Shahin Vatani
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2012
- Messages
- 2,025
- Reaction score
- 0
Mecca has always been our locus. Islam was incomplete until Mecca embraced it. Muhammad willed himself to live only as long as Mecca was not his. For forteen hundred years we have gone to Mecca in search of God, in fulfillment of duty. We have assured that the pilgrim’s path to Mecca be unimpeded. We have stepped in the footprints of Abraham in Mecca. We have kissed the black stone of Mecca. We have stoned the devil in Mecca. We have killed those like Hallaj who dared to make a Mecca in their backyard. We have told stories about the invincibility of Mecca – how no birds fly directly over the Kaba; how even an army of elephants were rent asunder on the plains outside Mecca; attempted to prove how Mecca is the center of the universe; how Adam first landed in Mecca (and not Sri Lanka); how Mecca is our everything.
Unfortunately, the city of eminence is also the fount of sorrow. The place of our genesis is also the spring of our misfortunes. Mecca is the Muslim’s Helen of Troy. A being so sacred as to arouse a thousand phallii, and launch a thousand deaths. Mecca has been the battleground, if not directly, then symbolically, for every battle of legitimacy in Islamic History. Mecca may be lovely, but in our love of Mecca we have hurt each other immensely. Perhaps we would have never had to battle one another over Mecca (or over “Mecca”
if the Prophet would have left a clergy in place. Or if he would have left a political structure in place. Or if he would have left angels to rule us in his stead. However, given that he did no such thing, given that he left us to our own individual devices, it meant that each and every one of us felt that we were the true guardians of Mecca, that each one of us in his own capacity, was the true guardian of God’s Arabian Abode. In each of our desires to assume this responsibility we turned against one another. We killed one another. We separated from one another.
Mecca, you see, whether we realize it or not, is our temporal unifier, not, as most are wont to believe, The Caliphate. Shia, Sunni, Black, White, Broken, Rich, we agree all on the fact that the soul of Islam stems from Mecca and the spine of Islam is rooted in Mecca. A cursory look at Islamic History confirms this, because we see that we have not considered any Caliphate legitimate unless it was somehow connected to Mecca. Let me put it another way: while there have been many Caliphs and Sultans in the lands of Muslims, we have only considered the ultimate rulers of Islam to be those who had dominion over Mecca. The Umayyads were only the Caliphs of Islam as long as they held Mecca. When the Abbassids took it from them, the Umayyads were no more the Caliph. In fact, even as the Umayyads left Arabia and settled in Spain and called themselves Caliph, still no one consented to them being able to assume that title. Why? Because they did not have dominion over Mecca. Then, when the Seljuks controlled the Abbassids and even controlled the capital, Baghdad, the Seljuks still did not call themselves Caliph, but rather, consented to letting the Abbassids wear the title. Why? Because the Seljuks did not have dominion over Mecca. Finally, the Ottomans did not call themselves Caliph, did not have the authority to call themselves Caliph, until they first had dominion over Mecca. In other words, Muslims have believed that what unifies them is the specter of a political empire called the Caliph, when, quite obviously, what truly unifies them is a political actor who has dominion over Mecca. It is Mecca, as I stated, which is the locus.
In the context of the modern nation-state, the centrality of Mecca to all Muslims has been the cause of immense trouble. It has meant, that whether Muslims like it or not, the House of Saud is now the presumptive leader of Islam. Why? Because they have dominion over Mecca. Out of respect, the balance of Muslims in the world cannot decry the House of Saud, for they are the “Guardians of The Two Holy Mosques.” The majority of the Muslim nations simply consent to the notion that the House of Saud is our presumptive leader and neither break away from its propaganda and disinformation, nor prevent its scholars from trampeling them under foot. The deep-seated respect for Mecca provides the House of Saud with religious legitimacy in the entire Muslim world, such that everything that comes from Saudi Arabia is considered to be the truest expression of Islam (even if it is clearly anti-Islamic). It is not Saudi oil which sells Wahhabi theology. It is the weight of Mecca which gives it gravity. Take away Mecca and the theology of regression follows suit.
Yet, as noted, it is virtually impossible to challenge those who control Mecca unless that challenge stems from Mecca. The Ottomans were the only rulers in the history of Islam who took Mecca from outside, and it was a stroke of luck. Otherwise, Mecca has always given itself over to another on its own. Abdul Wahhab, who launched the offensive to take Mecca back from the Ottomans was an Arabian. The House of Saud, which finished what Wahhab started, was Arabian. This means that unless the House of Saud fails internally, or if it voluntarily abdicates, Mecca will belong solely to the Saudi, and that means that the Saudi influence over the world will have no reason to recede. This is the challenge of the nation-state. The pre-nation-state world was flexible. Boundaries shifted and lines could be redrawn and things if not conquered, could be purchased. Now, with lines that can’t be erased, and nations that cannot be disunited, and embassies that are profligate, and passports that must be issued, and a little thing called citizenship, things are different. There can be no challenge to the dyad that the House of Saud and Mecca have become.
