The question of the arcades

I received quite a lot of criticism over my last article explaining that the Ottoman porticoes would join the tawaf of history by the path that the Owner of the Kaaba decrees. The great majority of the criticisms were made as contributions, sharing their own experiences in a way that confirmed what I said. From the sum of what those who have gone on Hajj or Umrah in the last ten years lived or witnessed there, a generally similar opinion about the state of the porticoes emerges. Indeed, from the day they were built until fifty years ago, the porticoes fulfilled their service properly. They almost bear witness to how the Ottomans trembled over the Haram al-Sharif and with what understanding of service they kept watch.

However, a reminder is due to those who describe the removal of the porticoes as the erasure of the trace of the Ottomans, or of history in general: the building of these very porticoes also took place at the cost of the destruction of countless historical assets. For the houses that earlier came right up to the foot of the Kaaba, in each of which there were places holding many memories of the Prophet and his Companions, were razed during the construction of the porticoes as a project to expand the Haram. The part of the sa'y between the hills of Safa and Marwa that is done at a running pace today is the part visible from the opposite Abu Qubays hill; what prevents one from seeing the sa'y corridor from other places was only the buildings in between. Today, from this hill the whole of this corridor is in fact visible, albeit only through railings, but on top of Abu Qubays hill there is now the palace of the Saudi King.

The basis of the views of those among the critics of my article who disagree with what I said is, in any case, what has been put in place of these demolitions. Putting palaces, or buildings that crush the Kaaba, in the place of buildings demolished to expand the Kaaba...

It is true that today the restructuring works of Mecca have a dimension that casts the Kaaba's presence into shadow. Yet I have not said anything about the buildings or colossal projects put in place of what was demolished. These can of course be debated. A series of things can, and should, also be said about the meaning of the construction of a palace on Abu Qubays hill or of the Zamzam hotel.

The new "Kaaba and surroundings" view heralded by the expansion work now on the agenda, seen from afar, really stands out, with its Las Vegas-style dazzling visuality, rather than as a place of worship. To say that not much historical sensitivity is needed in front of the Kaaba is one thing; such extreme insensitivity toward historical identity is another. It is important not to fetishize historical assets, but when deciding to restructure an ancient city like Mecca, it is of course not necessary to act with a radicalism that would cut the city almost entirely from its historical roots. One does not get the impression that the views of architects or city planners with a Muslim way of life or sensibility are reflected in the projects for rebuilding Mecca.

Saudi officials should not regard being the Servant of the Two Holy Mosques as being the owner and proprietor of these places. Taking into account the expectations of the 1.5 billion Muslims who turn toward these places is part of that servanthood. Had the common mind of so many Muslims been consulted, far more beneficial, far more functional projects could have been produced.

These are very true, but what we said about the porticoes is not much related to them. What we said was rather about what it means to insist on preserving the porticoes merely because they are an Ottoman work, even though they no longer have any function and, on the contrary, have come to turn the tawaf into a complete torment. To make the Ottoman contribution to the structure of the Kaaba almost a sacred part of the Kaaba is not a very healthy and Islamic attitude. There is nothing there to be made sacred except the symbols of God, and the sanctity of those symbols too should be burdened with the profound consciousness that Hz. Umar displayed before the Black Stone.

The consciousness that these symbols have a symbolic meaning rather than a physical presence brings to the foreground participation in worship (tawaf, prayer and sa'y) rather than the physical presence there. On the other hand, with the removal of these porticoes, the substitution of another building of the criticized kind in their place is not possible anyway. While such criticisms are justified for other projects aimed at expanding the Haram area, for the porticoes there is not even such a situation.

Furthermore, frankly, although one can speak of the ugliness of all the hotels erected there, even of their insolence owing to their height above the Kaaba, the fact that the Kaaba looks very much diminished in the resulting image has partly to do with the point of view. Even in this view, the Kaaba is the determining element at the center of all this colossal construction. In the end everything is done for it and around it. The Kaaba as a structure has no claim to greatness, colossalness, originality, or being or appearing larger than every object in the world or the surroundings. On the contrary, in Ali Shariati's exquisite description, the Kaaba's greatest claim lies in its simplicity and plainness.

Although this is also true, from another point of view, the construction attempt on display might well look like sheer madness, even a sign of the Hour. The population that the world's present excessive population, excessive mobility and high technology direct straight at the Kaaba is also very large, and this is perhaps humanity's real tragedy: that the human being, while supposedly trying to develop the world, is at the same time preparing his own doomsday. Moreover, that Mecca cannot be exempt from this tragic course being lived everywhere in the world...