Geographical description.

—Mecca is located in the Ḥid̲j̲āz about 72 km. inland from the Red Sea port of Jedda ( Ḏj̲udda [q.v.]), in lat. 21° 27' N. and long. 39° 49' E. It is now the capital of the province (manātiḳ idāriyya) of Makka in Suʿūdī Arabia, and has a normal population of between 200,000 and 300,000, which may be increased by one-and-a-half or two millions at the time of the Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ or annual pilgrimage.

Mecca lies in a kind of corridor between two ranges of bare steep hills, with an area in the centre rather lower than the rest. The whole corridor is the wādī or the baṭn Makka , “the hollow of Mecca”, and the lower part is al-Baṭḥāʾ, which was doubtless the original settlement and where the Kaʿba stands. Originally some of the houses were close to the Kaʿba, but apparently there was always a free space round it, and in the course of centuries this has been enlarged to constitute the present mosque. Into the Baṭḥāʾ converged a number of side-valleys, each known as a s̲h̲iʿb , and often occupied by a single clan. The outer and higher area of settlement was known as the ẓawāhir. The situation of Mecca was advantageous for trade. Important routes led northwards to Syria (Gaza and Damascus); north-eastwards through a gap in the mountain chain of the Sarāt to ʿIrāḳ; southwards to the Yemen; and westwards to the Red Sea, where there were sailings from S̲h̲uʿayba (and later from Ḏj̲udda) to Abyssinia and other places. Rainfall is scant and irregular. There may be none for four years. When it does come, it may be violent and a sayl or torrent may pour down each s̲h̲iʿb towards the Ḥaram or sacred area round the Kaʿba. There are accounts of the flooding of the Ḥaram from time to time. The supply of water depended on wells, of which that at Zamzam beside the Kaʿba was the most famous. One of the leading men of Mecca was always charged with the siḳāya, that is, with the duty of seeing there was sufficient water for the pilgrims taking part in the Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ . Needles to say, there was no agriculture in the neighbourhood of Mecca. The climate of Mecca was described by the geographer al-Muḳaddisī as “suffocating heat, deadly winds, clouds of flies”. The summer was noted for ramḍāʾ Makka , “the burning of Mecca”, and the wealthier families sent their children to be brought up in the desert for a time.

Pre-Islamic Mecca.

—Mecca had been a sacred site from very ancient times. It was apparently known to Ptolemy as Macoraba. The Ḳurʾān has the name Makka in XLVIII, 24, and the alternative name Bakka in III, 96/90. It also (II, 125-7/119-21) speaks of the building of the Kaʿba by Abraham and Ishmael, but this is generally not accepted by occidental scholars, since it cannot be connected with what is otherwise known of Abraham. According to Arabian legend, it was for long controlled by the tribe of Ḏj̲urhum [q.v.], and then passed to Ḵh̲uzāʿa [q.v.], though certain privileges remained in the hands of older families. After a time, presumably in the 5th century A.D., Ḵh̲uzāʿa were replaced by Ḳurays̲h̲ [q.v.]. This came about through the activity of Ḳuṣayy [q.v.], a descendant of Ḳurays̲h̲ (or Fihr), who became powerful through bringing together hitherto disunited groups of the tribe of Ḳurays̲h̲ and gaining the help of allies from Kināna and Ḳuḍāʿa. It is probale that Ḳuṣayy was the first to make a permanent settlement here as distinct from temporary encampments. In later times a distinction was made between Ḳurays̲h̲ al-Biṭāḥ (those of the Baṭḥāʾ or centre) and Ḳurays̲h̲ al-Ẓawāhir (those of the outer area); and it is significant that all the descendants, not only of Ḳuṣayy but of his great-grandfather Kaʿb, are included in the former. These are the clans of ʿAbd al-Dār, ʿAbd S̲h̲ams, Nawfal, Hās̲h̲im, al-Muṭṭalib, Asad (all descended from Ḳuṣayy), and Zuhra, Mak̲h̲zūm, Taym, Sahm, Ḏj̲umaḥ and ʿAdī. The most important clans of Ḳurays̲h̲ al-Ẓawāhir were Muḥārib, ʿĀmir b. Luʾayy and Ḥārit̲h̲ b. Fihr. There are no grounds, however, for thinking this distinction was equivalent to one between patricians and plebeians. PRIVATE

In the 6th century A.D. divisions appear within Ḳurays̲h̲ al-Biṭāḥ. ʿAbd al-Dār had succeeded to some of the privileges of his father Ḳuṣayy, but in course of time his family was challenged by the descendants of another son of Ḳuṣayy, ʿAbd Manāf, represented by the clan of ʿAbd S̲h̲ams. ʿAbd Manāf had the support of Asad, Zuhra, Taym and Ḥārit̲h̲ b. Fihr; and this group was known as the Muṭayyabūn (“perfumed ones” [see laʿaḳat al-dam ]). ʿAbd al-Dār's group, known as the Aḥlāf or Confederates, included Mak̲h̲zūm, Sahm, Ḏj̲umaḥ and ʿAdī. A compromise agreement was reached without actual fighting. About the year 605 (Ibn Habīb, Munammaḳ, 46) a league is mentioned called the Ḥilf al-Fuḍūl [q.v.] which seems to be a continuation of the Muṭayyabūn. It comprised the same clans as the latter, except that of the four sons of ʿAbd Manāf only Hās̲h̲im and al-Muṭṭalib were in the Ḥilf al-Fuḍūl, while Nawfal and ʿAbd S̲h̲ams remained aloof. The ostensible reason for this league was to help a Yamanī merchant to recover a debt from a man of Sahm (al-Masʿūdī, Murūd̲j̲, iv, 123 f. = §§ 1451-3; cf. Ibn Ḥabīb, Muḥabbar, 167; idem, Munammaḳ, 45-54; Ibn His̲h̲ām, 85-7; al-Ṭabarī, i, 1084 f.). This suggests that the Ḥilf al-Fuḍūl was not a general league against injustice (as maintained by Caetani, Annali, i, 164-6) but was an association of commercially weaker clans attempting to curb unfair monopolistic practices by stronger and wealthier clans—the repudiation of debts would discourage non-Meccans from sending caravans to Mecca and increase the profits of the caravans of the great merchants of Mecca (sc. those not in the Ḥilf al-Fuḍūl).

From many other pieces of evidence it is clear that by this time Mecca had become an important commercial centre. Because of the sanctuary at Mecca and the institutions of the sacred months, when blood feuds were in abeyance, there had doubtless been some commerce for many centuries. It would appear, however, that during the second half of the 6th century A.D. the trade of Mecca had increased enormously. It might be conjectured that the wars between the Byzantines and Persians had made the route through western Arabia more attractive than that from the Persian Gulf to Aleppo. Even if this is not so, the leading merchants of Mecca had gained control of a great volume of trade passing between Syria and theMediterranean on the one hand and South Arabia and the Indian Ocean on the other. Despite the Ḥilf al-Fuḍūl, it would appear that most of the merchandise was carried in caravans organised by wealthy Meccans. The Ḳurʾān (XVI, 2) speaks of “the winter and summer caravans”, and it is usually stated that the former went to the Yemen and the latter to Syria [see īlāf ]. Normally, a caravan carried goods belonging to many groups and individuals, who presumably gave a proportion of their profits to the organisers. The organisers had to enter into agreements with the political authorities in Syria and South Arabia, and possibly also with the ruler of al-Ḥīra and the Negus of Abyssinia, in order to be allowed to buy and sell; and they had to ensure the safety of the caravans by agreements with the nomadic chiefs through whose areas they passed.

It is possible that the expedition of the “men of the elephant” (Ḳurʾān, CV, 1) was occasioned by the growing prosperity of Mecca, and that Abraha [q.v.], the Abyssinian ruler of the Yemen, wanted to reduce its commerce by attacking the sanctuary which facilitated it.

The war of the Fid̲j̲ār [q.v.] certainly marks a stage in the growth of Meccan commercial strength, since it appears to have resulted in the elimination of al- Ṭāʾif as a rival centre of trade and its incorporation into the Meccan system in a subordinate position. The term “system” is appropriate since Mecca was a financial centre, and not a mere focus of trade. By about 600 A.D., the leading men were skilled in the manipulation of credit and interested in possibilities of investment along the routes they travelled, such as the mines in the territory of the tribe of Sulaym. It may be noted that one or two women were merchants, trading on their own account and employing men as their agents; such were Ḵh̲adīd̲j̲a [q.v.], Asmāʾ bint Muk̲h̲arriba, mother of Abū Ḏj̲ahl, and Hind, wife of Abū Sufyān. Among the goods carried were leather, ingots of gold and silver, gold dust (tibr), perfumes and spices, the two latter from South Arabia or India. From Syria they conveyed the products of Mediterranean industry, such as cotton, linen and silk fabrics, and also arms, cereals and oil. Some of these goods would be sold to nomadic tribesmen, others would be sold in markets at the further end of the trade route.

Henri Lammens spoke of Mecca as a “merchant republic”, and this description fits up to a point, but the underlying political concepts were those of Arabia, not of Greece or Italy. Almost the only organ of government, apart from clan assemblies, was the malaʾ or “senate”. This was in fact a meeting of the chiefs and leading men of various clans, but had no executive powers. Any punitive measures could be taken only by the chief of the offender's clan, since otherwise the lex talionis [see ḳiṣāṣ ] would be invoked. There was no president or doge, but sometimes a man's personal talents gave him a degree of primacy (as Abū Sufyān had for three years after the defeat at Badr in 624). The Ḳurays̲h̲, however, were renowned for their ḥilm [q.v.] or “steadiness”, and this in practice meant putting their commercial interests before all other considerations. Because of this, the malaʾ was often able to compose differences between its members and come to a common mind. Thus most of the leading men were agreed on a policy of neutrality in the struggle of the two giant empires of the day, the Byzantine Greek one and the Sāsānid Persian one. Both were trying to extend their spheres of influence in Arabia. When, in about 570 or 575, the Persians conquered the Yemen from the Abyssinians, it became all the more necessary for the Meccans to re-main neutral. Some years after the war of the Fid̲j̲ār, a man of the clan of Asad called ʿUt̲h̲mān b. al-Ḥuwayrit̲h̲ entered into negotiations with the Byzantines and told his fellow-Meccans that he could get favourable trade terms for them if they accepted him as their leader; though he was denounced by a men of his clan as aiming at kingship, the rejection of his proposition was doubtless also due to the need of avoid too close an association with the Byzantines.

In addition to the malaʾ, there were certain traditional offices or functions, usually attached to specific families. The siḳāya or superintendence of the water-supply, especially for pilgrims, has already been mentioned. The rifāḍa was the provisioning of pilgrims; the liwāʾ was the carrying of the standard in war; the nasī was the privilege of deciding when an intercalary month should be inserted to keep the lunar calendar in line with the solar year; and there were several others.

The culture and religion of the Meccans were essentially the same as those of their nomadic neighbours. They applied the lex talionis in much the same way, and had similar ideas about the relations of a chief or sayyid to the full members of his clan or tribe, namely, that he was only primus inter pares. They likewise gave a central place to the conception of honour [see ʿirḍ ], though in detail Meccan ideas of honour may have been modified by the ideas of wealth and power. Like most nomadic Arabs, the majority of Meccans were pagans, acknowledging many gods, but probably having little faith in these and being mainly meterialistic in outlook. The Ḳurʾān, however, in a number of passages, describes pagans who, besides the minor deities, acknowledging Allāh as a “high god” or supreme god, and especially his function of creating. This form of belief is known to have been predominant among the Semitic peoples of a whole wide region (cf. J. Teixidor, The pagan god , Princeton 1977). In addition, besides Byzantine visitors or temporary residents, one or two Meccans seem to have become Christians, such as ʿUt̲h̲mān b. al-Ḥuwayrit̲h̲, and others are said to have been attracted to monotheism [see ḥanīf ]. One or two, whose business contacts were with ʿIrāḳ, had some interest in Persian culture.

Mecca and the beginnings of Islam.

— Although the Ḳurʾānic message had from the first a universal potential, it was originally addressed to Meccans. The attraction of the message for many Meccans was due to its relevance to the moral, social and spiritual malaise which had developed in Mecca as a result of the great increase in wealth. It is thus not accidental that Mecca still remains the focus of the religion of Islam. The career of Muḥammad and the early history of the religion which he proclaimed will be found in the article muḥammad . Here the relation of these events to the town of Mecca will be briefly noted.

Muḥammad was born in Mecca into the clan of Hās̲h̲im about 570 A.D. This clan may have been more important earlier, but was not now among the very wealthy clans, and played a prominent part in the Ḥilf al-Fuḍūl, which was directed against monopolistic practices. Because Muḥammad was a posthumous child and his grandfather died when he was about eight, he was excluded by Arabian custom from inheriting anything from either. Most of his near kinsmen were engaged in trade, and Muḥammad accompanied his uncle Abū Ṭālib on trading journeys to Syria. Then he was employed as a steward by the woman merchant Ḵh̲adīd̲j̲a and subsequently married her. This was about 595, and thereafter he seems tohave continued to trade with her capital and in partnership with one of her relatives. It was no doubt his personal experience of these consequences of being an orphan which made Muḥammad specially aware of the problems facing Meccan society; and it was about 610, after he had long mediated on these matters, that the Ḳurʾānic revelation began to come to him.

The Ḳurʾān may be said to see the source of the troubles of Mecca as the materialism of many Meccans and their failure to believe in God and the Last Day. In particular, it attacked the great merchants for their undue reliance on wealth and their misuse of it by neglecting the traditional duties of the leading men to care for the poor and unfortunate. At the same time, the Ḳurʾān summoned all men to believe in God's power and goodness, including his position as final Judge, and to worship him. In the years up to 614 or 615 many people responded to this summons, including sons and younger brothers of the great merchants. By 614 some of these great merchants, especially younger ones like Abū Ḏj̲ahl, had come to feel their position threatened by Muḥammad, since his claim to receive messages from God and the number of people attracted by his preaching might eventually give him great political authority. A movement of opposition to the new religion then appeared. The great merchants applied pressures of various kinds to Muḥammad and his followers to get them to abandon their beliefs, or at least to compromise. Some of his followers, persecuted by their own families, went to Abyssinia for a time. Muḥammad himself was able to continue preaching so long as he had the protection of his clan. About 619, however, his uncle Abū Ṭālib died and was succeeded as head of the clan by another uncle, Abū Lahab, who was in partnership with some of the great merchants and found a pretext for denying clan protection to Muḥammad. In 622, therefore, Muḥammad accepted an invitation to go to Medina where a great many people were ready to accept him as a prophet. His move from Mecca to Medina was the Hid̲j̲ra or emigration.

The greater part of the period between the Hid̲j̲ra and Muḥammad's death was dominated by the struggle between Muḥammad's supporters and the great merchants of Mecca. After some fruitless Muslim razzias against Meccan caravans, the Meccans were provoked by the capture of a small caravan under their noses, as it were, at Nak̲h̲la early in 624. Because of this they sent a relatively large force to protect a very wealthy caravan returning from Syria in March 624; and this expedition ended disastrously for them in the battle of Badr, where they lost many of their leading men by death or capture, including the leader of the expedition, Abū Ḏj̲ahl. Meccan affairs were guided by Abū Sufyān for the next three years. His attempt in 625 to avenge the defeat of Badr led to his having the better of the fighting at Uḥud in the oasis of Medina, but he failed to disturb Muḥammad's position there. His next attempt in 627, with numerous allies, was a more ignominious failure through Muḥammad's adoption of the k̲h̲andaḳ or trench and the break-up of the alliance. Abū Sufyān then seems to have worked for peace and reconciliation with the Muslims, while other men still hoped to retrieve the fortunes of Mecca, and, for example, forcibly prevented Muḥammad and 1,600 Muslims from making the pilgrimage in 628. Nevertheless, they made the treaty of al-Ḥudaybiyya [q.v.] with him as with an equal. A breach of the terms of this treaty by Meccan allies led to a great Muslim expedition against Mecca with some 10,000 men. The town was surrendered almost without a blow, and all the Mec-cans, except a handful who were guilty of specific offences against Muḥammad or some Muslim, were assured their lives and property would be safe if they behaved honourably. For some time, Muḥammad had been aiming at reconciling the Meccans rather than crushing them by force. When, a week or two after the capture or fatḥ , it was learnt that there was a large concentration of nomads to the east of Mecca, some 2,000 Meccans took to the field with Muḥammad and helped him to gain the victory of Ḥunayn [q.v.]. Some of the pagan Meccans became Muslims almost at once, others only after a longer period.

A young Muslim of a Meccan family was left as governor of Mecca and it was made clear that Medina would remain the capital. The Kaʿba had for many years been the ḳibla [q.v.] or direction towards which all Muslims turned in prayer. At the fatḥ it was purged of idols and became a centre of Islamic worship, while the Black Stone was retained as an object to be reverenced. The annual Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ [q.v.] was retained as an Islamic ceremony, and this also gave special importance to Mecca in Islamic eyes. Its commercial activity appears to have dwindled away, perhaps largely because many of the leading men moved to Medina and subsequently found their administrative abilities fully employed in organising an empire. After the capture of ʿIrāḳ, the trade between the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean seems to have resumed the old route by the Euphrates valley.

Mecca from 632 to 750.

—Not much is heard about Mecca under the first four caliphs. ʿUmar and ʿUt̲h̲mān were concerned with the danger of flooding and brought Christian engineers to build barrages in the high-lying quarters. They also constructed dykes and embankments to protect the area round the Kaʿba. The first Umayyad caliph, Muʿāwiya, the son of Abū Sufyān, though mostly living in Damascus, took an interest in his native town. He had new buildings erected, developed agriculture in the surrounding district, and improved the water-supply by digging wells and building storage dams. The work of flood prevention continued under the Umayyads. In an attempt to control the sayl, a new channel was dug for it and barriers were erected at different levels. Despite these improvements, the problem was not fully solved, since the Baṭḥāʾ was a basin with no outlet. In the course of operations, buildings on the bank of the sayl and adjoining the Kaʿba were taken down, and the appearance of Mecca was thus considerably altered.

For a brief period after the death of Muʿāwiya, Mecca had again some political importance as the seat of the rival caliph ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Zubayr [q.v.]. The succession to Muʿāwiya of his son Yazīd in 611/680 was disliked by many members of Ḳurays̲h̲, and Ibn al-Zubayr took advantage of such feelings to build up a party of supporters in Mecca, and eventually had himself proclaimed caliph there. For a time he controlled most of Arabia and ʿIrāḳ, but the Umayyad ʿAbd al-Malik gradually consolidated his power, and in 73/692 his general al-Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ād̲j̲ defeated and killed Ibn al-Zubayr, thus ending his bid for power and restoring to Umayyad rule Mecca and the other regions acknowledging the Zubayrids. In 63/682, when Ibn al-Zubayr was deep in intrigue but had not yet openly claimed the caliphate, an Umayyad army was sent to Mecca, and during its presence there the Kaʿba was partly destroyed by fire, probably through the carelessness of a supporter of Ibn al-Zubayr. Subsequently, the latter had the Kaʿba rebuilt, including the Ḥid̲j̲r within it; but this change was reversed by al-Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ād̲j̲. The caliph al-Walīd I iscredited with the construction of galleries circling the vast courtyard round the Kaʿba, thus giving the mosque ( al-masd̲j̲id al-ḥaram ) its distinctive form. In the period of the decline of the Umayyads, in 130/747 Mecca was briefly occupied by Abū Ḥamza, a Ḵh̲ārid̲j̲ī rebel from the Yemen, but he was soon surprised and killed by an army sent by the caliph Marwān II. For most of the Umayyad period, Mecca had a sub-governor responsible to the governor of the Ḥid̲j̲āz who resided at Medina. It attracted wealthy people who did not want to be involved in politics and became a place of pleasure and ease with many poets and musicians. There were also some religious scholars, but fewer than at Medina.

