Mecca, Medina or Baghdad?

[MattyG]

As a side thread to the thread on the placement of FAAs, I had assumed that we would have one in Mecca. But it reading more widely on the subject, the following seems to be the case:

1. Mecca, althoyugh a holy site and the current focus of the hajj for millions of Muslims, was actually not as significant in the middle ages, nor really until the 20th Century. Sacred, absolutely. Muslim only, yes. But that it actually received relatively few pilgrims.

2. Politically, the centr of the Islamic world shifted between Damascus and Baghdad, and these cities saw a great many more pilgrims. Obviously, the different history of Interregnum would mean that Damascus would not have been so central, that it would always have been Baghdad. I had planned in the revision of the Caliphate file to suggest to Calipah that Baghdad begin with an FAA, but for reasons of culture, art, architecture and the libraries and universities there.

3. Medina, now secondary to Mecca in the hajj, was a more significant location for the hajj in the period of EU2, ad perhaps deserves the FAA.

Thoughts please, those with a sounder understanding of Islamic/Middle Eatern history.

 

[loki1232]

Yeah, Baghdad was important until the mongols destroyed it. .

There should be something there, probably an FAA.

 

[unmerged(55521)]

As a side thread to the thread on the placement of FAAs, I had assumed that we would have one in Mecca. But it reading more widely on the subject, the following seems to be the case:

1. Mecca, althoyugh a holy site and the current focus of the hajj for millions of Muslims, was actually not as significant in the middle ages, nor really until the 20th Century. Sacred, absolutely. Muslim only, yes. But that it actually received relatively few pilgrims.

2. Politically, the centr of the Islamic world shifted between Damascus and Baghdad, and these cities saw a great many more pilgrims. Obviously, the different history of Interregnum would mean that Damascus would not have been so central, that it would always have been Baghdad. I had planned in the revision of the Caliphate file to suggest to Calipah that Baghdad begin with an FAA, but for reasons of culture, art, architecture and the libraries and universities there.

3. Medina, now secondary to Mecca in the hajj, was a more significant location for the hajj in the period of EU2, ad perhaps deserves the FAA.

Thoughts please, those with a sounder understanding of Islamic/Middle Eatern history.

While Bagdad surely deserves FAA before destruction of 1258 (which in Interregnum did not hapen) becouse of education and art center, it is not piligrims aim. Surely. There is nothing in Bagdad (as there is nothing in Rome except Pope history but that another case and Rome deserves).
But ofcourse Mecca was not modern 2-3 milion piligrims to only Hajj (but there is lesser piligrimage - Umra) but still it was lot of piligrims at all time. In my observations a lot more than any other center. Lot of people in Sudan are origin of Nigeria and another West Africa who settled in Sudan on the way or back to Mecca.
Medina surely do not deserves FAA than Mecca. Mecca and Medina is very special cities (towns) for muslims but Mecca is hajj city. Not Medina. Medina atracts religous turists with some religious aims and reasons too, but it is not comparable with Hajj at Mecca. But Medina and Meca deserves more taxvalue and -revoltrisk becouse of this.

So my list for FAA:
Bagdad
Mecca
Rome
Lhasa
Varanasi (there is lot of hindu piligrime sites so better stop on this one...)
Amritsar (if there is sikhs in interregnum)
Timbuktu (huge learning center of west africa)

Possibly:
Constantionopole
Medina (it is very special too. Saudia has honor to be custodin (how this word has to be written??) of two holy cities. Caliphate could have special event for having all three cities. So I do not think that it is too much to have there FAA. Maybe event to get cheap FAA as expanding Prophet Mosque (which at modern times is huge - those who see photos even misunderstood that it is Mecca), but cheap becouse it makes more expensive more valuable manus.
I do not think it is too much - cos it is their geography - they have that huge honor to have 2 or all 3 islam holy cities... Then it is already too much...
But in mecca and medina must be at leats -2 rr

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_site

 

[MattyG]

Loki: yes, the Mongols in Interregnum were beaten back at the gates of Baghdad by the combined Caliphal and Outremer forces. So it remains the city of ancient (well, modern) learning and culture in 1419.


