Whatwould happen to Islam if Mecca and Medina were destroyed?

It doesn't matter how - nukes, asteroids, whatever - though it helps if its something that makes even the site not an option for rebuilding (either it's radioactive or swept away into the ocean).

Now what happens? Does Islam collapse? (Unlikely IMO). Does it quietly develop a system by which the hajj becomes more symbolic? Are 'new' holy cities created a la Moscow being the Third Rome and Second Constantinople?

When Islam first started, they prayed in the direction of Jerusalem. They would probably use that as their Holy City. Some of the more radical would probably try to take complete control of the city, and drive out the infidels. They would also start to hajj to Jerusalem.

What would happen to Islam?

Probably nothing.

In any discussion of Islam, you have to remember that it does not have a hierarchy like most Christian denominations. There is no Vatican in Islam. People would probably continue to pray in the direction of Mecca. Some of the more extreme would continue to make hajj to the region, but there really isn't a structure in place to change the focus of Islam to anywhere but Mecca; people would probably continue to make pilgrimages to other places, of course, but the hajj to Mecca would probably go the way of the caliphate.

Jerusalem would become more important, perhaps, just as the holy cities in Iraq would as well. I don't think that Jerusalem would become a second Mecca. Al-Aqsa Mosque is called al-Aqsa for a reason.

I'd say it depends on the manner in which they are destroyed... if it is through direct human intervention, especially that of non-Moslems, we are talking Jihad of unprecedented magnitude - not much different in a way from the crusades of the Middle Ages, and with very similar rhetoric. If it happens through environmental disaster, with no human intervention, then Islam as religion will probably survive pretty much intact, maybe with some additional symbolism being added due to absense of holy sites. Or, hajj could be redirected towards the Temple Mount, as being the next closest thing to Mecca and Medina... although Israelis are not going to be very happy about it, to say the least.

Realistically, being that Islam as such is rather decentralized, there is not really a way for it to collapse, as there is no structure that can be destroyed, no defined Islamic religious hierarchy that transcends smaller areas or regions - in my understanding, much of a Muslim religious authority depends on personal authority and charisma of given cleric(s), as opposed to a more rigid structure of Christian churches. Pun aside, the only way short of complete enslavement and extermination of established religion's believers to eliminate that religion is for a clear, unmistakable, and undeniable divine intervention that proves that yes, there is a God, and moreover, it is not the god of said religion.

Thande said:

It doesn't matter how - nukes, asteroids, whatever - though it helps if its something that makes even the site not an option for rebuilding (either it's radioactive or swept away into the ocean).

Now what happens? Does Islam collapse? (Unlikely IMO). Does it quietly develop a system by which the hajj becomes more symbolic? Are 'new' holy cities created a la Moscow being the Third Rome and Second Constantinople?

Click to expand...

Or it could be that it is the God of said religion, but He is not being worshipped properly. You could say the same about the various interventions in the Old Testament when the Israelites drift away from the Law of God. That's not changing entire religions, of course, but it could be argued that it's a matter of semantics (many people in the Middle Ages regarded Islam as a Christian heresy rather than a different, infidel faith).

Look how Judaism thrived even after Jerusalem and their Temple were levelled twice.

The Jews however could point to clear prophecies in Jeremiah and elsewhere that this would happen, and were/are strengthened by prophecies in Ezekiel that they would return to Jerusalem and a future Third Temple.

Are there such predictions in the Koran? If none, then long term, Islam in its present format would be in trouble with a destroyed Mecca.

Apparently Bush has plans to immediately nuke Mecca should Al Qaeda use WMDs on the USA, to "lance the boil", "permanently demoralise Muslim extremists" and "defang Islam once and for all"!
http://www.rense.com/general61/shd.htm

I haven't read much about Islamic eschatology (end-of-days stuff) in a long time; what role does Mecca play in that scenario?

If Mecca is "surrounded by infidel armies but saved by the coming of Jesus and the Madhi" (according to what I've read, Jesus and the Madhi would tag-team an Antichrist-being called the ad-Dajjal, Jesus would break the cross and convert all Christians to Islam, and then there'd be a reign of peace on earth) and Mecca is irretrievably destroyed, then the mullahs and imams will be hard-pressed to explain it.