(W. Montgomery Watt)

i. Mecca under the ʿAbbāsids down to the foundation of the S̲h̲arīfate (132-350/750-961).

Although the political centre of gravity in Islam now lay in Bag̲h̲dād, this period at first presents the same picture as under Umayyad rule. The Ḥaramayn are as a rule governed by ʿAbbāsid princes or individuals closely connected with them (Die Chroniken der Stadt Mekka, ed. Wüstenfeld, ii, 181 ff.). Sometimes Mecca and Ṭaʾif were under one ruler, who was at the same time leader of the Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ , while Medina had a separate governor of its own.

Arabia had, however, from the 1st century a.h. contained a number of ʿAlid groups, who, as was their wont, fished in troubled waters, lay in wait as brigands to plunder the Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ caravans, and from time to time hoisted their flags when they were not restrained either by the superior strength or by the bribes of the caliphs. We find Manṣūr (136-56/754-74) already having trouble in Western Arabia. Towards the end of the reign of Mahdī (156-69/774-85) a Ḥasanid, Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī, led a raid on Medina, which he ravaged; at Fak̲h̲k̲h̲ [q.v.] near Mecca, he was cut down with many of his followers by the ʿAbbāsid leader of the Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ . The place where he was buried is now called al-S̲h̲uhadāʾ. It is significant that he is regarded as the “martyr of Fak̲h̲k̲h̲” (al-Ṭabarī, iii, 551 ff.; Chron. Mekka, i, 435, 501).

Hārūn al-Ras̲h̲īd on his nine pilgrimages expended vast sums in Mecca. He was not the only ʿAbbāsid to scatter wealth in the holy land. This had a bad effect on the character of the Meccans. There were hardly any descendants left of the old distinguished families, and the population grew accustomed to living at the expense of others and were ready to give vent to anydissatisfaction in rioting. This attitude was all too frequently stimulated by political conditions.

In the reign of al-Maʾmūn (198-218/817-33) it was again ʿAlids, Ḥusayn al-Afṭas and Ibrāhīm b. Mūsā, who extended their rule over Medina, Mecca and the Yemen (al-Ṭabarī, iii, 981 ff.; Chron. Mecca , ii, 238), ravaged Western Arabia and plundered the treasures of the Kaʿba. How strong ʿAlid influence already was at this time is evident from the fact that al-Maʾmūn appointed two ʿAlids as governors of Mecca (al-Ṭabarī, iii, 1039; Chron. Mecca , ii, 191 ff.).

With the decline of the ʿAbbāsid caliphate after the death of al-Maʾmūn, a period of anarchy began in the holy land of Islam, which was frequently accompanied by scarcity or famine. It became the regular custom for a number of rulers to be represented at the Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ in the plain of ʿArafāt and to have their flags unfurled; the holy city was rarely spared fighting on these occasions. The safety of the pilgrim caravans was considerably affected; it was very often ʿAlids who distinguished themselves in plundering the pilgrims.

The ʿAlid cause received an important reinforcement at this time by the foundation of a Ḥasanid dynasty in Ṭabaristān (al-Ṭabarī, iii, 1523-33, 1583 ff., 1682-5, 1693 ff., 1840, 1880, 1884 ff, 1940). In Mecca the repercussion of this event was felt in the appearance of two Ḥasanids (Chron. Mekka, i, 343; ii, 10, 195, 239 ff.), Ismāʿīl b. Yūsuf and his brother Muḥammad, who also ravaged Medina and Ḏj̲udda in the way that had now become usual (251/865-6).

The appearance of the Ḳarmaṭians [see ḳarmaṭī ] brought still further misery to the country in the last fifty years before the foundation of the s̲h̲arīfate (al-Ṭabarī, iii, 2124-30). Hard pressed themselves at the heart of the empire, the caliphs were hardly able even to think of giving active support to the holy land, and, besides, their representatives had not the necessary forces at their disposal. From 304/916 onwards the Ḳarmatians barred the way of the pilgrim caravans. In 318/930, 1,500 Ḳarmaṭian warriors raided Mecca, massacred the inhabitants by the thousand and carried off the Black Stone to Baḥrayn. It was only when they realised that such deeds were bringing them no nearer their goal—the destruction of official Islām—that their zeal began to relax and in 339/950 they even brought the Stone back again. Mecca was relieved of serious danger from the Ḳarmaṭians. The following years bear witness to the increasing influence of the ʿAlids in western Arabia in connection with the advance of Fāṭimid rule to the east and with Būyid rule in Bag̲h̲dād. From this time, the Meccan ʿAlids are called by the title of S̲h̲arīf, which they have retained ever since.

ii. From the foundation of the S̲h̲arīfate to Ḳatāda (ca. 350-598/960-1200).

iii. The rule of Ḳatāda and his descendants down to the Wahhābī period (ca. 596-1202/1200-1788).

Meanwhile, a revolution was being prepared which was destined to have more far-reaching consequences than any of its predecessors. Ḳatāda, a descendant of the same Mūsā (see above) from whom the Mūsāwīs and the Hawās̲h̲im were descended, had gradually extended his estates as well as his influence from Yanbuʿ to Mecca and had gathered a considerable following in the town. According to some sources, his son Ḥanẓala made all preparations for the decisive blow on the holy city; according to others, Ḳatāda seized the town on 27 Rad̲j̲ab when the whole population was away performing a lesser ʿumra in memory of the completion of the building of the Kaʿba by ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Zubayr, which was celebrated on this day along with the festival of Muḥammad's ascension to heaven. However it came about, Ḳatāda's seizure of the town meant the coming of an able and strong-willed ruler, the ancestor of all later S̲h̲arīfs. He steadfastly followed his one ambition to make his territory an independent principality. Everything was in his favour; that he did not achieve his aim was a result of the fact that the Ḥid̲j̲āz was once again at the intersection of many rival lines of political interest.

Ḳatāda began by ruining his chances with the great powers; he ill-treated the son of the Ayyūbid al-Malik a-ʿĀdil (540-615/1145-1218 [see al-ʿādil ]) in brutal fashion (Chron. Mekka, ii, 263). He roused the ire of the caliph by his attitude to pilgrims from ʿIrāḳ. He was able, however, to appease the latter and the embassy he sent to Bag̲h̲dād returned with gifts from the caliph. The caliph also invited him to visit Bag̲h̲dād. According to some historians, however, the S̲h̲arīf turned home again before he actually reached Bag̲h̲dād. On this occasion, he is said to have expressed his policy of the “splendid isolation” of the Ḥid̲j̲āz in verse, as he did in his will in prose (see Snouck Hurgronje, Qatâdah's policy of splendid isolation, cited in Bibl.).

On the other hand, Ḳatāda is said to have vigorously supported an Imām of Ḥasanid descent in founding a kingdom in the Yemen. After the reconquest of this region by a grandson of al-ʿĀdil, the Ayyūbids of Egypt, Syria, and South Arabia were mentioned in the k̲h̲uṭba in Mecca along with the caliph and S̲h̲arīf.

Ḳatāda's life ended in a massacre which his son Ḥasan carried out in his family to rid himself of possible rivals (Chron. Mekka, ii, 215, 263 ff.; Ibn al-At̲h̲īr, xii, 262 ff.). The Ayyūbid prince Masʿūd, however, soon put a limit to his ambition and had Mecca governed by his generals. On his death, however, power again passed into the hands of the S̲h̲arīfs, whose territory was allowed a certain degree of independence by the rulers of the Yemen as a bulwark against Egypt.

About the middle of the 7th/13th century, the world of Islam assumes a new aspect as the result of the advent of persons and happenings of great importance. In 656/1258 the taking of Bag̲h̲dād by the Mongol Ḵh̲ān Hülegü put an end to the caliphate. The pilgrim caravan from ʿIrāḳ was no longer of any political significance. In Egypt, power passed from the Ayyūbids to the Mamlūks; Sultan Baybars [q.v.] (658-76/1260-77) was soon the most powerful ruler in the lands of Islam. He was able to leave the government of Mecca in the hands of the S̲h̲arīf, because the latter, Abū Numayy , was an energetic individual who ruled with firmness during the second half of the 7th/13th century (652-700/1254-1301). His long reign firmly established the power of the descendants of Ḳatāda.

Nevertheless, the first half century after his death was almost entirely filled with fighting between different claimants to the throne. ʿAd̲j̲lān's reign also (747-76/1346-75) was filled with political unrest, so much so that the Mamlūk Sultan is said on one occasion to have sworn to exterminate all the S̲h̲arīfs. ʿAd̲j̲lān introduced a political innovation by appointing his son and future successor Aḥmad co-regent in 762/1361, by which step he hoped to avoid a fraticidal struggle before or after his death.

A second measure of ʿĀd̲j̲lān's also deserves mention, namely the harsh treatment of the muʾad̲h̲d̲h̲in and imām of the Zaydīs; this shows that the reigning S̲h̲arīfs had gone over to the predominant rite of al-S̲h̲āfıʿī and forsaken the Zaydī creed of their forefathers.

Among the sons and successors of ʿAd̲j̲lān, special mention may be made of Ḥasan (798-829/1396-1426) because he endeavoured to extend his sway over the whole of the Ḥid̲j̲āz and to guard his own financial interests carefully, at the same time being able to avoid giving his Egyptian suzerain cause to interfere.

But from 828/1425 onwards, he and his successors had to submit to a regular system of control as regards the allotment of the customs.

From the time of Ḥasan, in addition to the bodyguard of personal servants and freedmen, we find a regular army of mercenaries mentioned which was passed from one ruler to another. But the mode of life of the S̲h̲arīfs, unlike that of other Oriental rulers, remained simple and in harmony with their Arabian surroundings. As a vassal of the Egyptian sultan, the S̲h̲arīf received from him every year his tawḳiʿ [q.v.] and a robe of honour. On the ceremonies associated with the accession of the S̲h̲arīfs, see Snouck Hurgronje, Mekka, i, 97-8.

Of the three sons of Ḥasan who disputed the position in their father's lifetime, Barakāt (I) was chosen by the sultan as co-regent; twenty years later, he succeeded his father and was able with slight interruptions to hold sway till his death in 859/1455. He had to submit to the sultan, sending a permanent garrison of 50 Turkish horsemen under an amīr to Mecca. This amīr may be regarded as the precursor of the later governors, who sometimes attained positions of considerable influence under Turkish suzerainty.

Mecca enjoyed a period of prosperity under Barakāt's son Muḥammad (Chron. Mekka, ii, 341 ff.; iii, 230 ff.), whose reign (859-902/1455-97) coincided with that of Ḳāʾitbay [q.v.] in Egypt. The latter has left a fine memorial in the many buildings he erected in Mecca.

Under Muḥammad's son Barakāt II (902-31/1497-1525), who displayed great ability and bravery in the usual struggle with his relatives, without getting the support he desired from Egypt (Chron. Mekka, ii, 342 ff.; iii, 244 ff.), the political situation in Islam was fundamentally altered by the Ottoman Sultan Selīm's conquest of Egypt in 923/1517.

Although henceforth Constantinople had the importance for Mecca that Bag̲h̲dād once had, there was little real understanding between Turks and Arabs, Mecca at first experienced a period of peace under the S̲h̲arīfs Muḥammad Abū Numayy 931-73/1525-66) and Ḥasan (973-1009/1566-1601). Under Ottoman protection, the territory of the S̲h̲arīfs was extended as far as Ḵh̲aybar in the north, to Ḥalī in the south and in the east into Nad̲j̲d. Dependence on Egypt still existed at the same time; when the government in Constantinople was a strong one, it was less perceptible, and vice-versa. This dependence was not only political but had also a material and religious side. The Ḥid̲j̲āz was dependent for its food supply on corn from Egypt. The foundations of a religious and educational nature now found powerful patrons in the Sultans of Turkey.

A darker side of the Ottoman suzerainty was its intervention in the administration of justice. Since the S̲h̲arīfs had adopted the S̲h̲āfiʿī mad̲h̲hab, the S̲h̲āfiʿī ḳāḍī was the chief judge; this office had also remained for centuries in one family. Now the highest bidder for the office was sent every year from Istanbul to Mecca; the Meccans of course had to pay the price with interest.

With Ḥasan's death, a new period of confusion and civil war began for Mecca. In the language of the historians, this circumstance makes itself apparent in the increasing use of the term Ḏh̲awī ... for different groups of the descendants of Abū Numayy who dispute the supremacy, often having their own territory, sometimes asserting a certain degree of independence from the Grand S̲h̲arīf, while preserving a system of reciprocal protection which saved the whole family from disaster (Snouck Hurgronje, Mekka, i, 112 ff.).

The struggle for supremacy, interspersed with disputes with the officials of the suzerain, centred in the 11th/17th century mainly around the ʿAbādila, the Ḏh̲awī Zayd and the Ḏh̲awī Barakāt.

Zayd (1040-76/1631-66) was an energetic individual who would not tolerate everything the Turkish officials did. But he was unable to oppose successfully a measure which deserves mention on account of its general importance. The ill-feeling between the Sunnī Turks and the S̲h̲īʿī Persians had been extended to Mecca as a result of an order by Sultan Murād IV to expel all Persians from the holy city and not to permit them to make the pilgrimage in future. Neither the S̲h̲arīfs nor the upper classes in Mecca had any reason to be pleased with this measure; it only served the mob as a pretext to plunder well-to-do Persians. As soon as the Turkish governor had ordered them to go, the S̲h̲arīfs however gave permission as before to the S̲h̲īʿīs to take part in the pilgrimage and to remain in the town. The S̲h̲arīfs likewise favoured the Zaydīs, who had also been frequently forbidden Mecca by the Turks.

The further history of Mecca (down to the comingof the Wahhābīs is a rather monotonous struggle of the S̲h̲arīfian families among themselves (Ḏh̲awī Zayd, Ḏh̲awī Barakāt, Ḏh̲awī Masʿūd) and with the Ottoman officials in the town itself or in Ḏj̲udda.

iv. The S̲h̲arīfate from the Wahhābī period to its end. The Kingdom.

Although the Wahhābīs [q.v.] had already made their influence perceptible under his predecessors, it was G̲h̲ālib (1788-1813) who was the first to see the movement sweeping towards his territory like a flood; but he left no stone unturned to avert the danger. He sent his armies north, east and south; his brothers and brothers-in-law all took the field; the leaders of the Syrian and Egyptian pilgrim caravans were appealed to at every pilgrimage for help, but without success. During the period of the French occupation of Egypt (1798-1801), he made a rapprochement with the French there, hoping to ensure the continuance of the corn imports from Egypt upon which the Ḥid̲j̲āz relied and to reduce Turkish influence there (see M. Abir, Relations between the government of India and the Sharif of Mecca during the French invasion of Egypt , 1798-1801, in JRAS [1965], 33-42). In 1799 G̲h̲ālib made a treaty with the amīr of Darʿiyya, by which the boundaries of their territories were laid down, with the stipulation that the Wahhābīs should be allowed access to the holy territory. Misunderstandings proved inevitable, however, and in 1803 the army of the amīr Suʿūd b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz approached the holy city. After G̲h̲ālib had withdrawn to Ḏj̲udda, in April Suʿūd entered Mecca, the inhabitants of which had announced their conversion. All ḳubba s were destroyed, all tobacco pipes and musical instruments burned, and the ad̲h̲ān purged of praises of the Prophet.

In July, G̲h̲ālib returned to Mecca but gradually he became shut in there by enemies as with a wall. In August, the actual siege began and with it a period of famine and plague. In February of the following year, G̲h̲ālib had to submit to acknowledging Wahhābī suzerainty while retaining his own position.

The Sublime Porte had during all these happenings displayed no sign of life. It was only after the Wahhābīs had in 1807 sent back the pilgrim caravans from Syria and Egypt with their maḥmal s [q.v.], that Muḥammad ʿAlī [q.v.] was given instructions to deal with the Ḥid̲j̲āz as soon as he was finished with Egypt. It was not till 1813 that he took Mecca and there met G̲h̲ālib who made cautious advances to him. G̲h̲ālib, however, soon fell into the trap set for him by Muḥammad ʿAlī and his son Tusun. He was exiled to Salonika, where he lived till his death in 1816.

In the meanwhile, Muḥammad ʿAlī had installed G̲h̲ālib's nephew Yaḥyā b. Sarūr (1813-27) as S̲h̲arīf. Thus ended the first period of Wahhābī rule over Mecca, and the Ḥid̲j̲āz once more became dependent on Egypt. In Mecca, Muḥammad ʿAlī was honourably remembered because he restored the pious foundations which had fallen into ruins, revived the consignments of corn, and allotted stipends to those who had distinguished themselves in sacred lore or in other ways.

In 1827, Muḥammad ʿAlī had again to interfere in the domestic affairs of the S̲h̲arīfs. When Yaḥyā had made his position untenable by the vengeance he took on one of his relatives, the viceroy deposed the Ḏh̲awī Zayd and installed one of the ʿAbādila, Muḥammad, usually called Muḥammad b. ʿAwn (1827-51). He had first of all to go through the traditional struggle with his relatives. Trouble between him and Muḥammad ʿAlī's deputy resulted in both being removed to Cairo in 1836.

Here the S̲h̲arīf remained till 1840 when by the treaty between Muḥammad ʿAlī and the Porte the Ḥid̲j̲āz was again placed directly under the Porte. Muḥammad b. ʿAwn returned to his home and rank. Ottoman suzerainty was now incorporated in the person of the wālī of Ḏj̲udda. Friction was inevitable between him and Muḥammad b. ʿAwn; the latter's friendship with Muḥammad ʿAlī now proved of use to him. He earned the gratitude of the Turks for his expeditions against the Wahhābī chief Fayṣal in al-Riyāḍ and against the ʿAṣīr tribes. His raids on the territory of Yemen also prepared the way for Ottoman rule over it.

In the meanwhile, the head of the Ḏh̲awī Zayd, ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib (1851-56), had made good use of his friendship with the grand vizier and brought about the deposition of the ʿAbādila in favour of the Ḏh̲awī Zayd. ʿAbd Muṭṭalib, however, did not succeed in keeping on good terms with one of the two pas̲h̲as with whom he had successively to deal. In 1855 it was decided in Istanbul to cancel his appointment and to recall Muḥammad b. ʿAwn. ʿAbd Muṭṭalib at first refused to recognise the genuineness of the order; and he was supported by the Turkophobe feeling just provoked by the prohibition of slavery. Finally, however, he had to give way to Muḥammad b. ʿAwn, who in 1856 entered upon the S̲h̲arīfate for the second time; this reign lasted barely two years. Between his death in March 1858 and the arrival of his successor ʿAbd Allāh in October of the same year, there took place the murder of the Christians in Ḏj̲idda (15 June) and the atonement for it (cf. d̲j̲udda , and Snouck Hurgronje, Een rector der mekkaansche universiteit, in Bijdragen t. d. Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde van Ned.-Indië, 5^e volgr., deel ii, 381 ff., 399 ff.).