Ahmed, Wikipedia though also has this to say about Mecca:

Muslims believe that the Kaaba, the small cubical building now surrounded by the Sacred Mosque, was built by Abraham and has been a religious center ever since. Some historians do not accept these scriptural assertions, but do believe that Mecca was a shrine and trading center for a number of generations before the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Muhammad, once exiled from the city, returned to it in triumph in 630 CE and after removing the cult images from the Kaaba, dedicated it as the center of Muslim pilgrimage. (For further information, see the main article, Conquest of Mecca.)

After the rise of the Islamic empire, Mecca attracted pilgrims from all over the extensive empire, as well as a year-round population of scholars, pious Muslims who wished to live close to the Kaaba, and local inhabitants who served the pilgrims. Due to the difficulty and expense of the Hajj, the annual pilgrimage was small compared to the millions that swell Mecca today. The city too was small. 18th and 19th century maps and pictures show a small walled city of mud-brick houses crowded around the mosque.

Mecca was never the capital of the Islamic empire; the first capital was Medina, some 250 miles (400 km) away. The capital of the caliphate soon moved to Damascus and then Baghdad. Mecca re-entered Islamic history briefly when it was held by Abd-Allah ibn al-Zubayr, an early Muslim who opposed the Umayyad caliphs. The caliph Yazid I besieged Mecca in 683 CE. Thereafter the city figured little in politics; it was a city of devotion and scholarship. For centuries it was governed by the Hashemite Sharifs of Mecca, descendants of Muhammad by his grandson Hassan ibn Ali. The Sharifs ruled on behalf of whatever caliph or Muslim ruler had declared himself the Guardian of the Two Shrines. Mecca was attacked and sacked by Ismaili Muslims in 930 CE and by Wahhabi Muslims in 1803. In 1926, the Sharifs of Mecca were overthrown by the Saudis, and Mecca was incorporated into Saudi Arabia.

 

[unmerged(31994)]

I was thinking about that actually - Id also suggest Cordoba since well, it was a magnificent city and center in Europe.

Mecca and Medina are more or less small towns except during the Hajj, so would be quite a waste in my opinion.

 

[MattyG]

I was thinking about that actually - Id also suggest Cordoba since well, it was a magnificent city and center in Europe.

Mecca and Medina are more or less small towns except during the Hajj, so would be quite a waste in my opinion.

Calipah,

Sounds like Baghdad gets it.

As for Cordoba, I have my reservations. It already has a great starting set up. And the Giralda and Rusafa are yet yo be built. I think it ought to wait until then, myself.

 

[unmerged(55521)]

[/QUOTE]

According to Koran prophet Abraham (SAW) build Kaaba together with his son Ismael (SAW). (There is belief that they built it on ruins, or were was foundations of shrine which was built by Adam (SAW) but some islamic sholars reject this belief cos they think that hadiths on which this belief is based are fabricated.)
It doesnt mean that that building (covered with black covering - many nonmuslims think that it is huge black rock...) which is there now or at Muhamed (SAW) time is the same. It was rebuilt many times.
After prophet Ismael (SAW) arabia slowly declined from monoteism to politeism. At Muhamed (SAW) time there was diferent religious beliefs. Some people there still were monoteists, but mostly has mix of politeism - influenced by nearby religions. As most of pagans (latvian tribes in Latvia before arrive of chrushaders has something similar believes (those who were not christians already, but chrushaders didnt care about them too) believe in God but in their pantheon - it was God but he was not too powerful, there was many other gods. Its like greeks has Zeus, - he is like most powerful but still has many other gods.
So shrine built by Abraham (SAW) and Ishmael (SAW) was still there, it was still revered as special place, there still was local pilligramage to there but people mostly were politeists. In Kaaba was put 360 idols and sometimes people naked walked around it.
While being in Medina Muhamed (SAW) years before Mecca surennded to muslims percepted news from God that prayer direction must be changed from Jerusalem to Kaaba in Mecca.
And when Mecca surrended to muslims Muhammed (SAW) cleaned Kaaba out of idols. But even before then was truce and Muhamed (SAW) and his companions were at hajj.
It is not important that Mecca is not capital. Yes Mecca and Medina were small towns and only in hajj they were fulfiled. But Jerusalem too was small town.
And from my observations Mecca recieved lot more piligrims than Jerusalem, cos it was truly rare that some europeans piligrame to Jerusalem. Much easy is to muslims go to Mecca. And which place atracted more piligrimes? There is possibility about some hindu sites but surely I have no knowledge about midle ages piligramage in hindu areas...
Medina and Jerusalem is not comapareble with Mecca becouse hajj is obligated duty of muslim if he can afford it by money, health and if way to Mecca is safe. Medina is place were muslims refugies run from Mecca and established islamic state (more correctly - prophet state), also there is grave of Muhammed (SAW). Jerusalem is important in conections with previos prophets and with one special miracle - night journey to Jerusalem and ascenion.
But Mecca is obligate hajj, conection with Abraham (SAW), Masjid-al-haram (were the Kaaba is).[/QUOTE]

I shall leave it to you to work out with Calipah.

