would reinforce that non-muslims were prohibited very early indeed.
posted by Mossy at 3:52 PM on October 9, 2005


« Older DIY cross-stitch patterns?   |   nyc cable Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.