The rule of ʿAbd Allāh (1858-77), who was much liked by his subjects, was marked by peace at home and events of far-reaching importance abroad. The opening of the Suez Canal (1869) meant on the one hand the liberation of the Ḥid̲j̲āz from Egypt, on the other, however, more direct connection with Istanbul. The installation of telegraphic connections between the Ḥid̲j̲āz and the rest of the world had a similar importance. The reconquest of Yemen by the Turks was calculated to strengthen the impression that Arabia was now Turkish territory for ever.

The brief reign of his popular elder brother Ḥusayn (1877-80) ended with the assassination of the S̲h̲arīf by an Afg̲h̲ān. The fact that the aged ʿAbd Muṭṭalib (see above) was sent by the Ḏh̲awī Zayd from Istanbul as his successor (1880-82) gave rise to an obvious suspicion.

Although the plebs saw something of a saint in this old man, his rule was soon felt to be so oppressive that the notables petitioned for his deposition (Snouck Hurgronje, Mekka, i, 204 ff.). As a result in 1881, the energetic ʿOt̲h̲mān Nūrī Pas̲h̲a was sent with troops to the Ḥid̲j̲āz as commander of the garrison with the task of preparing for the restoration of the ʿAbādila. ʿAbd Muṭṭalib was outwitted and taken prisoner; he was kept under guard is one of his own houses in Mecca till his death in 1886.

ʿOt̲h̲mān Pas̲h̲a, who was appointed wālī in July 1882, hoped to see his friend ʿAbd Ilāh, one of the ʿAbādila, installed as Grand S̲h̲arīf alongside of him. ʿAwn al-Rafīḳ (1882-1905) was, however, appointed (portrait in Snouck Hurgronje, Bilder aus Mekka). As the wālī was an individual of great energy, who had ever done much for the public good and ʿAwn, although very retiring, was by no means insignificant, but was indeed somewhat tyrannical, trouble between them was inevitable, especially as they had the samepowers on many points, e.g. the administration of justice and supervision of the safety of the pilgrim routes. After a good deal of friction, ʿOt̲h̲mān was dismissed in 1886. His successor was Ḏj̲emāl Pas̲h̲a, who only held office for a short period and was succeeded by Ṣafwat Pas̲h̲a. Only Aḥmad Rātib could keep his place alongside of ʿAwn, and that by shutting his eyes to many things and being satisfied with certain material advantages. After ʿAwn's death, ʿAbd Ilāh was chosen as his successor. He died, however, before he could start on the journey from Istanbul to Mecca. ʿAwn's actual successor was therefore his nephew ʿAlī (1905-8). In 1908 he and Aḥmad Rātib both lost their positions with the Turkish Revolution.

With Ḥusayn (1908-1916-1924 [see ḥusayn b. ʿalī ]), also a nephew of ʿAwn's, the last S̲h̲arīf came to power as the nominee of the young Turks in Istanbul. But for the Great War, his S̲h̲arīfate would probably have run the usual course. The fact that Turkey was now completely involved in the war induced him to declare himself independent in 1916. He endeavoured to extend his power as far as possible, first as liberator ( munḳid̲h̲ ) of the Arabs, then (22 June 1916) as king of the Ḥid̲j̲āz or king of Arabia and finally as caliph. Very soon however, it became apparent that the ruler of Nad̲j̲d, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Al Suʿūd, like his Wahhābī forefathers, was destined to have a powerful say in the affairs of Arabia. In September 1924 his troops took al- Ṭāʾif, and in October, Mecca. King Ḥusayn fled first to ʿAḳaba and from there in May 1925 to Cyprus. His son ʿAlī retired to Ḏj̲udda. Ibn Suʿūd besieged this town and Medina for a year, avoiding bloodshed and complications with European powers. Both towns surrendered in December 1925.

We owe descriptions of social life in Mecca during the last decades of the pre-modern period to two Europeans, the Briton Sir Richard Burton, who as the dervish-physician Mīrzā ʿAbd Allāh visited Mecca in 1853 at the time of the pilgrimage, and the Dutchman Snouck Hurgronje, who lived in Mecca for some months during 1884-5 with the express aim of acquiring a knowledge of the daily life of the Meccans, but also with a special interest, as a Dutchman, in the Ḏj̲āwa or Indonesians who went as pilgrims to Mecca and who often stayed there as mud̲j̲āwirūn.

The institution of the pilgrimage and the ceremonies connected with the various holy sites in or near the city dominated Meccan life, many of its citizens having specific roles concerning the religious rites and being organised in special gilds, such as the zamzamiyyūn who distributed water from the well of Zamzam in the courtyard of the Kaʿba; the Bedouin muk̲h̲arrid̲j̲ūn or camel brokers, who arranged transport between Ḏj̲udda, Mecca, al-Ṭāʾif and Medina; and above all, the muṭawwifūn or guides for the intending pilgrims and their conductors through the various rites (manāsik) of the Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ [q.v.]. These muṭawwifūn had their connections with particular ethnic groups or geographical regions of the Islamic world (there were, in Snouck Hurgronje's time, 180 guides plus hangerson who were concerned with the Ḏj̲āwa pilgrims alone), and their agents (wukalāʾ) in Ḏj̲udda would take charge of the pilgrims as soon as they disembarked. Such groups as these, together with the towns-people in general who would let out their houses or rooms, were geared to the exploitation of the pilgrims, and it was only in the rest of the year that tradesmen, scholars, lawyers, etc., could really pursue their other vocations.

At this time also, the slave trade was still of considerable importance. There were a few white Circas-sians (Čerkes [q.v.]), but much more important for hard manual labour like building and quarrying were the black negro slaves ( sūdān ), and, for domestic service, the somewhat lighter-skinned so-called Abyssinians (ḥubūs̲h̲). Despite the prohibitions of slave-trading imposed in their own colonial territories and on the high seas, Snouck Hurgronje further observed some slaves from British India and the Dutch East Indies, and the Mecca slave market was a flourishing one.

(A.J. Wensinck* [C.E. Bosworth])

Politics and administration.

ʿAlī b. Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī, was declared king of al-Ḥid̲j̲āz on 5 Rabīʿ I 1346/4 October 1924 following the abdication of his father the previous day, but the odds against his stabilising a collapsing situation were insurmountable. Wahhābī forces under Ḵh̲ālid b. Luʾayy and Sulṭān b. Bid̲j̲ād had already occupied al-Ṭāʾif, where excesses had taken place, and a significant number ofMakkans, in fear for their lives, had fled to al-Madīna and Ḏj̲udda. Since, unlike other Ḥid̲j̲azī cities, Makka had no walls, and since King ʿAlī's “army” probably did not exceed 400 men, the monarch ordered his troops out of the capital on 14 Rabī I 13 October 1924 to take up new positions in Baḥra about half-way between Makka and Ḏj̲udda. The next morning, the city was looted, not by the Ik̲h̲wān (Wahhābīs) but by local Bedouin who found it unguarded. ʿAbd ʿAzīz b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Āl Suʿūd, the sultan of Nad̲j̲d and its Dependencies, was in al-Riyāḍ and had ordered Ḵh̲ālid b. Lu'ayy and Ibn Bid̲j̲ād not to enter Makka by force before his own arrival, for fear of further savagery in Islam's holiest city. However, when Ḵh̲ālid and Ibn Bid̲j̲ād found that the enemy had fled, they decided to move. On 17 Rabīʿ I/16 October, by which time the Bedouin had left, Ibn Bid̲j̲ād ordered four Ik̲h̲wān from G̲h̲aṭg̲h̲aṭ to enter the shuttered city without weapons and wearing iḥrām clothing. As they traversed the deserted streets, they read a proclamation annexing the city and guaranteeing the safety of its inhabitants. Slowly the citizenry began to re-emerge. On the following day, Ḵh̲ālid and Sulṭān led their forces, all muḥrimūn, into the holy city to the Ḥaram , where the ʿumra was performed. There was some sporadic destruction of water pipes, tobacco supplies, S̲h̲arīfian property and domed tombs, and the Ik̲h̲wān delivered sermons. Among the revered antiquities destroyed was the reputed birthplace of the Prophet and two houses revered as those of Ḵh̲adīd̲j̲a and of Abū Bakr. But on the whole, good order was kept. As a Suʿūdī official observed, the Ik̲h̲wān entered Makka saying “Lā ilāha illā Allāh” and “Allāhu Akbar”, not fighting and killing. Ḵh̲ālid b. Lu'ayy was “elected” amīr and promptly installed himself in the S̲h̲arīfian reception room to receive the submission of the civil and religious notables.

The amīr of Makka served unaided for a month-and-a-half, and had to confront both domestic and international problems almost at once. On 6 Rabīʿ II 1343/4 November 1924, the consuls resident in Ḏj̲udda (British, Dutch, French, Iranian and Italian), who no doubt anticipated an immediate Suʿūdī advance on Ḏj̲udda, sent Ibn Luʾayy a letter addressed to Sultan ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz holding the Nad̲j̲dīs responsible for the safety of the subjects and citizens of their several countries but also indicating their neutrality in the ongoing conflict with the reduced S̲h̲arīfian kingdom. Ibn Luʾayy forwarded it on to the sultan. Ibn Luʾayy also received a rather treasonable communication of 7 Rabīʿ II/5 November from the Ḥid̲j̲āz National Party in Ḏj̲udda. This group, which was nominally led by S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ ʿAbd Allāh Sarrād̲j̲, the muftī of Makka, who reputedly had been the only official of al-Ḥusayn's government who had been willing to stand up to him in debate, had been transformed into King ʿAlī's cabinet. Following Baker's account, we learn that they nevertheless, secretly, wrote to Ibn Luʾayy seeking some accommodation. Ibn Luʾayy responded on 20 Rabiʿ II/18 November curtly, “We, the Muslims, have no aim but to subject ourselves to God's orders and to love those who carry out those orders even if he be an Abyssinian negro, to fight the kuffār ... or the mus̲h̲rikīn ... As God said (LVIII, 22) in his Holy Book... 'Thou wilt not find those who believe in God and the last day loving those who resist God and His Prophet even though they be their fathers, sons, brothers or kin' ... if you look at our own situation and consider our actions you will see that this is our way of defending Islam.” He enclosed a copy of ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz's proclamation to the people of Ḏj̲udda and Makka suggesting an international conference on the future of al-Ḥid̲j̲āz and meanwhile assuring security for all. The Ḥid̲j̲āz committee responded to the effect that, since al-Ḥusayn had gone and since King ʿAlī and the Party accepted the same kind of Islam that Sultan ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz believed in, there was no reason to continue fighting. They asked to send delegates to Makka so that a truce could be signed pending the decision of the international conference. Ḵh̲ālid gave them no encouragement; he wrote on 22 Rabiʿ II/20 November, “God has already purified the Holy Ḥaram by ridding it of Ḥusayn ... We shall oppose all those who continue to support ʿAlī.” Muḥammad Ṭawīl, who was the real power in the Ḥid̲j̲āz National Party, nevertheless, requested permission to send a delegation; Ḵh̲ālid agreed, and the delegation went to Makka the next day. Any lingering doubt as to Wahhābī intentions was removed by the ultimatum which Ḵh̲ālid gave his visitors. They could arrest ʿAlī, get him out of the country, or join the Wahhābīs in seizing Ḏj̲udda.

Sultan ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz had left al-Riyāḍ with an army of 5,000 sedentaries on 13 Rabiʿ II 1343/11 November 1924 for Makka and arrived there in remarkably fast time on 8 Jumādā I/5 December. Upon his departure from al-Riyāḍ he had issued a proclamation (text in Wahba, Ḏj̲azīra , 253) on his purposes in going to Makka. He also sent an advance party of three close advisors, Dr. ʿAbd Allāh al-Damlūd̲j̲ī (from al-Mawṣil), S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ ʿAbd Allāh Āl Sulaymān (from ʿUnayza in al-Ḳaṣīm, Nad̲j̲d), and S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ Ḥāfiẓ Wahba (of Egyptian origin) to study out the situation in Makka and to assist in reassuring the population. S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ Ḥāfiẓ reports (Ḵh̲amsūn, 63 ff.) that he delivered a number of speeches to ulema, merchants and government employees in various meetings. He stressed that ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz would reform corruption, end the isolation of al-Ḥid̲j̲āz from the mainstream of the Muslim world and put the administration of the country, and especially of the Ḥaramayn, on a sound basis. These speeches probably helped; in any case, just before ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz's arrival, S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ Ḥāfiẓ received a letter from the director of the Egyptian takiyya, Aḥmad Ṣābir, congratulating him on one of them.

Sultan ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz himself reached al-Ṭāʾif on 6 Ḏj̲umāda I/3 December, changed into iḥrām , entered the city and then, by the Bāb al-Salām, entered the sacred mosque. No member of his house had prayed there since 1227-8/1812. Ibn Suʿūd eschewed the Sharīfian palaces and instead set up his camp outside the city in al-S̲h̲uhadā', where for two weeks he received all and sundry. Universal report is that his humility, his unpretentiousness, his sincere apologies for what had happened at al-Ṭāʾif and his rejection of sycophancy (to those who tried to kiss his hand he said that his custom was only to shake hands) combined to win local hearts. The proclamation that he had issued on 12 Ḏj̲umādā I 1343/9 December when he entered the city had already made a favourable impression (text in Wahba, Ḏj̲azīra , 254-5). Article 4 was as follows: “Every member of the ulema in these regions and each employee of al-Ḥaram al-S̲h̲arīf or muṭawwif with a clear title shall be entitled to his previous entitlement. We will neither add to it nor subtract anything from it, with the exception of a man against whom people bring proof of unsuitability for a post, for unlike the past situation, such practices will be forbidden. To whomever has a firm previous claim on the bayt al-māl of the Muslims, we will give his right and take nothing from him.”

Having established some rapport with the citizensof Makka, Sultan ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz now took command of his forward troops located at al-Rag̲h̲āma about 4 km. east of Baḥra. The governance of the city rested still with Ibn Luʾayy, but ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz now turned the civil administration of the city over to ʿAbd Allāh al-Damlūd̲j̲ī and to Ḥāfiẓ Wahba on a kind of rotating basis. He then decided he would rather have al-Damlūd̲j̲ī close at hand and left the administration of Makka divided so that Ḵh̲ālid b. Luʾayy handled Ik̲h̲wān and military affairs and S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ Ḥāfiẓ civil matters. Soon thereafter the administration was further elaborated. The municipality was turned over to a Makkan, S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ Aḥmad al-Subaḥī, and an embryonic consultative council was established under the chairmanship of S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ ʿAbd al-Ḳādir al-S̲h̲aybī, the keeper of the key of the Kaʿba. This simple council was the kernel of the later Mad̲j̲lis al-S̲h̲ūrā . This administrative set-up continued until the capture of Ḏj̲udda a year later.

The dual amīrate was not harmonious. S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ Ḥāfiẓ reports perpetual conflicts between himself and Ḵh̲ālid. It was, he says, a conflict between Bedouin and sedentary mentalities. “He wanted to confiscate all the houses and seize their contents because their owners had fled. Since they had only fled out of fright, I tried and in many cases succeeded in preserving them; in other cases I failed.” Smoking was a perpetual source of trouble. Ibn Luʾayy wanted to use force on offenders; Ḥāfiẓ, kindness. One of the ironies was that although smoking had been banned, cigarettes were taxed.

There were other problems. King ʿAlī, attempts at reconciliation having failed, stopped all supplies going from Ḏj̲udda to Makka. Since 300-400 camel loads a day were needed, the situation became very strained. ʿAbd al-Ḳādir al-S̲h̲aybī wrote to King ʿAlī as follows: “How far do your deeds differ from the statement of God. What is the reason for stopping our food? We are not responsible for the Nejdi Army entering Mecca; you are, for the following reasons (i) you did not settle differences with the Sultan of Nejd, (ii) when the Nejd army entered Taif we asked you to evacuate our families and belongings, but you refused. You promised to protect us but you ran away. When you came to Mecca we asked you and your father to protect us ... and again you ran away ... we would like to ask your Highness if the neighbours of the House of God are animals. We beg your Highness to leave us and Jeddah.” (quotation from Baker, 214-15). ʿAlī sent one of his dilapidated aircraft to drop a leaflet in reply saying that he had left in order to prevent a repetition of the émeutes in al-Ṭāʾif. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz's response to him was more concrete. He sent the Ik̲h̲wān to capture Rābig̲h̲ and al-Līth thus (a) giving them something to do; (b) breaking the blockade; and (c) cutting the communications between Ḏj̲udda and al-Madīna.

In fact, the situation in Makka improved while that in Ḏj̲udda slowly deteriorated. Not only did Makkans begin to return home, but native Ḏj̲uddāwīs themselves began to arrive in Makka. The superior administration in Makka was a noticeable factor. In April an interesting visitor arrived, Comrade Karīm Ḵh̲ān Ḥakīmoff, the Soviet consul in Ḏj̲udda. He had been granted permission by King ʿAlī to mediate and arrived with his Iranian colleague. They were of course received by ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz. Reportedly, Ḥakīmoff characterised the hostilities as resulting from imperialist plots, but he did get permission for Fuʾād al-Ḵh̲aṭīb, King ʿAlī's foreign minister, to come and negotiate. On 2 May, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz met with al-Ḵh̲aṭīb at a coffee shop midway between thewarring lines. The sultan never wavered: the former King al-Ḥusayn now in ʿAḳaba was still really running affairs; even if he were not, King ʿAlī was indistinguishable from him; both had to go.

The sieges of al-Madīna and Ḏj̲udda dragged on, but the approaching Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ season of 1344/June-July 1925 began to occupy ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz's attention. Despite the difficulty that the siege of Ḏj̲udda imposed, he was anxious for the Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ to go well. He announced that Rābig̲h̲, al-Līth and al-Ḳunfud̲h̲a were official pilgrim ports and sent out a general invitation (nidāʾ ʿāmm) to all Muslims (text in Wahba, Ḵh̲amsūn, 67) which incidentally indicated that charitable contributions and economic development projects would be welcome.

This was the year that Eldon Rutter, an English Muslim, made the pilgrimage and left a first-hand account thereof. Of course, the number who came was very small. His muṭawwif claimed normally to have had some 1,000 plus clients, but this year he had only Eldon Rutter. The Englishman estimated that the total number who came was approximately 70,000, of whom he thought some 25-30,000 were Nad̲j̲dīs. They camped apart, and Rutter notes that they took no notice of the tobacco that was on sale everywhere. “It is the smoking ... which is unlawful, not the selling of it!” At ʿArafāt, while returning toward his tent from a visit to Masd̲j̲id Namira (also known as Masd̲j̲id Ibrāhīm and Masd̲j̲id ʿArafa), Rutter and his companions “passed the burly figure of Ibn Saʿûd, dressed in a couple of towels and bestriding a beautiful Nejd horse which looked rather like a little animated rocking horse under his long form. He was attended by four mounted guards carrying rifles.” Another of Rutter's vivid descriptions is that of the break-up of the pilgrim throng at ʿArafāt: “Far out on the northern side of the plain rode the scattered hosts of the Nejd Ikhwân—dim masses of hosting camelry, obscurely seen in the falling dusk. Here and there in the midst of the spreading multitude, a green standard, born aloft, suddenly flashed out from the dust-cloud, only to disappear the next moment behind the obscuring screen, which rose in spreading billows from beneath the feet of the thousands of trotting deluls.” There were also Wahhābīs riding as police against the returning crowd on the look-out for thieving, which was much less that year because potential thieves knew that the Wahhābīs would apply Islamic law literally and promptly. The Nad̲j̲dī flag was flying over the hospital at Munā, where ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz had pitched his tent on the “cope-stoned earthen platform where the tents of the Sharîf of Mekka were formerly pitched at this season.” All guests, including Rutter, were received by the sultan, and he rose to greet each and every one. By this time, the sultan had apparently settled for more comfortable quarters when in the city. Rutter mentions passing his residence in al-Abṭaḥ (al-Muʿābada), a spacious well-built mansion which belonged to ʿUmar al-Saḳḳāf and over which the green flag flew. Rutter met with ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz a number of times, learned that he personally approved the editorials in the new official journal, Umm al-Ḳurā , and on one occasion heard the king say that his three concerns were Allāh, “my beloved” Muḥammad and the Arab nation.