 

[unmerged(55521)]

Calipah,

Sounds like Baghdad gets it.

As for Cordoba, I have my reservations. It already has a great starting set up. And the Giralda and Rusafa are yet yo be built. I think it ought to wait until then, myself.

But cordoba is not easy country. It is more easy to start with small country than with it cos it is not worth to convert christians to sunni cos later will come mutazelitism. Also this why seems that it is not worth to conquer or diploanex Nafrica before mutazelitism goes there.
So first 100 years just stay on 0 stability...

 

[MattyG]

But cordoba is not easy country. It is more easy to start with small country than with it cos it is not worth to convert christians to sunni cos later will come mutazelitism. Also this why seems that it is not worth to conquer or diploanex Nafrica before mutazelitism goes there.
So first 100 years just stay on 0 stability...

So? Every nation has challenges. What would be the point otherwise? We don't design things so that a nation like Cordoba has an easy ride. CoT, gold mine, lots of rich provinces, only weak enemies and only on one side of them. Case in point: Cordoba NEVER does badly. Sometimes it doesn't conquer Iberia, but that's intentional that it might chose a more peaceful path (for which there are certain rewards). But it never does badly. It is easily one of the easiest nations to play, along with Bavaria, the old Hungary, and Eire. And in MP it is often excluded from selectable countries because it is too strong.

 

[MattyG]

What is a pilgrim?

What makes a site of pilgrimage?

 

[unmerged(31994)]

A pilgrim - more or less a religious 'tourist' if you will - in a Muslim sense, anybody going to Mecca, Medina for Hajj or otherwise, or any shrine for that matter.

Regarding this matter, I have a better suggestion than giving Mecca or Medina a manufactury and that is by making a random event that is marked with "Hajj Season"

"Mecca and Medina are center of the Islamic faith.....etc Text"
Where the player gains a small ducat increase of perhaps +10 coin and some relation boasts.

 

[unmerged(55521)]

A pilgrim - more or less a religious 'tourist' if you will - in a Muslim sense, anybody going to Mecca, Medina for Hajj or otherwise, or any shrine for that matter.

Regarding this matter, I have a better suggestion than giving Mecca or Medina a manufactury and that is by making a random event that is marked with "Hajj Season"

"Mecca and Medina are center of the Islamic faith.....etc Text"
Where the player gains a small ducat increase of perhaps +10 coin and some relation boasts.

As there is no shia in interregnum then noone goes to shrines of dead people as piligrims.
This mean that piligrim is that who goes to Mecca with religous purpose, on some minor extent no Medina and Jerusalem.
Religous turist is who is going to place of Badr or Uhud batles, to that town south of Medina where was that mosque built at end of escaping from Mecca. Or that cave where Muhammed (SAW) and Abu Bakr (RA) hid from pagan chasers. This is religous turists but not piligrims as islam understands them.
If somebody goes to learn from some sholar to Bagdad, - it is not piligim but pupil in another place. And they were not many. If somebody goes to see grave of some people (even if they are famous islamic sholars) it doesnt make them piligrims cos they do not get something for that. It is just some turist atraction. As waterfall, strange rock or beautiful palace or mosque. Thats is turism. But turism then was not important.

 

[unmerged(31994)]

Actually - Shiaism does exist, but it has achieved a co-existance with the Sunni Madhabs and so have other denominations. As for Shrines - even Sunnis go to alot of Shrines dear Ahmed even in Saudi.

As for Imam Hanafi and Hanbali, who were two of the greatest Sunni Scholars to have lived (with Malki and Shafi) , their graves and the visits they recieved were numerous, why even the Abbasid Chornicles claim that the Caliph was forced to close down the graveyards several times because of the large crowds.

Anyhow - Baghdad is not only a religious center, but a great cultural one too.