Hmm...I wrote a FH scenario where Mecca is accidentally nuked in an Arab-Israeli War and the Kaaba is broken into pieces. The largest piece is left on Earth for Earth Muslims to make the pilgrimage to, while other pieces are carried to majority-Muslim worlds elsewhere in the galaxy for them to make pilgrimages to (easier than traveling to Earth).

The scenario also involved an "Islamic Reformation"--a faction that rejects the Hadith in favor of "Only the Koran" (think Luther rejecting Church tradition in favor of Sola Scriptura) appears.

Don't soem shi'ias think that Emam Reza shrine in Mashad is as important as Mecca? Soo I guess shi'ias could rally around their traditional sites. Karbala, Najaf, Mashad, Damascus and replace them with Mecca in importance.

nyudnik said:

Apparently Bush has plans to immediately nuke Mecca should Al Qaeda use WMDs on the USA, to "lance the boil", "permanently demoralise Muslim extremists" and "defang Islam once and for all"!
http://www.rense.com/general61/shd.htm

Click to expand...

I certainly hope this ios nothing but idle speculation. Then again, I have consistently overestimated the intelligence and sense of reality of this administration in the past...

carlton_bach said:

I certainly hope this ios nothing but idle speculation. Then again, I have consistently overestimated the intelligence and sense of reality of this administration in the past...

Click to expand...

Trusting something from rense is like covering yourself in honey and lying on anthill. Not a good idea.

midgardmetal said:

If it happens through environmental disaster, with no human intervention, then Islam as religion will probably survive pretty much intact, maybe with some additional symbolism being added due to absense of holy sites

Click to expand...

Would a natural disaster be used by fundamentalists to claim that the Saudi regime and most muslims have wandered from the true path and the destruction of the holy sites is punishment? That it is time to rebuild Islam as Mohammed (PBUH) intended? Perhaps they might claim that the Hajj had become for many muslims a meaningless attempt to prove they are good muslims while not living by the strictures of Islam in their daily lives.

carlton_bach said:

I certainly hope this ios nothing but idle speculation. Then again, I have consistently overestimated the intelligence and sense of reality of this administration in the past...

Click to expand...

If it is an official rumor it might be a smart move. OBL has no idea on whether it is true or not but can't really risk being responible for the nuking of Mecca and Medina. Making it a rumor gives you the best of both world's OBL can't risk it and Bush doesn't take the flak by not saying so. Now what his real response would be makes a difference. Personally I think he would order most Islamic countries to basically "submit or die" . IOW surrender unconditionally and let the CIA into all your military and paramilitary orgizations or get nuked off the face of the Earth.

Mecca is in no way equivalent to Jerusalem, and the Kaaba is in no way equivalent to the Temple during the pre-exilic period. God does not "live" in the Kaaba. God did not "give" the Hedjaz to the Muslims as their Holy Land. There's no denying that Mecca is important to Muslims, but it's not Jerusalem and it's not the Vatican.

Second of all, all Islamic law is based upon case law - that is to say, it is designed to deal with changes in circumstances and new developments - unlike the Torah. Shariah is more comparable broadly to the Talmud, which arose largely to deal with the circumstances of a Judaism deprived of a focus and forced into exile. For that reason, Islam is already in a better position to deal with such a religious crisis than the Jews were when their Temple was destroyed.

Third of all, Brilliant, what makes you think that OBL "can't risk being responsible for the nuking of Mecca and Medina?" Do you really think that's the way he thinks? If you think such a rumor acts as a "deterrant" to the greatest mass murderer alive today, you're sadly mistaken. If he could get the US to nuke Saudi - even to destroy the Holy Cities - he would. It would result in the very sort of Gotterdamerung that he's been trying to bring about all along.

Matt - Islamic eschatology is relatively dull compared to some of the Jewish and Christian apocalypses. They believe in the Day of Religion - the yawm ed-din - or the Last Day - yawm al-akhir - on which the dead will rise from their graves and be judged. Other than that, it's pretty typical stuff. They make up for its relatively stereotypical nature by giving graphic details about Heaven and Hell (Jannah wa-Jahannam). IIRC, something will happen at al-Aqsa Mosque (that is, "the furthest mosque") but it has been a while since I studied this stuff. You may be interested to know that some of the more mystical sects believe that Jesus will come back, abolish the religion founded in his name, rip the crosses from the wall (a bit like Reverend Moon), and personally slaughter every last pig on earth.