In short, despite occasional harassment of foreign pilgrims by the Ik̲h̲wān, the pilgrimage was a brilliant success for the new régime. The numbers who came were obviously small but the organisation was excellent. Glowing reports filtered back to home countries, and the bogey man image of the Wahhābī leader began to recede.

Meanwhile, the sieges were dragging down to their end. Rutter describes one aerial attack in which the S̲h̲arīfian bombs were dropped on the hills bordering al-Muʿābada. He opines that they were probably aimed at the house in al-Abṭaḥ. The result was not impressive; the straw hut of a Takrūnī (African) was destroyed, and an old woman was slightly wounded in the leg. Autumn brought visitors. Philby on a personal mission was received by the sultan at al-S̲h̲umaysī on the edge of the sacred territory. Sir Gilbert Clayton, who was negotiating with ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz at his camp in Baḥra, noted in his diary for 22 Rabīʿ I/21 October the arrival of an Iranian delegation. Led by Mīrzā ʿAlī Akbar Ḵh̲ān Bahmān, the Iranian minister in Egypt, and Mīrzā Ḥabīb Ḵh̲ān Huwayda, the consul-general of Iran in Palestine, its function was to investigate alleged Wahhābī desecration and destruction of shrines in Makka and al-Madīna. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz received them most cordially and sent them on to Makka by car. The sultan said he welcomed the investigation because the charges were false. Incidentally, Clayton indicated in his diary (19 October 1925) his belief that Ibn Suʿūd could have captured Ḏj̲udda whenever he wanted, but that he was going slowly because, inter alia, he wanted “to gauge more fully the effect which his attack on the Holy Places and his capture of Mecca has had on the Moslem world in general and especially in India and Egypt.” In any case, by the middle of November 1925, large numbers of Wahhābīs began to arrive in groups ranging from half-a-dozen to several hundred. The wadi from Ḏj̲abal al-Nūr to the city was crowded with them and many were sent on to the front. Clearly, the sultan was preparing to storm Ḏj̲udda, but it turned out not to be necessary. Al-Madīna surrendered on 19 Ḏj̲umādā I 1344/5 December 1925, followed two weeks later by Ḏj̲udda. On 20 Ḏj̲umāda II 1344/5 January 1926, certain notables in Ḏj̲udda formally approached the sultan of Nad̲j̲d to ask him if he would also become king of al-Ḥid̲j̲āz, hoping by this device to maintain the integrity of al-Ḥid̲j̲āz. When they had left. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz convened the ulema and other notables. They approved. On 22 Ḏj̲umādā II/7 January in Makka, Ibn Suʿūd released a formal statement of his intentions pointing out that there had been almost no response to his appeal for a conference to discuss the problem of al-Ḥid̲j̲āz. “So as I find that the Islamic World is not concerned about this important matter, I have granted them [the people of the Ḥid̲j̲āz] the freedom to decide what they will.' The wishes of the ”people“ manifested themselves the same evening in the form of a petition confirming their support for ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz: ”We acknowledge you, Sultan Abdulaziz, as king of Hejaz in accordance with the Holy Book and the Sunna of the Prophet and that Hejaz will be for the Hejazeen ... Mecca will be the capital and we shall be under your protection“ (Baker, 230). Rutter was present in the Great Mosque for the mubāyaʿa: ”Upon a Friday [23 Ḏj̲umādā II/8 January] after the midday prayer, I mounted the crumbling stone steps of the school el Madrassat el Fakhrîya, which stands beside the Bâb Ibrâhîm, in order to visit an acquaintance who was employed as a schoolmaster there. As we sat sipping tea beside a window looking into the Haram, we were surprised to observe a sudden rush of people toward Bâb es-Safâ. They were evidently attracted by something which was happening near that gate.

Rising, we descended the steps and passed into the Haram. Making our way toward Bâb es-Safâ, we came upon a great press of Mekkans and Bedouins. In the midst of them was one of the Haram preachers[probably ʿAbd al-Malik Murād] perched upon a little wooden platform or pulpit, apparently addressing the multitude. Elbowing our way into the crowd, we were able to see Ibn Saʿûd sitting in a prepared place near the gate. The preacher was addressing to the Sultân a speech of adulation. Presently, he made an end, and then several of the Ashrâf, the Shaybi, and other prominent Mekkans in turn, took the Sultan's hand and acknowledged him King of the Hijâz. Ibn Saʿûd received these advances with his usual cordial smile, and upon the conclusion of the ceremony he rose, and accompanied by his armed guards, made his way slowly through the crowd towards the Kaaba and proceeded to perform the towâf. Having completed this, and prayed two prostrations in the Makâm Ibrâhîm, he left the Mosque and went to the Hamîdîya where he held a general reception ... Suddenly one of the old guns in the Fort of Jiyâd [Ad̲j̲yād], boomed and was immediately followed by another on Jebel Hindi. The troops of the garrison were saluting the new king. A hundred and one times the peace of the city was broken.“ Rutter reports some hostile reactions to the elevation of Suʿūdī, as some Makkans dubbed their king, but contrasts most favourably the honest treatment received by pilgrims under the new dispensation.

The hostilities over, the new king of the Ḥid̲j̲āz remained in his new capital, Makka, and addressed himself to these major issues: the Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ of 1344/1926, the Islamic conference which he had previously announced and which was scheduled in conjunction with it, and the administration of the kingdom. The Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ that summer attracted 191,000, approximately an eight-fold increase over the previous year, but the Holy City was also the scene of the rather serious maḥmal [q.v.] affair. The Egyptian maḥmal arrived in the usual way with the kiswa [q.v.], with the retinue of civilians and soldiers including their flags and bugles, and with contributions of cash and kind much of which represented waḳf [q.v.] income dedicated to the Ḥaram from Egypt. The Egyptian amīr al-Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ was Maḥmūd ʿAẓmī Pas̲h̲a. The whole procedure was almost programmed for trouble, given the cultural differences of the groups involved and especially the religious sensitivities of the Ik̲h̲wān. As Lacey (202) observed: “The glorious shoulder-borne litter smacked to them of idolatry [and] its retinue of armed guards piqued their pride...”. In the event, the Kaʿba was dressed in its new Egyptian kiswa without incident, and the ceremonies were proceeding normally, but on the eve of 9 Ḏh̲ū 'l-Ḥid̲j̲d̲j̲a (some report the day of 10 Ḏh̲ū 'l-Ḥid̲j̲d̲j̲a) the situation exploded. One report is that the spark was some music (= probably bugling) played by the Egyptian soldiers. Other reports indicate that the Nad̲j̲dī Bedouin simply saw the maḥmal and began to shout out that it was an idol. Whatever the precise trigger event was, in the crowded mass of pilgrims between Munā and ʿArafāt some Ik̲h̲wān tried to interfere with the Egyptians and began to throw stones at them. The Egyptians responded with gunfire reportedly at the order of Maḥmūd ʿAẓmī. In all, some 25 men and women pilgrims were killed and 100 wounded; 40 camels were also killed; but the carnage could easily have been much worse. Just as the Ik̲h̲wān were preparing a massive assault on the Egyptians, King ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz rode up and at considerable personal risk managed to separate the two groups and to cool the hot blood. Once order was restored, the king ordered his son Fayṣal to guard the Egyptians with a detachment of Suʿūdī troops until the end of the ceremonies. When the Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ had ended, he ordered Mus̲h̲ārī b. Suʿūd b. Ḏj̲alwī to escort the Egyptians to Ḏj̲udda with a detachment of Suʿūdī troops, and as a cable (text in Wahba, Ḵh̲amsūn, 257) of 16 Ḏh̲u l-Ḥid̲j̲d̲j̲a 1344/from ʿAbd Allāh Āl Sulaymān in Makka to Ḥāfiẓ Wahba, then serving as the king's envoy in Cairo, makes clear, the departure of the Egyptians from Makka was scarcely willing, but the king was going to have them out, willing or not. As Lacey had summarised it (loc. cit.), “the Mahmal never trooped again in glory through the streets of Mecca”, but the incident further soured Egypto-Suʿūdī relations to the degree that diplomatic relations were not established between the two countries as long as King Fuʾād reigned in Cairo.

Since the fall of the city to his arms, King ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz had repeatedly proclaimed his intention to convene an Islamic conference in Makka to which delegates from all Muslim countries and communities would be invited. The stated idea was to discuss the governance of Islam's holiest sites and ceremonies, but the basic motivation was to put to rest the fears of Muslims beyond Arabia over the capability of a Suʿūdī-Nad̲j̲d̲j̲ī-Wahhābī régime to care for the Ḥaramayn responsibly. In the event, the conference probably attained its goal, but the results were passive not active. Egypt had declined to attend, and the maḥmal incident was most distracting. The delegates who did attend debated with great freedom a wide variety of religious subjects but to no very particular point. On the underlying political issue, it was crystal-clear that ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz was going to run the country and there was no indication of any incapacity on his part. That issue was settled without being raised.

The series of ad hoc administrative arrangements made by the king during and after the conquest now gave way to more permanent arrangements. It should be remembered that until the unification of the “dual kingdom” (on 25 Rad̲j̲ab 1345/29 January 1927 ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz had been proclaimed king of Nad̲j̲d and its Dependencies) as the Kingdom of Suʿūdī Arabia in 1932, and even beyond that time, al-Ḥid̲j̲āz and especially its capital Makka received most of the government's attention. It is not always easy to separate what applied: (a) to Makka as a city, (b) to al-Ḥid̲j̲āz as a separate entity including Makka, and (c) to both the Kingdom of al-Ḥid̲j̲az and the Kingdom of Nad̲j̲d, equally including Makka. The evolution of advisory or quasi-legislative councils was as follows. Immediately after the Suʿūdī occupation of Makka (7 Ḏj̲umādā I 1343/19 December 1924), ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz convened a partly elected, partly appointed body of notables called al-Mad̲j̲lis al-Ahlī (the national council). It was elected and then it was re-elected on 11 Muḥarram 1344/1 August 1925. Representation was on the basis of town quarters, and included prominent merchants and ulema, but in addition, the king appointed a number equal to the elected members and also appointed the presiding officer; indeed, no elected member could take his seat without ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz's approval. After the second election, this group came to be known as Mad̲j̲lis al-S̲h̲ūrā (consultative council). After the Islamic conference ended, this arrangement was significantly changed. A national (Ḥid̲j̲āzī) council—a kind of constituent assembly—with 30 Makkan members was convened to study an organic statute (al-Taʿlīmāt al-Asāsiyya li 'l-Mamlaka 'l-Ḥid̲j̲āziyya). Known as al-Ḏj̲amʿiyya al-ʿUmūmiyya (the general assembly), it accepted on 21 Ṣafar 1345/31 August 1926 Ibn Suʿūd's draft of the organic statute which specified that Makka was the capital of the kingdom, that administration of the kingdom was “in the hand of King ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz,”and that a nāʾib ʿāmm (deputy general, viceroy) would be appointed on behalf of the king. Fayṣal b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, the king's second living son, was appointed nāʾib ʿāmm. Under his chairmanship and in accordance with the statute, a new Mad̲j̲lis al-Shūrā of 13 members (five from Makka), this time all appointed, was convened. Various administrative and budgetary matters were routinely discussed by it. (For the rapid evolution of the Mad̲j̲lis al-Shūrā, see Nallino, 33-5, 235-6 and M.T. Ṣādiḳ, 21-47.) The Mad̲j̲lis al-S̲h̲ūrā , no matter how limited its real powers were, did play a major role as a sounding board in al-Ḥid̲j̲āz for various government policies. It has never been dissolved and even under the very much changed situation caused by oil price increases in 1973, it apparently still meets ceremonially from time to time.

One should also note that the Mad̲j̲lis al-S̲h̲ūrā , meeting in Makka on 16 Muḥarram 1352/11 May 1933, recognised the king's oldest living son, Suʿūd b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, as heir designate ( walī al-ʿahd ). The prince himself was not present, and Fayṣal b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz received the bayʿa on his behalf. The decree was read aloud in the Ḥaram and the ministers, notables and ordinary people filed by to present their congratulations. The organic statute also established arrangements for local government and national departments; all of the latter were in Makka. Nor did this situation change radically with the proclamation of the unified Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1351/1932. As late as 1952, the Minister of Health and Interior (H.R.H. Prince ʿAbd Allāh b. Fayṣal b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz) and the ministry officials were in Makka as was the Ministry of Finance under ʿAbd Allāh Āl Sulaymān Āl Ḥamdān and the Directorates General of Education, P.T.T., Public Security, awḳāf , and other central government agencies. It may be noted here that Fayṣal was named Minister of Foreign Affairs in 1349/1930, but also that his father continued to make all important decisions in all matters as long as he was vigorous.

Initial branches (originally called aḳsām, sing. ḳism) of the new government, each under a director ( mudīr ) were: s̲h̲arīʿa affairs, internal affairs, foreign affairs, financial affairs, public education affairs and military affairs. Courts, waḳfs and mosques, including the Makkan Ḥaram , were under the s̲h̲arīʿa branch; municipal matters were under internal affairs. It should also be noted that a Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ committee composed of the heads of all departments concerned with pilgrimage matters plus members nominated by the king was formed under the chairmanship of the viceroy. Finally, one may note that the titles of departments, their heads and the loci of responsibility all evolved over time. For example, in 1350/1932 a Council of Agents ( Mad̲j̲lis al-Wukalāʾ) was announced, and for the first time the germ of the idea of ministerial responsibility was introduced.

Makka was one of only five cities in the Ḥid̲j̲āz that had had a municipality in Ottoman and Hās̲h̲imite times. The municipality was re-established by the Suʿūdī regime in 1345/1926 with its own organisational structure. Three years later, its powers and responsibilities were increased and its name was changed to Amānat al-ʿĀṣima. According to Hamza, the underlying idea of the king was to turn purely local matters over to local people. Further organisational adjustments were made in 1357/1938. The budget was in reality under the control of the king and his deputy general, but formaly it was under the purview of the of the Mad̲j̲lis-al-S̲h̲ūrā. Once the budget was approved, the municipality apparently enjoyed a certain independence in administering it. It was able to levylocal fees (rusūm). Figures are very incomplete, but in 1345/1926-7 the municipal budget totaled SR 158,800 and in 1369/1949-50 SR 4,034,000. Municipality responsibilities included city administration, cleaning, lighting, supervision of establishments, roads, installation of awnings, condemnation and destruction of properties, land registration, price regulation (for necessities), cleanliness of food preparers, slaughter houses, weights and measures, supervision of elections of guilds of industries and trades and of their activities, supervision of burial procedures, kindness to animals and fines. No other municipality in the land had such broad responsibilities.

The one area where Nad̲j̲dīs played an important role in the Makkan scene after the conquest was in organised religion. As early as Ḏj̲umādā II 1343/January 1925, conferences between the Wahhābī ulema of Nad̲j̲d and the local ulema of Makka were going forward with minimal difficulty. Shortly after the conquest, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz had transferred ʿAbd Allāh b. Bulayhid (1284-1359/1867 to 1940-1) from the ḳaḍāʾ of Ḥāʾil to that of Makka, where he remained for about two years. He was succeeded by ʿAbd Allāh b. Ḥasan b. Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī b. Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb. Philby, writing around 1369-70/1950, referred to him as the “archbishop of Mecca” and Aramco, Royal Family ... still reported him to be chief ḳāḍī in Dhu'l-Ḳaʿda 1371/July 1952. Yet care was taken not to alienate the local ulema. For example, when the Ḥid̲j̲āzī Hayʾat al-Amr bi'l Maʿrūf wa'l-Nahy ʿan al-Munkar was established in 1345/1926, ʿAbd Allāh al-Shaybī was made chairman of the committee. The function of the Hayʾa was in general to supervise morals, encourage prayer, control muezzins and imām s of mosques, and report infractions of the s̲h̲arīʿa (details in Nallino, 100-2.) In general, the influence of the ulema was high and they were deferred to. The king could not dispose of s̲h̲arīʿa questions on his own and regularly referred them to either a ḳāḍī or to the full “bench” of the Makkan or Riyāḍī ulema. The king's direct influence over this largely autonomous group was through the power of appointment, but he was of course influential indirectly.

Makka was one of only three cities in al-Ḥid̲j̲āz that had had police at the time of the Suʿūdī takeover; however, since King ʿAlī had taken them all to Ḏj̲udda as part of his military forces, none were immediately available. According to Rutter, a squad of powerful black slaves belonging to ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz kept order. Makka was also the seat of police administration. A police academy was started in 1353/1933-4 and, at that time at least, the police supervised the orphanage and an old persons' home which had 44 residents. In 1953-5, a new government building was constructed in Ḏj̲arwal as the main headquarters for the police, and in 1385/1965-6 a police emergency squad was established which responded to the emergency telephone number of 99. In the first decades after the conquest, police were almost all recruited from ʿAsīr [q.v.] and Nad̲j̲d. By the mid-1930s, they wore European-style uniforms and numbered 33 officers and 896 other ranks. As long as it was necessary, the police force also included a special squad called Ḳalam Taftīs̲h̲ al-Raḳīḳ (section for the inspection of slaves). Executions were usually carried out on Fridays after the noon prayer between the Ḥamīdiyya (government house) and the southern corner of the Ḥaram . Philby (Jubilee, 118-20) details a triple execution in 1931 over which Fayṣal presided from a window in the mad̲j̲lis of al-Ḥamīdiyya, where a group of notables had also gathered. There was a large crowd of commoners inthe street. When the beheadings were over, the police tied the corpses “each with its head by its side” to the railings of the building until sundown.

There were three levels of judicial jurisdiction established by the court regulations ( niẓām tas̲h̲kīlāt al-maḥākim al-s̲h̲arʿiyya) issued in Ṣafar 1346/August 1927, at least up until the post-World War II period. The lowest was the summary court (maḥkamat al-umūr al-mustaʿd̲j̲ila) presided over by a single ḳāḍī with jurisdiction over petty civil cases and criminal cases not involving execution or loss of limb. The higher court (maḥkamat al-s̲h̲arīʿa al-kubrā) had a ḳāḍī as president plus two of his colleagues. In cases involving loss of limb or execution, the sentence had to be pronounced by the full court. The appeals court sat only in Makka and was presided over by a president and four other ulema. It functioned as a court of appeals (criminal cases) and of cassation (civil cases). Appeals have to be filed within 20 days and if the court refuses to take the case, the verdict of the lower court stands. The president, who was S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ ʿAbd Allāh b. Ḥasan Āl al-S̲h̲ayk̲h̲, also administers the whole system and supervises all courts and ḳāḍī s. There has also been, since 1350-1/1932, an inspector of courts. Notaries (sing. kātib al-ʿadl ) were instituted in 1347/1928-9, and Hamza reports that in Makka at the time he was writing the incumbent was ʿUrābī Sid̲j̲īnī.