 

[unmerged(55521)]

Actually - Shiaism does exist, but it has achieved a co-existance with the Sunni Madhabs and so have other denominations. As for Shrines - even Sunnis go to alot of Shrines dear Ahmed even in Saudi.
.

Thats true. But there is many muslim men who goes to Ukraine, but does not make them museum turists. As going to one grave (and in many cases praying there or asking something from that dead) as part of religion practise (what is pilgrimage) is not "quite" according to islam.

I just want that from Bagdad description is taken out that it has FAA becouse of "some mystical importance to islam". It has FAA becouse Bagdad in Interegnum is one of greatest undestroyed cities of world and is great cultural and learning center. That all. No meaning with religion.

 

[unmerged(31994)]

There is alot that isnt 'truly' Islamic - in any case, they add more richness to our culture and identity as Muslims. It wasnt very uncommon for Muslims to use a shrine, a grave, an artifact or relic in India, Indonesia , Spain, Africa and East China as a rallying point for a revolt or rebellion.

Baghdad, besides the Hanafi and Hanbali Graves - also had two important colleges and schools - the Mustansiriyah and Dar al-Hikma, both of which were the oldest standing colleges in the world at the time.THey attracted not only Scholars, but Dervishes, Sufi Teachers and Muslim pilgrims.

 

[unmerged(55521)]

There is alot that isnt 'truly' Islamic - in any case, they add more richness to our culture and identity as Muslims. It wasnt very uncommon for Muslims to use a shrine, a grave, an artifact or relic in India, Indonesia , Spain, Africa and East China as a rallying point for a revolt or rebellion.

Baghdad, besides the Hanafi and Hanbali Graves - also had two important colleges and schools - the Mustansiriyah and Dar al-Hikma, both of which were the oldest standing colleges in the world at the time.THey attracted not only Scholars, but Dervishes, Sufi Teachers and Muslim pilgrims.

"There is alot that isnt 'truly' Islamic - in any case, they add more richness to our culture and identity as Muslims."
If we are talking some additions to religion, than this does not make those muslims richer but in bidda bankropcy.

"Muslim pilgrims" - and while christianity includes in meaning of "piligrim" a religious turists too, becouse they do not have in their religion practice of pilgrimage (but only some interest to some places), but islamic understanding of "piligrim" can not include any turist who think that visiting some sufi grave in pakistan makes him piligrim. That is turism. In Iran i was in lot of diferent grave-mosques, but as turist. And while there possibly could be shia piligrims to Kerbel, Najaf, Qum, Meshed and all minor sites piligrims, in Interregnum we can not say that.

But I do not understand - why you need to make Bagdad important religous center when it is enought with its educational and cultural center to get FAA?
Only if Caliphate has concentrated muslim scolars in Bagdad (a lot more than IRL) then it could be seen in this way too.

 

[MattyG]

"There is alot that isnt 'truly' Islamic - in any case, they add more richness to our culture and identity as Muslims."
If we are talking some additions to religion, than this does not make those muslims richer but in bidda bankropcy.

"Muslim pilgrims" - and while christianity includes in meaning of "piligrim" a religious turists too, becouse they do not have in their religion practice of pilgrimage (but only some interest to some places), but islamic understanding of "piligrim" can not include any turist who think that visiting some sufi grave in pakistan makes him piligrim. That is turism. In Iran i was in lot of diferent grave-mosques, but as turist. And while there possibly could be shia piligrims to Kerbel, Najaf, Qum, Meshed and all minor sites piligrims, in Interregnum we can not say that.

But I do not understand - why you need to make Bagdad important religous center when it is enought with its educational and cultural center to get FAA?
Only if Caliphate has concentrated muslim scolars in Bagdad (a lot more than IRL) then it could be seen in this way too.

Ahmed, I don't think we are 'making' Baghdad a religious centre. We are acknowledging that - at this time in history - millions of muslims considered it a religious centre. Rightly or wrongly. We are not trying to judge them. That is for Allah to do. So, Baghdad deserves the FAA for many many reasons: secular learning (mathematics, engineering etc) religious study (the many Islamic colleges) the other secular and religious arts (architecture, dance, , music) AND the fact that millions of pilgrims were drawn there, even if for reasons that modern mulims consider incorrect in Islam.