That is not to say there are no challengers. Mecca is the beloved. It always induced lovers. However, given the fact that it is impossible in the nation-state world to fight on the basis of “Islam” Muslims now fight over Mecca in subtler, proxy ways. Iran, which itself wishes to have some claim to theological legitimacy, tries to do an end-around the entire problem by trying to locate its temporal authority in Jerusalem (which alas, is only the third holiest city). We have seen what comes out of such jockeying for religious legitimacy: Iran supports Hizbollah and Hamas in order to off-set the theological weight that Saudi Arabia can throw around. It may be hard for those in the West to believe this, but Muslims care first and foremost about their religion and their relationship to the holy places of their faith.
They care about the rest of the world only after that. In other words, the reason that Iran exceeds all other nations in its anti-Israeli zeal is because unlike the rest of the Muslim world it cannot sit placidly on the idea that it does not have dominion over Mecca. All other Muslim nations — Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia, have recognized how the modern nation-state model inhibits them from ever being the leaders of Islam (by having dominion over Mecca) and thus aim simply to have good relations with the House of Saud.
However, things have to change. The stranglehold of the House of Saud has to be lessened in some non-violent way. Iran cannot be allowed to wage its pursuit of Mecca by using the Palestinians as its pawns. Wahhabi literature, stamped from Mecca, (especially that disingenous “Noble Quran” translation), cannot be permitted to be the standard bearer of Islamic Theology. An internal Saudi revolution is not imminent. Even if it was, it would bring with it an even more jihadist theology. We have seen the status-quo and we have recognized that it is horrid. Yet, what is the solution? There will be no alliance of Sunni nations who will conspire against the House of Saud with the assistance of a Western state. Destroying Mecca outright is out of the question, and throwing weight behind Iran does not seem like a viable option gives its own schizophrenic tendencies and repressive mullocracy. We do not want to take Mecca from the Hanbali theologian and hand it over to the Jafari. Yet, we know that things have to change.
The only possible solution is for a collection of Muslim nation-states to begin a movement using international legal remedies and diplomacy to make Mecca (and Medina) either independent nation-states unto themselves (as is the Vatican), or to have them rendered international protectorates, the task of their protection and maintainance falling upon the Muslim world jointly. Mecca and Medina will never be short of funds: the close to 3 million pilgrims a year will assure that. Nor will it need protective forces because there is no threat of invasion. However, the question today is not what Mecca needs, but what the Muslim needs. More than anything, the Muslim needs a Mecca that belongs to everyone equally. Only when Mecca belongs to all can Muslims say that Islam belongs to all. Only when Islam belongs to all will Muslims be able to say that the best Islam is the Islam that is most righteous instead of having to concede that the Saudi Islam is the best because it bears the authority of Mecca. I am certain that when Muslims compete over which Islam is most righteous as opposed to which Islam is most Arabian, the Muslim world will shake off its regressive theologies and advance. The Muslim world has tools which can effectuate this change. The Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) is a 55 nation consortium with nothing to do. It can be tasked with the administrative authority over Mecca. The House of Saud can be compensated generously for having consented to such gracious sharing. And yet, Muslims, by having a Mecca that is no longer identified by its ethnicity, but by its religion, can all compete to become better Muslims, as opposed to competing to become the pawns of Saud.
We need one able Muslim leader to start agitating for a free Mecca (and Medina). Separate Mecca from the House of Saud and immediately Islam acquires a central authority. Certainly arguments will take place as to whose vision of Islam ought dominate Mecca. Certainly the richer Muslim nations will exert more influence over Mecca. Certainly everyone will wish to wear the honor of being the primary ruler of the Kaba. However, there is an anecdote from the life of Muhammad which provides a solution to all of these concerns. While Muhammad was still a youth, and prior to his ministry, a great argument broke out amongst the leaders of Mecca. Apparently the Kaba was flooded and had to be repaired. After all the repairs had taken place, only one stone needed to be replaced. Each tribal leader wished to have the honor of being the one to carry that stone. Muhammad was called for to provide a way to end the disagreement. He suggested that instead of fighting, the stone be placed in the middle of a wide sheet, and each of the tribal leaders carry one edge of the sheet to the Kaba, where he then planted the stone into the wall. It is something akin to thise that is proposed here with respect to Mecca. Let all Muslims carry it together and we will have no more need of a Caliphate and can live satisfactorily within our nations. This is the most imperative step in the opening up of Islam. Muhammad intended that Mecca belong to all. Mecca is not a monopoly.