A few other administrative notes are in order. Immediately after the conquest, the government overprinted “Sultanate of Nad̲j̲d and al-Ḥid̲j̲āz” on the Hās̲h̲imite stamps, but Suʿūdī ones were soon in use and the Suʿūdī government joined the International Postal Union of Berne in 1345-6/1927. In 1357-8/1939 Makka's post office was one of only four (the others being at Ḏj̲udda, al-Madīna and Yanbuʿ) in the country that could handle all operations specified by the international conventions including the telegraph. There was a daily service to Ḏj̲udda and al-Ṭāʾif and a twice-weekly service to al-Madīna. In 1384/1964-5, Makka's post office, which was handling in that year's ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ 350,000 letters daily, became a postal centre independent of Ḏj̲udda. Rent control was imposed at the time of the conquest and was still in force as late as 1374/1955-6. There was a customs office in the city which, like its counterpart in al-Madīna, was presumably a branch of the main office in Ḏj̲udda. Waḳf administration in Makka reported directly to the viceroy. Early directors of the Directorate of Awḳāf were Muhammad Saʿīd Abu 'l-Ḵh̲ayr (1343/1924-8) and Mad̲j̲id al-Kurdī (1347-50/1928-31). By a royal decree of 27 Ḏh̲u 'l-Ḥid̲j̲d̲j̲a 1354/21 March 1936 the Makkan Directorate of Awḳāf was changed into a directorate general to which the other awḳāf directorates of al-Ḥid̲j̲āz would report. Sayyid ʿAbd al-Wahhāb Nāʾib al-Ḥaram was appointed director general.

As far as fire fighting is concerned, Rutter (228) describes a reasonably effective volunteer system in use before modern systems were adopted. He comments that in case of fire “the neighbours regard it as a point of honour to render all the assistance in their power, and official notice of the occurrence is taken by the police, some of whom also turn out and help.” The first student mission sent abroad to train in fire fighting and life-saving methods was some time before 1367/1947-8.

One may at this point reasonably inquire as to general Makkan acceptance of Suʿūdī hegemony in the pre-oil period. Leaving aside Ik̲h̲wān discontent at the régime's alleged softness toward religious laxity in Makka and discounting near-by tribal unhappiness (“taxing” pilgrims was no longer possible), there wasgeneral acceptance of the régime and great pleasure at the total security and basic fairness. There was also some unhappiness which doubtless increased with the very straitened circumstances concomitant with the general world-wide depression. In 1345-6/1927 Ḥusayn Ṭāhir al-Dabbāg̲h̲, whose father had been Minister of Finance both under King al-Ḥusayn and under King ʿAlī and who himself headed a business house, established in Makka an anti-Suʿūdī “Ḥid̲j̲āz liberation organisation” called And̲j̲umānī Ḥizb al-Aḥrār. Its basic platform opposed any monarch in al-Ḥid̲j̲āz. Ḥusayn was exiled in 1346-7/1928, but he probably left behind a clandestine cell of his party which also maintained an open operation in Egypt. We get another glimpse of anti-Suʿūdī feeling in Makka in 1354-5/1936 from the report of a Muslim Indian employee of the British legation in Ḏj̲udda named Iḥsān Allāh. According to him, dissatisfaction was widespread; older conservative merchants and ulema wished for an Egyptian takeover with British support, whereas middle-aged merchants and government officials simply viewed the government as backward, a “set of old fools”; younger businessmen, army officers, and pilots longed for an Atatürk [q.v.] or a Mussolini. Iḥsān notes, however, that there was no action and that the preferred way to seek relief was by working for Ḥid̲j̲āzī interests through the Mad̲j̲lis al-Shūrā. Intelligence reports are notoriously unreliable, but it would have been surprising had there not been some level of discontent. With the coming of oil, separatist feelings doubtlessly disappeared, and Makka participated to the full in the extraordinary development that the Kingdom enjoyed as a whole. The extraordinary events of 1400/1979 were the only dramatic break in the standard rhythms of the city's life.

Seizure of the Ḥaram .

Not since the followers of Ḥamdān Ḳarmat [q.v.] seized Makka and carried the Black Stone back to their headquarters in al-Ahsāʾ [q.v.] had there been such an astonishing event as that which unfolded in the Ḥaram at dawn on Tuesday, 1 Muḥarram 1400/20 November 1979. It was of worldwide interest not only because of its intrinsic importance for one of the world's major religions, but also against the background of the Soviet-American global rivalry, of the recent revolution in Iran, and of the general religious fervour surging through the Muslim world.

The events can be quickly told. The Ḥaram may have had 50,000 people in it, which is not many for a structure designed to accommodate 300,000. It had more than usual at that hour because the day was the first of the new Islamic century and thus deserved some special observance. The imām , S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ Muḥammad b. Subayyil, had gone to the microphone to lead the prayer, but he was then pushed aside. Several dozens of men produced rifles from their robes; firing broke out, the worshippers ran, and the armed men moved quickly to seal the 29 gates. Many people were wounded in these first exchanges, and a number were killed. Meanwhile two men, subsequently identified as Ḏj̲uhaymān (“little glowerer”) b. Muḥammad al-ʿUtaybī and Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Ḳaḥṭānī, were at the microphone proclaiming that the latter was the Mahdī . The rebels, a number of whose grandfathers had been killed while fighting as Ik̲h̲wān against ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz in 1347-8/1929, who considered themselves neo-Ik̲h̲wān, and who numbered in all some 250 including women and children, let the worshippers out aside from 30-odd who were kept as hostages. With apparent presence of mind, S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ Muḥammad had removed his clerical garb and madehis way to a telephone in his office according to some reports—a public phone according to others—and notified the authorities of the seriousness of what was happening. He managed to slip out with the other worshippers. At the beginning of the ensuing siege, the rebels used the powerful public address system, which had speakers in the 90 m. high minarets and which was designed to be heard in the streets and plazas outside the mosque, to proclaim their message that the Mahdī was going to usher in justice throughout earth and that the Mahdī and his men had to seek shelter and protection in al-Ḥaram al-S̲h̲arīf because they were everywhere persecuted. They had no recourse except the Ḥaram . Attacks on the House of Suʿūd and its alleged policies and practices were virulent; the rebels opposed working women, television, football, consumption of alcohol, royal trips to European and other pleasure spots, royal involvement in business, and the encouragement of foreigners who came to Arabia and corrupted Islamic morality. Details of names and business contracts were specified. The amīr of Makka came in for particular attack. Meanwhile, Suʿūdī Arabia was alive with rumours, some officially encouraged, to the effect that the Ḏj̲uhaymān was a homosexual, that he was a drug addict, a drunkard, etc.

The reaction of the Suʿūdī government was hesitant at first but never in doubt. Prince Fahd b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, the heir designate, was out of the country attending an international conference in Tunis. Prince ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz second in line to the throne was on vacation in Morocco. The king, Ḵh̲ālid b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, was awakened at seven in the morning and informed of what had happened. He immediately ordered that all communication with the outside world to be cut. The ensuing communications blackout was so total that it was reported that even Prince Fahd had been unable to find out what was going on. In Makka a police car, which may have been the first concrete reaction, drove toward the mosque to investigate. It was promptly fired on and left. Later the amīr drove up to try to assess the situation, only to have his driver shot in the head. The men inside were evidently well armed, trained and ruthless. By mid-afternoon, the 600-man special security force was in Makka and national guard, police, and army units were being airlifted in from Tabūk [q.v.] in the north and Ḵh̲amīs Mus̲h̲ayṭ [q.v.] in the south. Prince Sulṭān b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, the Minister of Defence; Prince Nāʾif b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, the Minister of Interior; and Prince Turkī b. Fayṣal b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, the Chief of External Intelligence, all arrived in Makka. In al-Riyāḍ, the king had simultaneously called together the senior ulema in order to get a fatwā authorising the use of force in the Ḥaram , since force there is by definition forbidden. The fatwā approving the action was apparently issued immediately but not published for several days. Authority was found in the āya of the Ḳurʾān: “Do not fight them near the Holy Mosque until they fight you inside it, and if they fight you, you must kill them, for that is the punishment of the unbelievers” (II, 149).

By Tuesday evening the siege was on, and the rebels had no way to escape, despite the fact that they had secretly and ingeniously cached large supplies of weapons, ammunition and food in the mosque. Electricity and all other services to the mosque were cut, but Ḏj̲uhaymān's snipers covered the open ground around the mosque. Horrified by what was going on, some national guardsmen (mud̲j̲āhidūn) wanted to storm the mosque, but the king had ordered that casualties be minimised. The situation was extremelydelicate, for Prince Sulṭān could hardly order heavy weaponry to destroy the mosque and Bayt Allāh. Ultimately, Prince Sulṭān ordered an attack on the masʿā which juts out from the mosque enclosure like an open thumb from a closed fist (see plan). According to some, an “artillery barrage” was laid down, but when the troops advanced, they suffered heavy losses and accomplished little. There was considerable confusion on the government side and some lack of coordination among the various services. At one point, two soldiers reportedly ran firing into the courtyard in order to be shot down and die as martyrs. Others were reported to have been unhappy at being called on to fight in the mosque. Since the national guardsmen were tribal, and it had become known that the leaders of the insurrection were tribal, suspicion of the national guardsmen arose. Sulṭān tried another approach involving a disastrous helicopter attack into the courtyard. It failed; the soldiers were winched down in daylight, and most died. When government soldiers died, the rebels are said to have exclaimed amr Allāh (“at the order of God”), when one of their own died, they either shot or burned off his face—a job the women mostly performed—to conceal his identity. In a very difficult situation, friendly governments including the American, French and Pakistani “were prodigal with advice, much of it conflicting” (Holder and Johns, 524). By Friday, 4 Muḥarram/23 November, however, the superiority of the government forces began to tell. Using tear gas, they forced an entrance into the mosque including the second storey, and they drove the rebel marksmen from two of the minarets. Once inside, government forces were able to rake Ḏj̲uhaymān's people, and despite a desperate pillar-to-pillar defence backed by barricades of mattresses, carpets and anything else that could be found, the rebels were gradually pushed down toward the maze-like complex of basement rooms. By Monday, 7 Muḥarram/26 November the government had gained control of everything above ground. But the fighting continued in nightmarish conditions below ground even though the number of the rebels was by then much reduced. By Wednesday the courtyard had been sufficiently cleared and cleaned to broadcast prayers live on TV and to begin to calm down the city and the country.

Below ground, difficult fighting continued. The rebels were few and their supplies now scant, but accompanied in some cases by their women and children they fought desperately. Gas, flooding, and burning tires were all tried in an effort to flush them out—without success. The fate of Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Ḳaḥṭānī is not clear. Some reports indicate that he was killed early in the fighting; others that, in the depths of despair, Ḏj̲uhaymān had shot him. With many wounded, the hour of the rebels had come. At an hour-and-a-half after midnight on Wednesday 16 Muḥarram/5 December Ḏj̲uhaymān led his people out. “It is said that as they emerged, many weeping and too tired to stand, muttering constantly, spat on and reviled, one of the band turned to a National Guardsman and asked: 'What of the army of the north?'” (Holder and Johns, 526.) But many had to be individually overpowered. Ḏj̲uhaymān is reported to have been kicking and struggling even as his arms were pinned. Suʿūdī TV covered this scene, and Ḏj̲uhaymān “stared defiantly at the cameras, thrusting forward his matted beard, his eyes fierce and piercing like a cornered beast of prey” (Lacey, 487).

The investigation and trial of the rebels did not take long. On Wednesday a.m., 21 Ṣafar 1400/9 January1980 (not following the Friday noon prayer as was customary) in eight different Saudi cities amongst which they had been divided, 63 of the rebels were beheaded. Their citizenship was as follows: Suʿūdīs 41, Egyptians 10, South Yamanīs 6, Kuwaytīs 3, North Yamanīs 1, Sudanese 1 and ʿIrāḳīs 1. Twenty-three women and thirteen children had surrendered along with their men. The women were given two years in prison and the children were turned over to welfare centres. The authorites found no evidence of foreign involvement. In addition, 19 who had supplied arms were jailed, while another 38 so accused were freed. The government casualty count listed 127 troops killed and 461 wounded, rebel dead as 117, and dead worshippers as 12 or more (all killed the first morning). Popular reaction to these extraordinary events was uniformly hostile to the rebels as defilers of God and his house. The only reported approval is by other members of the ʿUtayba tribe, who reportedly admired the fact that Ḏj̲uhaymān had in no way buckled under during interrogation.

Population and Society.

Consistent population figures for Makka are not easy to find. Those that follow are perhaps suggestive: [Table omitted]

Incidentally, the population density for Makka district (not the city) has been estimated as 12 per km². The age distribution in the city for 1974 was estimated to be as follows (in percentage): [Table omitted]

Given the fact that Makka has for centuries been the centre for a pilgrimage that was often slow and tortuous, and given the desire of the pious to live and die near Bayt Allāh, it is natural and has been observed by many that the population is a highly mixed one. Faces from Java, the Indian sub-continent and sub-Saharan Africa are noticeable everywhere. Almost every cast of feature on the face of the earth can be found. And the process continues; Nyrop (140) estimated that 20% of the population consisted of foreign nationals in the early 1960s—a figure which is particularly remarkable when one reflects that the non-Muslim foreigners who flocked to other Arabian cities in that era were absent from Makka. In a way, this has constituted an important benefit for Makka because the city is the continual recipient of new blood.

Outsiders have frequently complained about thepeople of Makka. Nor were the early Wahhābīs least in their low opinion of Makkans. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz is reported to have said that he “would not take the daughters of the Sharif or of the people of Mecca or other Moslems whom we reckon as mushrikîn” (Helms, 98 quoting W. Smalley, The Wahhabis and Ibn Saʿud, in MW , xxii [1932], 243). Philby (Jubilee, 126) quotes the king in 1930 as having dismissed them with, Ahl Makka dabas̲h̲ (“the people of Makka are trash”). Nor was Philby's own opinion of them high: “In truth, the citizen of God's city, by and large, is not an attractive character: his whole life being concentrated on the making of money out of gullible people, especially pilgrims, by a studied mixture of fawning and affability.” H. R. P. Dickson reports the Bedouin view that “every foul vice prevails there.” But of course, not all reports are bad. Wahba ( Ḏj̲azīra , 31) opines that Makkans (along with Medinese) care more about the cleanliness of their houses and their bodies than do other Arabians. One might finally note the establishment in Makka of the Sundūḳ al-Birr (the piety fund), which was started by one family and joined in by others, including the royal family. The organisation distributes welfare support to some hundreds of needy families and also helps victims of accidents and calamities. It proved to be a model for similar funds in other cities in Suʿūdī Arabia. Actual Makkan manners and customs seem unexceptionable (as the comments above about cooperative neighbourly firefighting suggest), and Rutter, who gives many interesting details of life in Makka just after the Wahhābī conquest, specifically states that the city is not as immoral as it is pictured and that for example, Makkans use foul language much less than do Egyptians.

Marriages were arranged by the prospective bridegrooms's mother or other female relative, who negotiated with the prospective bride's parents. Both normally give their consent. Once the dowry and other details have been agreed, the bride's parents prepare a feast to which the groom and his friends are invited. Two witnesses are required, but there is usually a crowd. After instruction by the s̲h̲ayk̲h̲ , the girl's father takes the groom's hand and states that he is giving him his daughter in marriage for a dowry of the agreed amount. The groom accepts this contract and the parties are at that point married. No women are present. Neither party has seen the other unless accidentally or as children. Consummation, if the individuals are old enough, is usually about a month later at the bride's house. The same night, she is escorted quietly by her family to the groom's house, and the whole procedure ends the evening after thatwith a party at the groom's house to which relatives of both families male and female are invited. The sexes are, however, still segregated on this occasion. In Rutter's day there was some polygyny and many slave concubines, but little divorce. He thought Makkan women, for whom silver was the commonest jewelry, were generally fairer than the men and notes that many women could play the lute and drum. They also smoked a great deal. Prostitution was never seen by him. A week after the birth of a child, the father invites his and his wife's relatives for the ceremony naming the infant. Again, the women are upstairs and the men down. When all have assembled, the father goes up and brings the child down on a cushion and places it on the floor while saying things like ma s̲h̲āʾ Allāh [q.v.]—but not too vigorously lest devils be attracted. The father arranges the child so that his head is toward the Kaʿba and his feet away from it. The father kneels, says aʿūd̲h̲u bi-Allāh min al-S̲h̲ayṭān al-rad̲j̲īm, then bends over the child's head with his mouth close to the right ear of the infant and repeats the ad̲h̲ān [q.v.] three times. He then says: “I name thee so-and-so. ”The child is now a Muslim. The guests repeat the name, invoke God's blessing, and each puts a coin under the pillow. Another person then rings an iron pestle against a brass mortar. This is the signal to the women upstairs that the child has been named. They respond with zag̲h̲radāt (trilling ululations) of joy. With that, the father picks the infant up, the guests kiss it on the check, and the father takes it back upstairs to the women. He redescends with a tray full of sweets. On the 40th day after birth, every child is taken to the Ḥaram and placed for a moment on the threshhold of the Kaʿba. Other aspects of child rearing, at least up to Rutter's time, included the use of foster mothers by the wealthy and the as̲h̲rāf 's turning their male children over to Bedouin foster mothers for the three-fold purpose of developing their independent spirit, learning the “pure” language of the desert and creating an indissoluble alliance with the tribe. Up to the age of four, clothes worn are scanty and sketchy. Starting at five, boys go to kuttāb s [q.v.] and girls are veiled. Boys are circumcised at six or seven, and female circumcision is also practised. Rutter characterises children as generally submissive and respectful. Rutter thought that life expectancy was not great because of the lack of movement of air during the heat of the long summer and because of the high humidity during the wet season (November-February). Death is marked by brief keening, after which the women friends of the family come to comfort the bereaved women. The body is washed, then carried on a bier without a coffin and placed on the pavement of the maṭāf in front of the door of the Kaʿba. The mourners stand, and one repeats the burial prayers. The bier is then lifted, taken out the appropriately named Ḏj̲amāʾiz Gate to the Maʿlā Cemetery north of the Ḥaram . Mourners and even passers-by rapidly rotate in carrying the bier. Burial is in shallow graves, and the shrouds have commonly been soaked in Zamzam water. After the burial, male friends pay a brief visit of condolence to the males of the deceased's family. There are often Ḳurʾān readings on the 7th and 40th days after death.