 

[unmerged(55521)]

Ahmed, I don't think we are 'making' Baghdad a religious centre. We are acknowledging that - at this time in history - millions of muslims considered it a religious centre. Rightly or wrongly. We are not trying to judge them. That is for Allah to do. So, Baghdad deserves the FAA for many many reasons: secular learning (mathematics, engineering etc) religious study (the many Islamic colleges) the other secular and religious arts (architecture, dance, , music) AND the fact that millions of pilgrims were drawn there, even if for reasons that modern mulims consider incorrect in Islam.

"at this time in history - millions of muslims considered it a religious centre."
---
I do not find sources which supports that MILLIONS of muslims considered it a RELIGIOUS CENTRE.

"AND the fact that millions of pilgrims were drawn there, even if for reasons that modern mulims consider incorrect in Islam."
----
Some developed "turism" - yes, but not piligrims. As Bagdad ( founded on the west bank of the Tigris on 30 July 762 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad ) is not even mentioned in islamic sources (Quran, Sunna and men iner guidance) it can not be part of islamic practice what is pilgrimage.
While christianity do not include in their practise pilgrimage, islam include and this one of reason why this termin is better developed. While there was and still is some in islam not based practises with visiting some graves and believing to gain something from it on some cases, it is not widescale practise. Only with demographic exploision some graves atracts in Pakistan, Iraq and Iran many visiters. But turism to Giza was always, but it doesnt make it piligrim.
My objection and protest is that that those muslims who on some extent included in their trip to Bagdad a visit to shrine of some founders of islamic schools are branded as piligrims. Who said that if I would visit NYC and be in Empire State building, I went there for pilgrimage?
Even if I in Istanbul museum look on one of two oldest survinig Qurans or seal or sword of prophet Muhammed (SAW), it doesnt make me piligrim. I am just visiting grand city as turists and look on some things which is connected with my religion.
While shia has pilgrimage to some graves too, mainstream muslims pilgrimage is to Mecca according to Quran and Sunna.

So I protest: 1)I doubt that miliions, then this phenomen will be well known to these days; 2)they were not pilgrims but turists; 3) Bagdad can be center of religious learning (not religous center), if caliph concentrates there islamic sholars and develops some ubersize Al-Azhar university.

 

[unmerged(31994)]

Actually, Baghdad was greater than Cairo, and it contained the al-Mustansiriyah and Dar al-Hikma , which were older and finer than al-Azhar Read up about the city before the tartar conquest.

 

[MattyG]

"at this time in history - millions of muslims considered it a religious centre."
---
I do not find sources which supports that MILLIONS of muslims considered it a RELIGIOUS CENTRE.

"AND the fact that millions of pilgrims were drawn there, even if for reasons that modern mulims consider incorrect in Islam."
----
Some developed "turism" - yes, but not piligrims. As Bagdad ( founded on the west bank of the Tigris on 30 July 762 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad ) is not even mentioned in islamic sources (Quran, Sunna and men iner guidance) it can not be part of islamic practice what is pilgrimage.
While christianity do not include in their practise pilgrimage, islam include and this one of reason why this termin is better developed. While there was and still is some in islam not based practises with visiting some graves and believing to gain something from it on some cases, it is not widescale practise. Only with demographic exploision some graves atracts in Pakistan, Iraq and Iran many visiters. But turism to Giza was always, but it doesnt make it piligrim.
My objection and protest is that that those muslims who on some extent included in their trip to Bagdad a visit to shrine of some founders of islamic schools are branded as piligrims. Who said that if I would visit NYC and be in Empire State building, I went there for pilgrimage?
Even if I in Istanbul museum look on one of two oldest survinig Qurans or seal or sword of prophet Muhammed (SAW), it doesnt make me piligrim. I am just visiting grand city as turists and look on some things which is connected with my religion.
While shia has pilgrimage to some graves too, mainstream muslims pilgrimage is to Mecca according to Quran and Sunna.

So I protest: 1)I doubt that miliions, then this phenomen will be well known to these days; 2)they were not pilgrims but turists; 3) Bagdad can be center of religious learning (not religous center), if caliph concentrates there islamic sholars and develops some ubersize Al-Azhar university.

Ahmed, we will have to agree to disagree on most of this issue. About the difference between a pilgrim and a tourist, about Christian pilgrims in the middle ages, the importance of Baghdad, everything.

You and Calipah can work on an alternative wording if you wish for the text of the event.

Regards,

MattyG