Mecca is not a Monopoly – Ali Eteraz
Unfortunately, the city of eminence is also the fount of sorrow. The place of our genesis is also the spring of our misfortunes. Mecca is the Muslim’s Helen of Troy. A being so sacred as to arouse a thousand phallii, and launch a thousand deaths. Mecca has been the battleground, if not directly, then symbolically, for every battle of legitimacy in Islamic History. Mecca may be lovely, but in our love of Mecca we have hurt each other immensely. Perhaps we would have never had to battle one another over Mecca (or over “Mecca”
if the Prophet would have left a clergy in place. Or if he would have left a political structure in place. Or if he would have left angels to rule us in his stead. However, given that he did no such thing, given that he left us to our own individual devices, it meant that each and every one of us felt that we were the true guardians of Mecca, that each one of us in his own capacity, was the true guardian of God’s Arabian Abode. In each of our desires to assume this responsibility we turned against one another. We killed one another. We separated from one another.Mecca, you see, whether we realize it or not, is our temporal unifier, not, as most are wont to believe, The Caliphate. Shia, Sunni, Black, White, Broken, Rich, we agree all on the fact that the soul of Islam stems from Mecca and the spine of Islam is rooted in Mecca. A cursory look at Islamic History confirms this, because we see that we have not considered any Caliphate legitimate unless it was somehow connected to Mecca. Let me put it another way: while there have been many Caliphs and Sultans in the lands of Muslims, we have only considered the ultimate rulers of Islam to be those who had dominion over Mecca. The Umayyads were only the Caliphs of Islam as long as they held Mecca. When the Abbassids took it from them, the Umayyads were no more the Caliph. In fact, even as the Umayyads left Arabia and settled in Spain and called themselves Caliph, still no one consented to them being able to assume that title. Why? Because they did not have dominion over Mecca. Then, when the Seljuks controlled the Abbassids and even controlled the capital, Baghdad, the Seljuks still did not call themselves Caliph, but rather, consented to letting the Abbassids wear the title. Why? Because the Seljuks did not have dominion over Mecca. Finally, the Ottomans did not call themselves Caliph, did not have the authority to call themselves Caliph, until they first had dominion over Mecca. In other words, Muslims have believed that what unifies them is the specter of a political empire called the Caliph, when, quite obviously, what truly unifies them is a political actor who has dominion over Mecca. It is Mecca, as I stated, which is the locus.
In the context of the modern nation-state, the centrality of Mecca to all Muslims has been the cause of immense trouble. It has meant, that whether Muslims like it or not, the House of Saud is now the presumptive leader of Islam. Why? Because they have dominion over Mecca. Out of respect, the balance of Muslims in the world cannot decry the House of Saud, for they are the “Guardians of The Two Holy Mosques.” The majority of the Muslim nations simply consent to the notion that the House of Saud is our presumptive leader and neither break away from its propaganda and disinformation, nor prevent its scholars from trampeling them under foot. The deep-seated respect for Mecca provides the House of Saud with religious legitimacy in the entire Muslim world, such that everything that comes from Saudi Arabia is considered to be the truest expression of Islam (even if it is clearly anti-Islamic). It is not Saudi oil which sells Wahhabi theology. It is the weight of Mecca which gives it gravity. Take away Mecca and the theology of regression follows suit.
Yet, as noted, it is virtually impossible to challenge those who control Mecca unless that challenge stems from Mecca. The Ottomans were the only rulers in the history of Islam who took Mecca from outside, and it was a stroke of luck. Otherwise, Mecca has always given itself over to another on its own. Abdul Wahhab, who launched the offensive to take Mecca back from the Ottomans was an Arabian. The House of Saud, which finished what Wahhab started, was Arabian. This means that unless the House of Saud fails internally, or if it voluntarily abdicates, Mecca will belong solely to the Saudi, and that means that the Saudi influence over the world will have no reason to recede. This is the challenge of the nation-state. The pre-nation-state world was flexible. Boundaries shifted and lines could be redrawn and things if not conquered, could be purchased. Now, with lines that can’t be erased, and nations that cannot be disunited, and embassies that are profligate, and passports that must be issued, and a little thing called citizenship, things are different. There can be no challenge to the dyad that the House of Saud and Mecca have become.