As to recreation, there was little sport, but impromptu wrestling and foot races sometimes occurred. Singing, the lute, the reed pipe and drums were popular both in homes and in the open air coffee houses just outside of town, but all music was discouraged by the Nad̲j̲dī puritans. “The club of the Mekkans,” wrote Rutter (375), “is the great quadrangle of the Haram. Here friends meet by acci-dent or appointment, sit and talk of religious or secular matters, read, sleep, perform the towâf in company, have their letters written (those of them who are illiterate) by the public writers who sit near Bâb es-Salâm, or feed the sacred pigeons.” There are, incidentally, many pigeons and they enjoyed a beneficial waḳf for the supply of the grain. They had drinking troughs and two officials to serve them, one to dispense their grain and the other to fill the water troughs. Popular belief is that no bird ever perches on the roof of the Kaʿba. Rutter himself says that in months of sleeping on a roof overlooking the Kaʿba, even when the courtyard and the maḳām s of the imām s were covered with birds, the roof of the Kaʿba was bare. Another popular belief concerns those who fall asleep in the Ḥaram . Should their feet point toward the Kaʿba, they are sharply turned around to conform with custom. There were other pleasures. One of the greatest was repairing to the outdoor, half-picnic, half-tea or coffee house sites out of town. Rutter describes one in a ravine at the southeast end of Ad̲j̲yād where a small stream of clear water often flows. Many groups would go there with samovars and waterpipes (s̲h̲īs̲h̲as). At sunset, after performing ablutions in the stream, all would pray. There was a singer, some of whose lays were religious, others, amorous. Along with these latter went clapping and dancing. In pre-Wahhābī times, alcohol may have been served and pederasty practiced. Incidentally, he comments that King al-Ḥusayn had already stopped the open drinking and prostitution of Ottoman times. Rutter also provides (291-4) an interesting account of a visit to the oasis and farms of al-Ḥusayniyya about 20 km southeast of the city (and see Nallino's reference (202) to similar visits to al-Sanūsiyya, 20 km northeast of the capital). He also paints a picture of how Makkans spend a week or two on the upland (2,000 m) plain of al-Hada overlooking the escarpment to the west of al- Ṭāʾif. The largest house there belonged to the Kaʿba key-keeper, al-S̲h̲aybī. Religious occasions also formed part of the rhythm of participation in the life of the city. Twice yearly in Rad̲j̲ab and Dhu'l-Ḳaʿda there occurs the ritual of washing the inside of the Kaʿba. These occasions constitute major festivals. All the important people and important visiting pilgrims attend and a big crowd gathers. Al-S̲h̲aybī provides the water in a large bottle and brooms which the dignitaries use for the purpose. There are some distinctly un-Islamic folk practices, such as people washing themselves in the used washing water and actually also drinking it. During Ramaḍān, there is much recitation of the Ḳurʾān. One hears it as one walks down the street. Purely secular “clubs” also existed in the form of coffee houses which provided tea, light food and s̲h̲īs̲h̲as. One of their characteristics is the high (about 1 m.) woodframed platforms about two m. long with rush-work surface. Characteristically, the mat work is done by Sudanese. These high mats are used as chairs, on which three or four can sit, or used as beds. The cafés have linen available if the latter use is required. These establishments are open day and night. Al-Kurdī indicates that there were two Ottoman-era ḥammām s [q.v.], but that the first, which had been near Bāb al-ʿUmra, was torn down to make way for the mosque expansion and the second, in al-Ḳas̲h̲ās̲h̲iyya quarter, was closed—a victim no doubt of private residential baths and showers.

Finally, some mention must be made of slaves. King ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz had agreed as early as 1345/1927 to cooperate with the British government in suppressing the international slave trade, but slavery as suchwas not outlawed in Suʿūdī Arabia until 1382/1962. In 1365/1946 Ḥāfīẓ Wahba described it ( Ḏj̲azīra , 32-3) as a reasonably flourishing institution. Makka was the largest slave market in Arabia—possibly because it was secure from prying non-Muslim eyes. Meccans trained male slaves (sing. ʿabd ) and female slaves (sing. d̲j̲āriya ) well for household duties, and Wahba quotes prices as being £60 for a male and £120 for a female. Ethiopians were considered the best because they were more loyal and more sincere in their work. He indicates that they worked mostly in domestic chores or in gardens, but that Bedouin chiefs also acquired them as bodyguards. Ḏj̲āriya s he notes were also used for other things. Manumission is an act of piety, and S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ Ḥāfiẓ says that hardly a master died who did not free some of his slaves and leave them a legacy. Apparently non-slave servants were very difficult to find, and S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ Ḥāfiẓ opined that a sudden prohibition of slavery would cause a revolution. He also notes that the trade was declining.

The coming of the Suʿūdī régime also had an important impact on the top of the social structure in that the privileged position formerly held by the s̲h̲arīfs was eliminated. Merchants, ulema and muṭawwifūn stood high on the local social scale, with pride of place perhaps going to the S̲h̲ayba family.

Because of the cosmopolitan nature of the population, city quarters seem not to have had quite the same degree of near water-tight ethnic or religious compactness that is found in some other cities, but quarters did and do exist. Some generalised comments applying mostly to the pre-oil period follow. Ḏj̲arwal, an extensive mixed area northwest of the Ḥaram , was the site of many offices and the garages of motor transport companies. It is also the quarter in which Philby lived, the quarter where ʿAbd Allah Āl Sulaymān, the Minister of Finance under King ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, had his palace, and the quarter in which immigrants from west and central Africa used to live—mostly in hovels. Writing in the early 1960s, al-Kurdī indicates (ii, 264) that the Ḏj̲arwal and al-Misfala quarters had heavy concentrations of bidonvilles inhabited by poor Sudanese and Pakistanis. Their shanty dwellings were, however, being replaced by modern buildings. Al-S̲h̲ubayka, to the west and a little south of the Ḥaram , was, pre-World War II, mainly populated by Central Asian, Indian and East Indian muṭawwifūn. Ad̲j̲yād, southeast of the Ḥaram , was the old Ottoman quarter sometimes called “government quarter.” It continued in Suʿūdī times to contain a number of important institutions, including the first modern hospital, the Egyptian takiyya, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Finance, the public security office, al-Maʿhad al-ʿIlmī Suʿūdī , the Kiswat al-Kaʿba factory), the Egyptian Bank and the Directorate of Education. Ad̲j̲yād is dominated by an imposing looking Ottoman fort, Ḳalʿat Ad̲j̲yād, which is perched on the heights to the south of it. The quarter is said to have the best climate and the best views in the city. It was also the location of most of the better older houses and hotels. Pre-oil city quarters numbered 15 in all, as follows: Sūḳ al-Layl, S̲h̲iʿb ʿAlī, S̲h̲iʿb ʿĀmir, al-Sulaymāniyya, al-Muʿābada, Ḏj̲arwal, al-Naḳā, al-Falḳ, al-Ḳarāra, al-S̲h̲āmiyya, Ad̲j̲yād, al-Ḳas̲h̲ās̲h̲iyya, al-S̲h̲ubayka, Hārat Bāb and al-Misfala. There are also eleven modern outlying quarters: al-ʿUtaybiyya, al-Baḳar), al-S̲h̲is̲h̲s̲h̲a, al-Rawḍa, al-Ḵh̲ānisa, al-Zāhir, al-Tanbudāwī, al-Raṣīfa, al-Mis̲h̲ʿaliyya and al-Nuzha. Some of these are dubbed ḥayy ; others, ḥāra ; and the last three maḥalla . Each quarter has an ʿumda as its administrative head.

The importance and centrality of the Ḥaram dictated that areas immediately adjacent to it were of high importance and prestige, at least as long as the pilgrim business was the main source of revenue. Thus before the extension of the mosque, there were a number of sūḳ s which surrounded it or nearly so. These included al-Suwayḳa just north of the northern corner which was the drapery and perfume bazaar; Sūḳ al-ʿAbīd the slave market; al-Sūḳ al-Ṣag̲h̲īr ca. 100 m southeast of Bāb Ibrāhīm, which was in the main water course and often washed out in floods; Sūḳ al-Ḥabb the grain market some 700 m north of the mosque; and finally the fruit market, also to the north, which was simply called al-Ḥalaḳa, the market. Al-Masʿā formerly was paved and covered during the early days of ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz' reign, but it was still a public street with book and stationery stores at the southern (al-Ṣafā) end and stalls selling items for pilgrims along the rest of it. Another transient demographic feature that may be noticed is that in pre-oil days, the camps used by pilgrims were on the outskirts of the city nearest the direction from which they came, i.e., those coming from Syria camped north of the city, etc.

With the broader economic and transportation possibilities available since World War II (and especially after the oil price increases of 1973 and beyond) and with the number of pilgrims swelling to almost two million (with attendant traffic and other problems), centre city has probably become less desirable.

The physical City.

Constrained as it is by the wadi courses and low mountains of its location, the size and physical appearance of Makka has changed dramatically in the six decades since the Wahhābīs most recently captured it. It should be borne in mind that the Ḥaram is in the widest part of the central, south-flowing wadi and that main streets follow wadi valleys. Before the most recent enormous enlargement of the mosque structure, a noticeable feature was what Philby called “oratory houses.” These surrounded the entire periphery and abutted on the mosque itself. They had first floor balconies on the roof of the mosque's surrounding colonnade and were more or less considered an integral part of the mosque. Since the inhabitants of these houses could pray at home while observing the Prophet's injunction that whoever lives near the mosque should pray in it, they were in high demand at high rentals. On the other hand, the residents were said to have run up rather large hospitality bills! In the pre-oil era, Makkan buildings were mostly built of local dark grey granite, but by and large they gave no great impression of grandeur. The larger ran to about four storeys. Even before modernisation, major streets in Makka were fairly wide. King al-Ḥusayn had electrified the Ḥaram during his brief reign, but probably it was not until after the second World War that streets were lighted electrically. Previously they were lighted, on special occasions only, by oil lamps attached to the corners of houses. Al-Ḥusayn's palace had been located north-east of the Ḥaram in al-Ghazza, but when King ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz built his own palace, he chose a site well to the north in al-Muʿābada, where incidentally, the pre-oil wireless station was also built in the immediate vicinity of the king's palace. At the present time (1405/1985) this tradition continues, for the amīrate, the municipality secretariat, its technical units and the main courthouse are all located at that site. Expansion of the city in the period before there were adequate roads tended to be along the Ḏj̲udda road.

Modernisation in the oil era has brought completely different architectural approaches and materials, and much of the old has been swept away. Air conditioners are everywhere, cement and reinforced concrete reign, and buildings of up to 13 or more storeys high are everywhere visible. City planning in Suʿūdī Arabia has become pervasive, and the master plan studies and designs for Makka were projected to be ready for implementation in 1976. Given the pilgrimage, traffic circulation had to be a major part of the plan. Key features of the traffic plan were: a series of broad open plazas around the Haram , a major north-south road which essentially followed the main wadi bottom, a set of four concentric ring roads (none of which had been completed by 1402-3/1982-3), and a remarkable complex of roads leading to Munā, Muzdalifa, and ʿArafāt. Especially to be noted is the extensive tunnelling under Makka's rocky crags for a number of these roads, not excluding a major “pedestrian way” for pilgrims which goes due east from al-Ṣafā before bending southwest toward ʿArafāt. About one kilometer of the “pedestrian way” is a tunnel (Nafaḳ al-Sadd) under Ḏj̲abal Abī Ḳubays, the north-south running mountain east of the Ḥaram . In addition to the roads themselves—all built to inter-national standards with clover-leaf intersections, overpasses and the like—there are vast systematic parking areas, helicopter pads and other facilities. Makka may have some areas left without modern amenities such as running water and electricity, but essentially it is a modern city with all the assets and problems that modern implies. The growth in the area of the built-up section of Makka can only be roughly estimated, but according to Rutter's map (facing p. 117), the maximum length of the built-up section on the north-south axis was about 3 km; on the east-west axis it was about 2½ km. Fārisī's map (1402-3/1982-3) indicates a north-south axis of about 8 km and an east-west of just under 5½ km. This massive growth does not include very extensive new built up areas such as al-Fayṣaliyya and al-ʿAzīziyya—the latter reaching all the way to Muzdalifa.

Economy.

The economy of Makka consists of only two basic factors, commerce and industry concerned with the local market, and the pilgrimage. Agriculture is essentially non-existent in Makka. Food was imported: fruit from al- Ṭāʾif, vegetables largely from the Wādī Fāṭima and a few other oases such as al-Ḥusayniyya. They included egg plant, radishes, tomatoes, vegetable marrows, spinach, Egyptian clover (birsīm) for fodder and hibiscus. Makka itself had to content itself with a few date trees in the gardens of the wealthy (see al-Kurdī, ii, 208-15). Industry in 1390/1970-1 counted 35 establishments employing 800 people with an estimate of SR (= Suʿūdī riyals) 22 million in use. By way of contrast, neighbouring Ḏj̲udda had 95 establishments with 4,563 employees and SR 329 million in use. Among the Makkan enterprises were corrugated iron manufacturing, carpentry shops, upholstering establishments, sweets manufacturies, vegetable oil extraction plants, flour mills, bakeries, copper smithies, photography processing, secretarial establishments, ice factories, bottling plants for soft drinks, poultry farms, frozen food importing, barber shops, book shops, travel agencies and banks. The first bank in Makka was the National Commercial Bank (al-Bank al-Ahlī al-Tid̲j̲ārī) which opened in 1374/1954. Hotels and hostels are another major activity. According to al-Kurdī (ii, 173), there were no hotels before the Suʿūdī régime began. Importantpilgrims were housed in a government rest house, others stayed in private homes as actual or paying guests. The first hotel project was undertaken and managed by Banque Misr for the account of the Ministry of Finance in 1355/1936-7. A decade later it was bought by Ṣidḳa Kaʿkī, a member of Makka's most successful business family. Banque Misr also managed a second hotel that belonged to S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ ʿAbd Allāh Āl Sulaymān and which opened in 1356/1937-8. This had its own electric power, an elevator, running water and some private baths. Construction activity, long important in Makka, has obviously grown with the oil-fired building boom. The traditional building trades with their interesting organisation and special skills in stone masonry (details in al-Kurdī, ii, 261-6) are fading away. It is also interesting to note that in 1936 a Ḏj̲amʿiyyat al-Ḳirs̲h̲ was founded with its seat in Makka with the goal of encouraging economic development in order to make the country economically independent by stimulating new and existing industrial and agricultural projects. Goods available in the markets in the 1930s were almost all imported. Cotton textiles came from Japan, silk from China and India, and carpets, rosaries ( subḥa , misbaḥa ), and copper and silver items—the kinds of items that pilgrims wanted—came variously from Syria, India and al-ʿIrāḳ. Many of the merchants catering to the pilgrim trade were foreigners or of foreign extraction and employed native Makkans as hawkers. Visitors felt that prices were high, profits large and local employees inadequately paid.

The importance of the Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ for the economy of Makka through most of the city's history is simple. As Rutter has put it, “[Makkans] have no means of earning a living but by serving the hâjjis.” Fifty years later, D. Long confirms that “the Hajj constitutes the largest single period of commercial activity during the year,” and that no one in the country is unaffected thereby. Indeed, once al-Ḥid̲j̲āz had been conquered, ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ income was supposed to finance Nad̲j̲d in addition to the Holy Land. The money came in different ways. A direct tax, instituted by ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz in 1345-6/1927, was seven gold rupees ($16.80). In addition there was a kind of service charge, dubbed “landing and service fee,” which amounted to £1.5 ($7.20) is the early thirties. As late as 1972, this charge, now called “fee for general services” was SR 63 ($11.88). There were also taxes on internal motor transport, for example £7.5 (36.00) on the round trip car hire fare between Makka and al-Madīna in the 1920s, reduced to £6.00 (28.00) in 1932. In addition to direct levies, the government received indirect income from licence fees charged those who served the pilgrims, from customs duties on goods imported for re-sale to pilgrims and from other indirect levies. As D. Long (much followed in this section) has noted, when the world-wide depression struck, King ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, despite his successful efforts to eliminate gross exploitation of the pilgrims, was forced to impose fees on the pilgrims in order to maintain the solvency of the government. Later, oil income essentially eliminated government dependence on pilgrim fees, and in 1371/1952 the king abolished the head tax altogether. That the government continued to be sensitive to the public relation aspects of any fees at all, is made clear by the official Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ instructions for 1972 (quoted by Long) to the effect that such charges only cover the actual costs of necessary services. For Makka, the Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ has of course continued to be a major source of cash income. On the other hand, from a national Suʿūdī viewpoint, servicing the pilgrims became a major expenditure category far exceedingthe income generated, though one should note that in recent years the national airline, Saudia, derived some 12% of its revenue from Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ -generated customers. D. Long has also made detailed estimates (101-5) of the effect of the Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ on the private sector in Ḏj̲udda, al-Madīna and especially Makka. Roughly, he estimates that in 1972 pilgrims paid the guilds (muṭawwifūn, wukalāʾ and zamāzima) a total of $7.9 million in fees, a figure which excludes gratuities. Lodging during the late 1960s cost each pilgrim an average of $60, for a total housing income of $40 million. The transportation syndicate's income based on fares paid by land and air pilgrims for internal transportation is estimated at $11 million. All these estimates are for gross income. Net income is difficult to calculate, especially because fixed costs of capital items, such as accommodation at Munā and ʿArafāt which is only filled for a few days a year, are normally not counted. Makkan merchants continue to see the two months of pilgrim business as more or less their whole year's business, and as in the case of holiday expenditures in other countries the merchants raise their prices, despite government attempts to protect the pilgrims. Animals for ritual slaughter approximately double in value. The foreign provenance of pilgrim-specific goods continued in later years. Cheap ($1 to $10 each), European-manufactured prayer rugs sell a million or more each year, but it may be noted that in the 1970s prayer beads were manufactured by a local Makkan plastics factory. In more general categories, Swiss and Japanese watches move briskly; most textiles still come from Asia, though expensive ones may be from Europe; United States products predominate among cosmetics, better quality canned foods and drugs; wheat is almost exclusively American; whilst China has predominated in cheap fountain pens, parasols and cheaper canned goods. One final point is that many non-Suʿūdī pilgrims who can afford them purchase luxury consumer items which are either heavily taxed or unavailable in their own countries. Foreign exchange trading also constitutes a brisk business for the Makkan banks—all nationalised by about 1400/1979-80. Long notices another economic factor, that more and more foreign pilgrims have come in the sixties, seventies and early eighties, but the shift in mode of travel has been equally dramatic as the chart below shows: [Chart omitted]

The dramatic increase in numbers and equally dramatic shift to air travel have meant that the average length of stay has decreased from two to three, or even more, months to an average stay of only a few weeks. Purchases of food and rentals for lodging have declined proportionately with the decrease in time, and in addition, because of baggage limitations on air travel, gift items have trended toward the watch and away from bulky items. Sales to pilgrims as a proportion of total sales by Meccan merchants have also declined. Long (based on Ḏj̲udda information) estimated that they had declined from 33-50% of the total in 1381/1961 to about 25% in 1391/1971—still highly significant. Based on an estimate of per capitaexpenditures of ca. $230, Long estimates that gross sales by Suʿūdī merchants to foreign pilgrims aggregated $53 million from the Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ . If one adds Suʿūdī pilgrims, the figure rises to $90 million. His estimate of Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ income from all sources for the 1391/1971 Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ was ca. $213 million. It is not easy to know the proportion of this total which went to Makka and Makkans, but the number has to be quite significant locally when one considers the size of the city and the concentrated nature of the business.

