What if the Ottomans move the Kaaba to Constantinople?

What about moving it under the guise of protecting it from infidel attack(i.e. the Portuguese actually attempting to attack Mecca)?

Then the Ottomans declare jihad on the Portuguese. I also doubt that the Portuguese would destroy or move the Kaaba if they did seize the city—it’s not worth it, right?
 
Then the Ottomans declare jihad on the Portuguese. I also doubt that the Portuguese would destroy or move the Kaaba if they did seize the city—it’s not worth it, right?

If they don't think that destroying of Kaba would damage faith of Muslims so that they decide convert to Christianity. But that of course wouldn't happen.
 
Then the Ottomans declare jihad on the Portuguese. I also doubt that the Portuguese would destroy or move the Kaaba if they did seize the city—it’s not worth it, right?

It could benefit them by holding the Holy Site and exacting tolls and taxes upon it. Then giving free passage and discounts to those Muslim states that accept their ownership. Doubtful event, but an idea.
 
Then the Ottomans declare jihad on the Portuguese. I also doubt that the Portuguese would destroy or move the Kaaba if they did seize the city—it’s not worth it, right?

If I'm not mistaken during the early 1500's there was one plan to raid Mecca and burn it all to the ground, it was part of a giant crazy scheme that was cooked in Lisbon that involved capturing the straits and the Sinai, the Viceroy of India at the time considered the plan to be too crazy to work and didn't bothered with it.
 
It depends on the Shi’i however. As was mentioned earlier, the most major case of removal or destruction of the Kaaba, was done by an Is’maili Shi’i group, the Qarmatians.
To be fair, correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the Qarmatians more focused on sustaining their independence as tribal units from the powerful Caliphate system rather than being "heretics" in the Medieval Christian or Muslim sense?
 
It could benefit them by holding the Holy Site and exacting tolls and taxes upon it. Then giving free passage and discounts to those Muslim states that accept their ownership. Doubtful event, but an idea.

More likely, the pilgrims say "screw you," dont pay the taxes and when Portugal inevitably retaliates the Ottomans or whoever's the local powerhouse brings the hammer down
 
To be fair, correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the Qarmatians more focused on sustaining their independence as tribal units from the powerful Caliphate system rather than being "heretics" in the Medieval Christian or Muslim sense?

Can you rephrase? I do not believe that I fully understand the question.
 
Why not both? Madness and blasphemy at the same time?
In my understanding of traditional Islamic law, people cannot be held accountable for their actions if their considered out their right mind. Blasphemy is generally regarded as a serious offence under most understandings of Shari'a law, but of course this can apply only to people who are capable of acting deliberately, which would not be case if the blasphemer is legally incapacitated by effect of his madness. Since Shari'a often takes account of intentions, blasphemy as such might not apply as a mentally incapacitated person would not be intentionally blasphemous.
I cannot find the actual sources, but if I remember correctly, there are some cases of people who declared themsleves atheists and were interned as evidently mentally infirm, rather than punished as blasphemers.
Of course, in such an outlandish case it would get political. The mental illness argument would be used in order to avoid a revolt and replace the Sultan smoothly (even if he is actually perfectly able to reason) while if the court feels a more forceful action is needed, the blasphemy line would be followed.
 
but abdul malik b marwan did move the site of pilgimmage to "dome on the rock" in opposition to abdullah b zubair's site at Mecca

interesting thread

I would suspect if they bribe sufficent scholars and keep the arabs infighting they might very well get away with it, although mecca and medina will always be a site of pilgimmage albiet a minor one

He did not.
At the very least, there are conflicting sources on the topic, but he was putting all effort to retake Mecca while busy with the Dome's building; does not add up very well. It may be that the allegation that he wanted to shift the site of Hajj is a piece of anti-Umayyad propaganda by Abbasid historians (the Abbasids really really hated the preceding dynasty, to the point that al-Ma'mun erased Abd al-Malik's name from the foundation inscription of the Dome - among other things such as killing Umayyads by the hundreds, Red Wedding style, desecrating their tombs, cursing their memory, etc.)
 
The Portuguese? Seems like there would be the issue of how far out of their way they would be going. They had to round Africa to get there. I don't see anyone believing they would have the biggest of motives for doing it. They might raid people on their way to the Hajj, but so did the Rulers of Egypt when Napoleon drove them from Cairo.
 
Top