That is not to say there are no challengers. Mecca is the beloved. It always induced lovers. However, given the fact that it is impossible in the nation-state world to fight on the basis of “Islam” Muslims now fight over Mecca in subtler, proxy ways. Iran, which itself wishes to have some claim to theological legitimacy, tries to do an end-around the entire problem by trying to locate its temporal authority in Jerusalem (which alas, is only the third holiest city). We have seen what comes out of such jockeying for religious legitimacy: Iran supports Hizbollah and Hamas in order to off-set the theological weight that Saudi Arabia can throw around. It may be hard for those in the West to believe this, but Muslims care first and foremost about their religion and their relationship to the holy places of their faith.
They care about the rest of the world only after that. In other words, the reason that Iran exceeds all other nations in its anti-Israeli zeal is because unlike the rest of the Muslim world it cannot sit placidly on the idea that it does not have dominion over Mecca. All other Muslim nations — Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia, have recognized how the modern nation-state model inhibits them from ever being the leaders of Islam (by having dominion over Mecca) and thus aim simply to have good relations with the House of Saud.
However, things have to change. The stranglehold of the House of Saud has to be lessened in some non-violent way. Iran cannot be allowed to wage its pursuit of Mecca by using the Palestinians as its pawns. Wahhabi literature, stamped from Mecca, (especially that disingenous “Noble Quran” translation), cannot be permitted to be the standard bearer of Islamic Theology. An internal Saudi revolution is not imminent. Even if it was, it would bring with it an even more jihadist theology. We have seen the status-quo and we have recognized that it is horrid. Yet, what is the solution? There will be no alliance of Sunni nations who will conspire against the House of Saud with the assistance of a Western state. Destroying Mecca outright is out of the question, and throwing weight behind Iran does not seem like a viable option gives its own schizophrenic tendencies and repressive mullocracy. We do not want to take Mecca from the Hanbali theologian and hand it over to the Jafari. Yet, we know that things have to change.
The only possible solution is for a collection of Muslim nation-states to begin a movement using international legal remedies and diplomacy to make Mecca (and Medina) either independent nation-states unto themselves (as is the Vatican), or to have them rendered international protectorates, the task of their protection and maintainance falling upon the Muslim world jointly. Mecca and Medina will never be short of funds: the close to 3 million pilgrims a year will assure that. Nor will it need protective forces because there is no threat of invasion. However, the question today is not what Mecca needs, but what the Muslim needs. More than anything, the Muslim needs a Mecca that belongs to everyone equally. Only when Mecca belongs to all can Muslims say that Islam belongs to all. Only when Islam belongs to all will Muslims be able to say that the best Islam is the Islam that is most righteous instead of having to concede that the Saudi Islam is the best because it bears the authority of Mecca. I am certain that when Muslims compete over which Islam is most righteous as opposed to which Islam is most Arabian, the Muslim world will shake off its regressive theologies and advance. The Muslim world has tools which can effectuate this change. The Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) is a 55 nation consortium with nothing to do. It can be tasked with the administrative authority over Mecca. The House of Saud can be compensated generously for having consented to such gracious sharing. And yet, Muslims, by having a Mecca that is no longer identified by its ethnicity, but by its religion, can all compete to become better Muslims, as opposed to competing to become the pawns of Saud.
We need one able Muslim leader to start agitating for a free Mecca (and Medina). Separate Mecca from the House of Saud and immediately Islam acquires a central authority. Certainly arguments will take place as to whose vision of Islam ought dominate Mecca. Certainly the richer Muslim nations will exert more influence over Mecca. Certainly everyone will wish to wear the honor of being the primary ruler of the Kaba. However, there is an anecdote from the life of Muhammad which provides a solution to all of these concerns. While Muhammad was still a youth, and prior to his ministry, a great argument broke out amongst the leaders of Mecca. Apparently the Kaba was flooded and had to be repaired. After all the repairs had taken place, only one stone needed to be replaced. Each tribal leader wished to have the honor of being the one to carry that stone. Muhammad was called for to provide a way to end the disagreement. He suggested that instead of fighting, the stone be placed in the middle of a wide sheet, and each of the tribal leaders carry one edge of the sheet to the Kaba, where he then planted the stone into the wall. It is something akin to thise that is proposed here with respect to Mecca. Let all Muslims carry it together and we will have no more need of a Caliphate and can live satisfactorily within our nations. This is the most imperative step in the opening up of Islam. Muhammad intended that Mecca belong to all. Mecca is not a monopoly.
Mecca is not a Monopoly – Ali Eteraz