Al-Masd̲j̲id al-Ḥarām and other religious buildings.

From the monument ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz entered Makka, he and his successors have expended time, money and effort on the Great Mosque of Makka. (For description of the mosque at the beggining of the Suʿūdī régime, see Rutter, 252-63). In the spring of 1344/1925, the king was anxious to make the best impression possible for the first Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ under his auspices. He ordered a general tidying-up, and when the pilgrims arrived, they found everything freshly painted and clean. An innovation of 1345/1926 was the erection of tents inside the cloister to give relief from the sun; but unfortunately they could notwithstand the wind. In 1346/1927 the king ordered a thorough restoration to be undertaken “at his personal expense.” The work was entrusted to S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ ʿAbd Allāh al-Dihlawī on the basis of his successful work over a number of years at ʿAyn Zubayda. This programme lasted about a year and cost 2,000 gold pounds. The accomplishments included replacing tiles and marble, cleaning the domes of the cloister, repairing doors and pillars, repairing and painting (green) the roofs of the Maḳām Ibrāhīm and of al-Maḳām al-Ḥanafī. The Zamzam building was much beautified, the stones of the Kaʿba were pointed, and Bāb Ibrāhīm was widened and beautified. Moreover, determined to do something to protect worshippers from the fierce sun, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, for the 1346 Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ , ordered ʿAbd Allāh Āl Sulaymān to erect all around the inside of the cloister a massive wooden frame to which heavy canvas was fixed as an awning. Once the pilgrims had left, this canopy was removed. But apparently there were some serious structural problems, for in 1354/1935-6 a more general study was undertaken. The order for this created a special four-man committee (ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd al-Ḳādir al-S̲h̲aybī of the Mad̲j̲lis al-Shūrā, chairman, Sulaymān Azhar, Assistant Director of awḳāf ; Hās̲h̲im b. Sulaymān, Administrator of the Ḥaram ( nāʾib al-Ḥaram ); and ʿAlī Muftī of the Makka municipality). Its mission was to carry out a general survey and then make recommendations for repairs and restoration. The committee recommendations (details in Bāsalāma, 285) included such things as disassembling walls and rebuilding them, using cement for mortar. Costs for this work, which began in Ramaḍān, were split between the Directorate of Awḳāf and King ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz.

The electrification of the mosque had been instituted under the Hās̲h̲imite al-Ḥusayn, but was steadily improved under ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz with generous outside support. In 1346/1927-8 Ḥād̲j̲d̲j̲ Dāwūd Atba (?) of Rangoon donated a 300 kilowatt generator, and as a result the king was able to increase the number of bulbs from al-Ḥusayn's 300 to 1,000. In 1349/1930-1 new generating equipment was acquired so that “a reader could read his book by electric lights anywhere in the mosque” (Bāsalāma, 257). In addition, large free-standing, brass electric candelabra mounted on reinforced concrete columns 3 m high were placed in the mosque and six other brass candelabra were mounted on al-Ḥuṭaym, the semi-circular wall enclosing the Ḥad̲j̲ar Ismāʿīl. An even larger contribution was made in 1353/1934-5 by Ḏj̲anāb Nawwāb Bahādur Dr. Ḥād̲j̲d̲j̲ Sir Muḥammad Muzammil Allāh Ḵh̲ān (1865-1938) of Bhikhampur, India, who presented much more elaborate equipment to the mosque. It consisted of a 52 h.p. engine, a 220 volt, 34 kilowatt generator and required that the mosque engineer (Ismāʿīl al-Ḏh̲abīḥ) go to India in order to familiarise himself with it. He stayed there several months and, interestingly, returned with additional contributions in kind (elaborate candelabra put on the gates, on the maḳām s, and on the Zamzam dome) from Muslim philanthropists in Cawnpore, Lucknow and Karachi. Toward the end of 1354/1935-6, all was in working order and “the Maṭāf was as though in sunlight.” Microphones and loudspeakers were first used in the mosque in 1368/1948-9.

Attention should now be turned to several specific features of the mosque area.

Al-Masʿā.

— Firstly, it may be noted that the Hās̲h̲imite al-Ḥusayn was the first person in Islamic history to improve physically the running place, in effect a street at that time, between al-Ṣafā and al-Marwa when in 1339/1920-1 he ordered ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Ḳazzāz to erect a cover over it. A steel structure with wooden roof was built to the general benefit of all. This continued in use for many years, with some later improvements made by the municipality (then directed by ʿAbbās Ḳaṭṭān) at the order of King ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz. The king also undertook another major improvement early in his reign (1345/1926-7) when he ordered al-Masʿā, which was roughground, to be paved. To oversee the work, a high-level unit was constituted within the administration framework of the Amānat al-ʿĀṣima, that is, the municipality. It was presided over by ʿAbd al-Wahhāb b. Aḥmad, the Naʾib al-Ḥaram , and included his former assistant Muḥammad Surūr al-Ṣabbān, later Director (Minister) of Finance, along with the ubiquitous ʿAbd Allāh Āl Sulaymān (as the king's representative), several members of the Mad̲j̲lis al-S̲h̲ūrā and some technical people. The decision was reached to use square granite stones mortared with lime. Initial expenses were to be covered by the Amānat al-ʿĀṣima and subsequent ones from the national treasury ( bayt al-māl ). Once protruding living rock had been levelled, the work began ceremonially with a large gathering that saw H. R. H. Prince Fayṣal b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz lay the “corner stone” and heard invocations from the k̲h̲aṭīb of the mosque. This enterprise, completed before the Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ of 1345, resulted in the first paved street in the history of the city.

Zamzam.

— In the early repairs carried out under al-Dihlawī's direction, the king paid special attention to the well of Zamzam and the two-chambered building above it. Two new sabīl s [q.v.] were constructed, one of six taps near Bāb Ḳubbat Zamzam, the other of three near the Ḥud̲j̲rat al-Ag̲h̲awāt; in addition, the older Ottoman sabīl was renovated. All this was beautifully done in local marble with fine calligraphic inscriptions including the phrase “Imām [sic] ʿAbd ʿAzīz b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Suʿūd [sic] built this sabīl .”

Kiswa.

— With the outbreak of World War I, the kiswa came as it had for many years previously from Egypt. When the Ottoman Empire entered the war on the side of Germany, the authorities in Makka assumed that British-controlled Egypt would no longer send the kiswa and so they ordered one to be made in Istanbul. It was a particularly fine one and was dispatched by train to al-Madīna, thence to be taken to Makka. In the event, the Egyptian government did send the kiswa, bearing the embroidered name of Ḥusayn Kāmil, sultan of Egypt as well as that of Sultan Muḥammad Ras̲h̲ād. The Istanbul-manufactured kiswa remained in al-Madīna, and the Cairo one (with Ḥusayn Kāmil's name removed) was hung on the Kaʿba. After the S̲h̲arīf al-Ḥusayn revolted against the Ottomans, the Egyptians continued to send kiswas until 1340/1922. In that year, at the end of Ḏh̲u 'l-Ḳaʿda, as a result of a dispute between the S̲h̲arīf al-Ḥusayn and the Egyptian government, al-Ḥusayn sent the maḥmal , the Egyptian guard, the wheat ration, medical mission, ṣurra (traditional funds forwarded from Egypt), alms, oblation and kiswa back from Makka to Ḏj̲udda. With only a very short time left before the ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ , al-Ḥusayn cabled to the amīr of al-Madīna immediately to forward the Ottoman kiswa stored there to Rābig̲h̲ [q.v.]. Simultaneously, he dispatched the steamship Rus̲h̲dī to proceed from Ḏj̲udda to Rābig̲h̲. All worked well, and the Ottoman kiswa reached Makka in time to be “dressed” on the Kaʿba by the deadline date of 10 Ḏh̲u 'l-Ḥid̲j̲d̲j̲a. Subsequently, al-Ḥusayn ordered a kiswa woven in al-ʿIrāḳ, lest the dispute with Egypt not be settled by the 1342/1923 ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ ; however, in that year the Egyptian kiswa arrived and was used as usual. When the ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ of 1343/1924 approached, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ruled Makka, and relations with Egypt had become so bad that Egypt did not send the kiswa. Luckily, the king had a fall-back position, namely, the kiswa that King al-Ḥusayn had had made in al-ʿIrāḳ. In the next year, the Egyptians did send the kiswa, but that was the year of the famous maḥmal incident as a result of whichEgypto-Suʿūdī relations became very bad indeed. The Suʿūdī expectation apparently was that the Egyptians would again send the kiswa in 1345, but in fact they forbade it along with the other customary items. The Suʿūdī government learned of this only at the beginning of Ḏj̲u 'l-Ḳaʿda, and once again the king called on ʿAbd Allāh Āl Sulaymān, this time to have a kiswa made locally on a rush basis. S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ ʿAbd Allāh and the Makkan business community fell to, and by 10 Ḏh̲u 'l Ḥid̲j̲d̲j̲a—the due date—a black broadcloth kiswa, brocaded with silver and gold as usual, had been produced. For the first time the name of the Suʿūdī monarch appeared—as the donor—brocaded on the band above the Kaʿba door. The kiswa continued to be made in a special factory in Makka until relations with Egypt improved, after which it was reordered from there. In 1377/1957-8, the donor legend was as follows: “The manufacture of the kiswa was carried out in the United Arab Republic during the régime of President Ḏj̲amāl ʿAbd al-Nāṣir and donated to the noble Kaʿba during the régime of Ḵh̲ādim al-Ḥaramayn, Suʿūd b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Āl Suʿūd, King of Suʿūdī Arabia, A.H. 1377” (text in Kurdi, iv, 220). When relations between Suʿūdī Arabia and Egypt later soured again, the government once more responded by opening a kiswa factory in Makka (currently [1985] located on Ḏj̲udda Street [S̲h̲āriʿ Ḏj̲udda] about 8 km west of the Ḥaram . The factory is managed by a deputy minister of ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ and awḳāf .

Repair of the Kaʿba.

— On the first day of Muḥarram 1377/29 July 1957, King Suʿūd b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz went to the roof of the Kaʿba to inspect reported damage. The fact was that the venerable building had an outer roof which needed repair, an inner wooden roof which was rotting and walls that were beginning to crumble. Repairs were needed immediately. Two commissions, one technical, the other religious, were established to undertake the work. A detailed examination was made on 7 Muḥarram, and a subsequent report recommended the following remedial steps: replacement of upper roof, repair of lower roof, insertion of a concrete beam between the two roofs around the perimeter, repair of the damaged walls and of the stairs leading to the roof and repair of the marble lining the inner walls. A royal decree (text in al-Kurdī, iv, 68) was issued instructing Muḥammad b. ʿAwaḍ b. Lādin al-Ḥaḍramī, the Director of Public Works ( ins̲h̲āʾ āt ʿumūmiyya) to carry out the work. All workers were Makkan; the architects and engineers were mostly Egyptian. Specifications were that all materials should be local, the wood of the roof should be of the highest quality, the roof not be painted or decorated in any way and the concrete beam be exactly the same thickness as the original space between the two roofs. On 18 Rad̲j̲ab 1377/1957, Fayṣal b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz presided over the start of these repairs, and on 11 S̲h̲aʿbān, H. M. King Suʿūd b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz placed the last piece of marble facingstone in the walls inside the Kaʿba. This was followed by two large dinners on successive nights.

Even before the repair of the Kaʿba, the mosque had begun to undergo the most stupendous expansion in its history. This development in Makka had no doubt been informally decided upon by the king and other senior officials, even as the expansion of al-Ḥaram al-Nabawī in al-Madīna was getting under way in 1370/1951. In any case, the increase in the number of pilgrims after World War II had brought facilities of all sorts to acute levels of congestion and inadequacy to the degree that pilgrims in Makka were praying in roads and lanes far outside the confines of the mosque. The first public indication of what was tohappen came on 5 Muḥarram 1375/24 August 1955 when it was announced that all the equipment and machinery which had been used on the now completed enlargement in al-Madīna would be moved to Makka. A month later (6 Ṣafar/24 September) a royal decree established: (1) a Higher Committee chaired by Fayṣal b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, the heir designate, to supervise the planning; (2) an executive committee to supervise implementation; and (3) a committee to assess values of expropriated property. Later, the first two were merged into a higher executive committee with King Suʿūd b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz as chairman and the minister of finance as vice chairman. The basic concept of the final design was little short of inspired, and may be considered an extension of the design concept developed for the enlargement of the mosque in al-Madīna. It consisted of two ideas: (1) to maintain the old mosque intact and surround it by the new construction; and (2) to incorporate al-Masʿā fully into the mosque complex.

Work began in Rabīʿ II 1375/November 1955 with road diversions, cutting of cables and pipes, land clearing and other diversionary work, and was concentrated in the Ad̲j̲yād and al-Masʿā areas. A foundation-stone ceremony was held five-and-a-half months later in front of Bāb Umm Hāniʾ with the king and other dignitaries in attendance, and this marked the beginning of construction. Incidentally, by ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ time, pilgrims were able to perform the saʿy undisturbed by hawkers and traffic for the very first time. Work concentrated in Stage I on the southeastern side of the mosque and also on the al-Masʿā “thumb.” This latter, completed, is 394.5 m long. The ground floor is 12 m high and the second storey 9 m. It is noteworthy that there is a low partitioning in the middle of the Masʿā which provides for a special lane for the handicapped and ensures one-way traffic in each direction. There is no basement under al-Masʿā, but a full one under the rest of the new construction. A particular problem was the floods which sweep south down the wadi systems, around both sides of the mosque (but especially on the east). To deal with this problem an underground conduit 5 m wide and 4-6 m deep was run under the road now known as S̲h̲āriʿ al-Masd̲j̲id al-Ḥarām (formerly S̲h̲āriʿ al-Maʿlā) starting in al-Ḳas̲h̲ās̲h̲iyya quarter then under the area of al-Ṣafā, and under S̲h̲āriʿ Hid̲j̲ra where, well south of the mosque, it resurfaces in the Misfala quarter. Among the buildings removed in this phase of the work were those of the old general post, the Ministry of Education and the Egyptian takiyya; in addition, there was some other non-mosque construction carried out as a part of the whole project, including a three-story building near al-Ṣafā to house government offices and the mosque-project offices and just northwest of al-Marwa a group of buildings with office and apartments on the upper floors. In Stage II, work continued in a counter-clockwise direction. Special note may be made of the demolition of the cells along the Bāb al-Salām and Bāb Ad̲j̲yād façades, where the zamāzima used to store water for pilgrims, and the construction of replacement cells under the old ones. Not as lucky were the madrasa s adjoining the mosque on the Ad̲j̲yād façade; they were simply demolished. Public fountains were also built on the new exterior façades as the work progressed. In Stage III, the southwest and northwest arcades and façades were built. The work was completed in 1398/1978.

All walls of the new construction are covered with local marble. The marble came from quarries in Wādī Fāṭima, Madraka and Farsān. The quarries weredeveloped by Muḥammad b. Lādin, who had also started the companion marble processing factory in 1950 in preparation for the enlargement of the mosque in al-Madīna. He identified the quarries by asking local Bedouin to bring him samples and then by purchasing the most promising land from the government. The equipment in the factory was all Italian, and a force of nine Italian marble specialists directed and trained a total work force of 294 Suʿūdīs and others on a three-shift, round-the-clock basis. According to the Italian technicians, the marble is much harder than the famous Italian Carrara marble. Another feature of the marble operations was the production of “artificial marble.” Remnant pieces and chips of marble from the main operation were sent to a crushing plant in Ḏj̲udda, where they were ground into carefully graded pellets. To these were added waste from the cutting operations. This material was then mixed with a binding agent and poured into a variety of moulds of decorative panels. There were 800 different moulds “the patterns for which were created by a master of the art from Carrara.” The mosque project as a whole called for processing 250,000 m² of marble.

Some over-all statistics and other information on the new structure follow: 1.

2. The building can accommodate an estimated 300,000 worshippers with a clear view of the Kaʿba.

3. The old gate names were retained for the new gates except for the new Bāb al-Malik Suʿūd (probably subsequently renamed Bāb al-Malik).

4. There are six main stairways and seven subsidiary ones. Stairs leading directly from the street have gentle slopes in order to make it easier for elderly pilgrims.

5. There are seven minarets, 90 m high each. (The old minarets are one feature that did not survive; they also numbered seven.)

6. By Rad̲j̲ab 182/December 1962, demolition of 768 houses and 928 stores and shops had been carried out against indemnities of SR 239,615,300.

7. The work force in 1382/1962 was: [table omitted]

8. The total cost of the mosque expansion is estimated at $155 million.

9. The width of the streets around the new mosque is 30 m, with large plazas in front of the main gates.

There is one final aspect of the mosque enlargement and renovation that deserves mention, sc. Zamzam . In 1383/1963-4, the building that had long covered it was torn down and the space was levelled. Access to the well is now below ground down an ample sloping marble staircase; there is no above-ground structure whatsoever.

Like other shrines, al-Masd̲j̲id al-Ḥarām has its servants and its administration. In late Ottoman days the administration was headed by the wālī of Makka who was, therefore, the nominal s̲h̲ayk̲h̲ al-Ḥaram , and it depended financially on the ewḳāf ( awḳāf ) in Istanbul. The operational head was the nāʾib al-Ḥaram (deputy of the Ḥaram ) who was appointed by the sultan. The Hās̲h̲imite contribution was to institute a special security force whose assignment was to watch out for thieves and corruption and also to provide needed ser-vices such as “lost and found.” Once he assumed power, King ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz appointed the nāʾib al-Ḥaram , and he also established a three-man administrative council ( Mad̲j̲lis Idārat al-Ḥaram al-S̲h̲arīf ) over which the nāʾib presided. Financially, since income ceased coming from many waḳfs after the Suʿūdī takeover, King ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ordered the financing of all services to come from the public treasury. He also initially doubled the salaries of those who served. His own waḳf department had support of the Ḥaram building as one of its main charges. According to Rutter, below the nāʾib came the “opener of God's House” ( sādin ), who since pre-Islamic times had always been from the S̲h̲ayba ( nisba : S̲h̲aybī) family. Not the least of the perquisites of the sādin was the right to cut the kiswa up after the Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ and to sell the small pieces to pilgrims as religious tokens. Incidentally, a member of the Banū S̲h̲ayba could not become nāʾib al-Ḥaram . Below the “opener” were two or three lieutenants who supervised the numerous lesser personages and the actual workers. All, according to Rutter, took special pride in this work. Rutter's estimate is that the total work force declined to 400 during the Wahhābī invasion but that in better times it rose to as many as 800. This latter figure would have included 100 imām s and preachers, 100 teachers, 50 muezzins, plus hundreds of sweepers, lamp cleaners, door keepers and Zamzam water drawers (zamzamī, pl. zamāzima). The Maṭāf, the circular inner area around the Kaʿba, was in the care of 50 black eunuchs who also doubled as mosque police. They were either Africans or of African origin and are called ag̲h̲ās or, colloquially, ṭawās̲h̲ī (pl. ṭawās̲h̲iya, sc. eunuchs). Their chief ranked directly below the S̲h̲aybī. They wore distinctive clothes and were diligent in instantly removing any litter. The rationale for having eunuchs was that, if women became involved in any incident in the mosque or had to be ejected, the ag̲h̲ās could deal with them without impropriety. They apparently had large incomes (especially from awḳāf in Baṣra) and maintained expensive establishments including “wives” and slave girls as well as slave boys. They all lived in al-Had̲j̲la at the northern end of al-Misfala quarter. The young boys destined for this service, who normally had been castrated in Africa, lived together in a large house, there to receive instruction both in their faith and in their duties. Literally slaves of the mosque and not of any individual, the ag̲h̲ās were nevertheless greatly venerated both by pilgrims and Makkans. “The middle-class Makkans also invariably rise when addressed by an Agha, and treat him in every way as a superior” (Rutter, 251). Others give a lower estimate for the numbers of mosque employees. Hamza (Bilad, 217) writing in 1355/1936-7 numbers as follows: muezzins 14, eunuchs 41, supervisors 80, water drawers 10, sweepers 20 and doormen 30. His list does not include teachers or preachers. Al-Kurdī (iv, 249), writing in the 1960s, notes that there are 26 eunuchs including their s̲h̲ayk̲h̲ and their naḳīb . He also notes that the ag̲h̲ās have their own internal organisation ( niẓām ) and that amongst themselves they use special nicknames.