Leo Caesius said:

Third of all, Brilliant, what makes you think that OBL "can't risk being responsible for the nuking of Mecca and Medina?" Do you really think that's the way he thinks? If you think such a rumor acts as a "deterrant" to the greatest mass murderer alive today, you're sadly mistaken. If he could get the US to nuke Saudi - even to destroy the Holy Cities - he would. It would result in the very sort of Gotterdamerung that he's been trying to bring about all along.

Click to expand...

I think if he was considered the person responsible for the destruction of Mecca and Medina he would be killed by his own men. I think he knows that and I think like most Islamic leaders he is willing to sacrafice anyone's life but his own.

There is of course the option that muslims in general, and Osamas boys in particular would hold the US responsible for the destruction of the holy sites.

Brilliantlight said:

I think if he was considered the person responsible for the destruction of Mecca and Medina he would be killed by his own men. I think he knows that and I think like most Islamic leaders he is willing to sacrafice anyone's life but his own.

Click to expand...

So, let me get this straight - the US nukes Mecca and Medina, and Islamic extremists blame Osama bin Laden for it?!?!? You have a rather unusual view of the way things work in the Middle East. The US, yes, Israel, probably, but Osama bin Laden? Not a chance.

Leo Caesius said:

So, let me get this straight - the US nukes Mecca and Medina, and Islamic extremists blame Osama bin Laden for it?!?!? You have a rather unusual view of the way things work in the Middle East. The US, yes, Israel, probably, but Osama bin Laden? Not a chance.

Click to expand...

There are documents that we captured from Al Qaeda saying that destroying a US nuclear power plant might have consequences they could not control and should only be done after with great thought. To me that shows they ARE worried about what happens if things get out of hand. I think there would be a LOT more Moslems that would blame OBL at least in part the nuking of Mecca if it was preceded by the nuking of New York or Chicago. Despite what you seem to think they are not all mindless idiots. Most could figure out that Mecca would not have been nuked if Chicago hadn't been. That doesn't take a Nobel prize winner to figure out.

Brilliantlight said:

Despite what you seem to think they are not all mindless idiots. Most could figure out that Mecca would not have been nuked if Chicago hadn't been. That doesn't take a Nobel prize winner to figure out.

Click to expand...

Well, that's rather rich. I certainly didn't expect to receive a lecture on cultural sensitivity from the likes of you.

Look, regardless of what happens, if the US were to do something as extreme as nuke Mecca and Medina, do you honestly think that the world's Muslims would collectively begin searching their souls to find the reason for which the US would have taken such measures? Are you saying that, in a time of such crisis, the voices calling for war would be drowned out by voices calling for understanding and tolerance? You amaze me.

That's not the way human nature works, neither here nor in the Middle East. To be sure, some people would blame OBL. Some people would argue against holding the US responsible for its actions. They might even argue that Muslims held collectively (and unjustly) responsible for the actions of al-Qaeda should simply turn the other cheek. These people would be ignored, marginalized, and quite possibly threatened with their lives.

Leo Caesius said:

Well, that's rather rich. I certainly didn't expect to receive a lecture on cultural sensitivity from the likes of you.

Look, regardless of what happens, if the US were to do something as extreme as nuke Mecca and Medina, do you honestly think that the world's Muslims would collectively begin searching their souls to find the reason for which the US would have taken such measures? Are you saying that, in a time of such crisis, the voices calling for war would be drowned out by voices calling for understanding and tolerance? You amaze me.

That's not the way human nature works, neither here nor in the Middle East. To be sure, some people would blame OBL. Some people would argue against holding the US responsible for its actions. They might even argue that Muslims held collectively (and unjustly) responsible for the actions of al-Qaeda should simply turn the other cheek. These people would be ignored, marginalized, and quite possibly threatened with their lives.

Click to expand...

True, but I think they would hold BOTH responsible. Just because they hold the US responsible doesn't mean they won't hold OBL responsible as well.

However, it does have to be said that most Muslims were horrified at the World Trade Centre tragedy. This was an act by Al-Queda that the majority condemned. If they see OBL nuking Chicago or New York, they will be just as horrified.