There are, naturally enough, numerous religious sites in Makka other than al-Masd̲j̲id al-Ḥarām . Brief remarks: 1. Mawlid al-Nabī (the Prophet's birthplace), located in the S̲h̲iʿb ʿAlī ravine near Sūḳ al-Layl. First the dome and minaret and later the whole structure was torn down by the Wahhābīs. The place is still pointed out. 2. Mawlid Sayyidatnā Fāṭima (the birthplace of our Lady Fāṭima). Same remarks. 3. Masd̲j̲id al-Arḳam b. al-Arḳam. The home of Companion of the Prophet and reputed site of ʿUmar's ac-ceptance of Islam. Destroyed during the recent expansion of al-Ḥaram, its location is now a parking lot east of al-Masʿā. 4. In Rutter's time the small mosques marking the houses of other Companions had mostly already been destroyed. 5. Cemetery of al-Maʿlā. It is located about 1 km due north of al-Ḥaram . In it are buried Āmina, the Prophet's mother; Ḵh̲adīd̲j̲a, his first wife; ʿAbd Manāf, his great-great grandfather; ʿAbd Muṭṭalib, his grandfather and guardian; and hosts of Muslims, famous and unknown, from the earliest days until the present. In the first flush of the occupation, Wahhābī zealots destroyed the small domes which covered some of the most famous sites, and those guardians who had sought alms from pious visitors were faced with other work. As in the case of al- Baḳīʿ cemetery in al-Madīna, bodies decompose quickly (six months) in al-Maʿlā, and there is “continuous” burial in the same place. 6. Masd̲j̲id al-Ḏj̲inn (also called Masd̲j̲id al-Bayʿa and Masd̲j̲id al-Ḥaras). It is on S̲h̲āriʿ al-Ḥaram next to al-Maʿlā cemetery and marks the reputed place (see Ḳurʾān, XLVI, 29) where a party of d̲j̲inn , having heard the Prophet chanting the Ḳur'ān were converted to Islam. An older Ottoman building was replaced by a modern mosque in 1399/1978-9. 7. G̲h̲ār Ḥirā'. Site of the first revelation (XCIV, 1-5), the cave of Ḥirāʾ is near the top of the mountain from which it takes it name (the mountain is more commonly called Ḏj̲abal al-Nūr today). It lies about 5.2 km northeast of al-Ḥaram al-S̲h̲arīf —a steep climb to the top. The Wahhābīs pulled down the dome which earlier had ornamented it. 8. G̲h̲ār Thawr. Seven km south-southeast of al-Masd̲j̲id al-Ḥarām lies the cave on the top of Ḏj̲abal T̲h̲awr in which the Prophet took refuge with Abū Bakr at the beginning of the hid̲j̲ra ; a difficult ascent. 9. al-Tanʿīm. Seven km north of al-Masd̲j̲id al-Ḥarām on S̲h̲āriʿ al-Tanʿīm which turns into Ṭarīḳ al-Madīna. This is the limit of the sacred area in this direction, and it is the place where Makkans often go to don the iḥrām when they want to perform the ʿumra . They go there not because it is necessary for them but because it is the place where the Prophet, returning from al-Madīna, announced his intention of performing the ʿumra . Formerly also a pleasant picnic spot, al-Tanʿīm in the 1980s has become a suburban quarter. There is a small mosque called Masd̲j̲id al-ʿUmra. 11. Masd̲j̲id al-Ḵh̲ayf. A mosque in Munā in which (at least formerly) were several large vaults which were opened for the receipt of bodies in plague years. It is especially meritorious for prayer on the ʿId al-Aḍḥā and has been rebuilt and enlarged by the Suʿūdīs. The new mosque has many columns, splendid carpets and a permanent imām . 12. Masd̲j̲id Ibrāhīm or, more commonly today, Masd̲j̲id Bilāl. Formerly outside the city on the slope of Ḏj̲abal Abī Ḳubays 250 m due east of the Kaʿba; now a built-up area. 13. Masd̲j̲id al-Namira. Also known as Masd̲j̲id Ibrāhīm Ḵh̲alīl and as Masd̲j̲id ʿArafa. It is located almost 2 km west of Ḏj̲abal al-Raḥma in the plain of ʿArafāt and takes its name from a low mountain about 2 km further west. 14. Al-Kurdī estimates (ii, 269) that in all there are 150 mosques in Makka, but he adds that Friday prayers are only allowed to be performed in 15 of them (not counting al-Ḥaram ) in 1375/1955-6. This relaxation of the traditional restriction on performing the Friday noon prayers only in al-Ḥaram was in response to the growth of the city and the disruption of al-Masd̲j̲id al-Ḥarām by the new construction there. The 15 mosques (with their locations) are as follows: Masd̲j̲id (thereafter, M.) al-Ḏj̲inn (al-Sulaymāniyya), M. al-Ḏj̲umazya (al-Muʿābada), M. al-Amīra Ḥassa (al-Ḥud̲j̲ūn), M. Ḥamdān al-Faraḥ (al-ʿUtaybiyya).M. Ibn Rus̲h̲d al-Hamzānī (?) (al-Muʿābada), M. al-Malik ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz (al-Muʿābada), M. Ḥayy Tawfīḳ (Ḏj̲arwal), M. al-Malik ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz (al-Zāhir), M. Biʾr al-Ham (?m)am (S̲h̲iʿb ʿĀmir), M. al-Amīr Bandar (al-Muʿābada), M. Ḥasan Al al-S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ (S̲h̲āriʿ Manṣūr), M. al-Kuwaytī (S̲h̲ariʿ Manṣūr), M. al-Ṭabīs̲h̲ī) (Ḏj̲arwal), M. al-Kaʿkī (Ḏj̲arwal), and M. al-Badawī (or M. al-Rāya or M. al-Ḏj̲awdariyya) (al-Ḏj̲awdariyya). From their names, it is clear that most of these are modern mosques. (For more detail on all the above and other mosques, see al-Bilādī, esp. s.v. masd̲j̲id .).

Pilgrimage.

From time immemorial, the life of Makka has been punctuated by the inflow of pilgrims, and even mighty oil has not interfered with this annual surge. Indeed, it has rather confirmed it. D. Long's admirable study of the modern Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ begins, “Over 1,500,000 people [by 1403/1982 the total figure was probably a little under 2,000,000] annually attend the Hajj, or Great Pilgrimage to Makkah, making it one of the largest exercises in public administration in the world. Nearly every agency of the Saudi government becomes involved, either in regulating the privately operated Hajj service industry, or in providing direct administrative services. Such a task would tax the most sophisticated government bureaucracy; and yet Saudi Arabia, where public administration is still in a developing stage, manages to get the job done each year. Moreover, since non-Muslims are not allowed in Makka, it is done with almost no administrative assistance from more developed countries.” The brief tent city annually erected on the plain of ʿArafat and the vast multitude that inhabits it creates as moving a picture of religious faith as any that human society affords.

Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ arrival figures (or estimates) for the period under review from various sources: [Table omitted]

In the period under review, three aspects of the Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ must be considered: the transitional period running from the Suʿūdī conquest to the end of World War II, during which the camel gave way to the motor vehicle; the increasing Suʿūdī regulation of what D. Long has called the Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ service industry; and the Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ in the era of mass air transport.

Education and cultural life.

Formal education, traditional or modern, was little developed in Makka in late Ottoman and Hās̲h̲imite times. The first major attempt to improve the situation had been made by the distinguished public-spirited Ḏj̲udda merchant, Muḥammad ʿAlī Zaynal Riḍā, who founded the Madrasat al-Falāḥ in Makka in 1330/1911-12 as he had founded a school of the same name in Ḏj̲udda in 1326/1908-9. He is reported to have spent £400,000 of his own money on these two schools before the world depression of 1929 forced him to curtail his support, at which point ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz assigned a share of the Ḏj̲udda customs' duties to support the institutions. These two schools, the best in the land, had enormous influence through their graduates, even though they followed the old principles of excessive reliance on memorisation with little emphasis on independent thought. There were also in pre-Has̲h̲imite days some Indian religious institutes, and of course, Islamic sciences were taught in al-Masd̲j̲id al-Ḥarām . During the Hās̲h̲imite period, what Wahba calls (125) schools-in-name appeared, including an academic school (al-Madrasa al-Rāḳiya) as well as agricultural and military schools. By the time of the Suʿūdī occupation, the city counted one public elementary (ibtidāʾī) and 5 public preparatory (taḥḍīrī) schools. Private schools in addition to al-Falāḥ included 20 Ḳurʾān schools ( kuttāb ) and perhaps 5 other private schools. Rutter noted that a good deal of study went on among the pilgrims and opined that the Makkans were better educated than the contemporary Egyptians. Ḥamāda, writing a decade later, agrees about the first point, for he says that during his pilgrimage hundreds of pilgrims gathered nightly to hear the lesson given by the imām , S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ Muḥammad Abū Samḥ ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir. He taught tafsīr [q.v.] according to Ibn Kat̲h̲īr [q.v.], but Ḥamāda complains that his lecture wandered, often to the question of intercession with God—a sensitive point for the Wahhābīs—and wishes that he would concentrate on subjects of more interest to his listeners. He also comments that the majority of the population were illiterate and opines that the highest diploma awarded by the Falāḥ school, the ʿālimiyya, was equivalent to the ibtidāʾiyya of al-Azhar in Cairo.

In any case, King ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz moved rapidly in the field of education as in other areas. In 1344-5/1926 he established al-Maʿhad al-ʿIlmī Suʿūdī (Science Institute) for instruction in s̲h̲arīʿa and Arabic language and linguistics, but also for social, natural and physical sciences as well as physical education. In 1356-7/1938, the Maʿhad was divided into four departments, s̲h̲arīʿa , calligraphy, teacher training, and secondary instruction. The faculty was largely Egyptian, and by 1935 was also giving instruction in the English language. In addition, by that time the government had established other schools, the Ḵh̲ayriyya, ʿAzīziyya, Suʿūdiyya and Fayṣaliyya, in addition to starting student missions abroad. These developments were praised by Ḥamāda. Another development in the growth of education in Makka was the establishment in 1352/1932 of the Dār al-Ḥadīth (the ḥadīth academy) by Imām Muḥammad Abū Samḥ ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir. Ḥadīth was the only subject taught, and that at a relatively low level. Based on Ḥamza's summary (220-2), Makkan schools in about 1354/1935 were as shown in the table overleaf.

Thus, based on a population of perhaps 80,000, there were some 5,000 students enrolled in schools. Many of the teachers were “foreigners,” Egyptians, Southeast Asians, Muslims from British India and Central Asians, but then many in the population as a whole were people of non-Arabian origin. Students in many of these schools received stipends based on the financial capability of the several schools.

Educational facilities continued to expand, especially after oil income began to flow on a significant scale after World War II. Secondary school education developed as follows. The first school to become a regular secondary school was the ʿAzīziyya, which had been upgraded to that status in 1355-6/1937. By 1363-4/1944, the number had grown to four with total enrollments of 368. Nine years later, there were 12 secondary schools with 1,617 students, and by 1381-2/1962 there were 18 with 2,770 pupils. The first institution of higher learning was established in 1370/1949-50, namely, the Kulliyyat al-S̲h̲arīʿa ( s̲h̲arīʿa college), which subsequently became the Faculty of S̲h̲arīʿa of King ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz University, most faculties of which are in Ḏj̲udda. According to Thomas's survey (published 1968) the Faculty of S̲h̲arīʿa was comprised of departments of s̲h̲arīʿa ; Arabic language and literature; and history and Islamic civilisation. The undergraduate programme lasts four years and grants a bachelor's degree. Master's degrees and doctorates are also granted. (For curricular details, see Thomas, 68-70.) A College of Education followed in 1370-1/1951. Its departments in the mid-60s were: education and psychology; geography; English; mathematics; and physics. It only granted the bachelor's degree in the 1960s, but planned to develop masters' and doctoral programs. (For curricular details, see Thomas, 74-7.) In 1981 the university faculties in Makka were constituted into a separate university called Ḏj̲āmiʿat Umm al-Ḳurā, which included four faculties; s̲h̲arīʿa and Islamic studies; science; Arabic language; and education, to which last there was also attached a centre for the English language. In 1379-80/1960 another higher institution was created, the police academy, which required a secondary school certificate for admission. By 1386/1966-7 there was also in existence Maʿhad al-Nūr (the Institute of Light), a school for the blind and deaf, which counted 87 students. It may also be noted that an intermediate vocational school teaching automechanics, shop, electronics, printing and book binding had opened.

An official survey of the academic year 1386-7/1966-7 (from Kingdom of Suʿūdī Arabia, Ministry of Finance, passim) reveals the picture for institutions which are part of the Ministry of Education shown on the facing page.

There is little information available on female education. According to Ḥamāda, girls in the 1930s only attended kuttāb s taught by faḳīh s and after the first few years had to continue study at home. He also comments on the generally low level of women's knowledge and deprecates the use of female diviners or fortune-tellers (sing. ʿarrāfa) for medical purposes. But Ḥamāda also notes that even in his day, young men were seeking more educated wives, and he calls on the government to support female education and in particular to replace the faḳīh s with “enlightened” teachers. The chart above indicates that, although female education has expanded a great deal, it has continued to lag behind male.

In the 1970s and the 1980s, educational expansion has continued on a large scale. One estimate—possibly high—is that in 1402/1982 there were 15 secondary schools in Makka.

Educational administration of Makkan institutions followed general trends in the country. The Department of Education was established in 1344/1926 under the direction of Ṣāliḥ S̲h̲aṭṭa, and regulations for it were issued by the government of al-Ḥid̲j̲āz in Muḥarram 1346/July 1927. Inter alia, these gave the department its own policy board ( mad̲j̲lis ). The budget was £5,665. In Muḥarram 1357/March 1938 a vice-regal decree ( amr sām ⁱⁿ) was issued which thoroughly reorganised the department now called Mudīriyyat al-Maʿārif al-ʿĀmma. All education except military fell under its aegis. Four departments were established: policy board, secretariat, inspectorate, and instructional office (details in Nallino, 44-7). These new regulations brought private education under full government control. They specified that the principal had to be a Suʿūdī citizen and that preference in hiring teachers should also go to citizens. Foreign nationals had to be approved by the Department of Education. In curricular terms, those private schools which received government support were required to teach s̲h̲arīʿa according to any one of the four recognised mad̲h̲habs. In the religious institutions, kalām [q.v.] was forbidden and fiḳh was limited to the Ḥanbalī mad̲h̲hab. Little budgetary information on the schools of Makka is available. Directors of the department were as follows: Ṣāliḥ S̲h̲aṭṭa, Muḥammad Kāmil al-Ḳaṣṣāb (of Damascus, who served only briefly), Mād̲j̲id al-Kurdī, Ḥāfiẓ Wahba (in addition to his other duties; his deputy, who ran the department, was Ibrāhīm al-S̲h̲ūrī, a graduate of Dar al-ʿUlūm in Cairo), Muḥammad Amīn Fūda (1347-1352/1928-9 to 1933-4), Ṭāhir al-Dabbāg̲h̲ (until 1378/1959), Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Māniʿ (of Nad̲j̲dī origin). It may be mentioned that when independent, fully-formed ministries were established at the end of ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz's reign, Prince (later King) Fahd b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz became the first Minister of Education. Subsequently, the ministry was divided into a Ministry of Education (Wizārat al-Maʿārif , under Dr. ʿAbd al-ʿAziz al-Ḵh̲uwayṭir from approximately 1395/1975 to the present, 1405/1985) and a Ministry of Higher Education (Wizārat al-Taʿlīm al-ʿĀlī, under S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ Ḥasan b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Ḥasan Āl al-S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ from approximately 1975 to the present).

The most important library in Makka is the Ḥaram Library (Maktabat al-Ḥaram ) as it became known in 1357/1938. The basis of the collection was 3,653 volumes donated by Sultan ʿAbd al-Med̲j̲īd. These were placed under a dome behind the Zamzam building, but were badly damaged during the flood of 1278/1861-2. The sultan then ordered the construction of a madrasa /library next to the Egyptian takiyya (by the southern corner of the Ḥaram ), but died before its completion. In 1299/1881-2 the dome above Bāb al-Durayba was used to house the remains of the damaged library. New accretions began; S̲h̲arīf ʿAbd Muṭṭalib b. G̲h̲ālib (d. 1303/1886) donated waḳf books, to which were added those of S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ Ṣāliḥ ʿIṭird̲j̲ī, and still other volumes brought from different mosques and ribāṭ s. In 1336/1917-8 another addition was made by waḳf from S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ ʿAbd al-Haḳḳ al-Hindī. A more important accretion occurred in 1346/1927-8 under the new Suʿūdī régime when the 1,362-volume library of Muḥammad Rus̲h̲dī Pas̲h̲a al-S̲h̲irwānī (d. 1292/1875-6), a former Ottoman wālī of al-Ḥid̲j̲āz, was added to the growing collection. By 1386/1965 the collection was officially estimated as 200,000 volumes used in the course of the year by 100,000 readers. The main public library, founded in 1350/1931-2, contained 500,000 volumes and was used by 400,000 people per year. Other libraries include: 1. The Dihlawī library results from a combination of the library of S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ ʿAbd al-Sattār al-Dihlawī (1286-1355/1869-70 to 1936-7) composed of 1714 volumes with that of S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Dihlawī which in fact had been collected by S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ ʿAbd al-Ḏj̲abbār (? al-Dihlawi). It is said to have many choice items. 2. The Mād̲j̲idiyya library was assembled by S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ Muḥammad Mād̲j̲id al-Kurdī, sometime director of the Department of Education, and consists of 7,000 volumes of rare printed works and manuscripts. S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ Mād̲j̲id not only acquired the books but systematically organised and indexed them. After al-Kurdī's death, ʿAbbās al-Ḳaṭṭān purchased the library from al-Kurdī's children and set it up in a building that he had built. Although al-Ḳaṭṭān died in 1370/1950, the library was moved to the building and was attached to the waḳf libraries of the Ministry of Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ and Awḳāf. 3. Another library reputed to contain manuscripts and rare printed works is that of S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ Ḥasan ʿAbd al-S̲h̲ukūr, a “Javan” s̲h̲ayk̲h̲ . 4. Other libraries are those of ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥammad G̲h̲āzī, al-Madrasa al-Ṣawlatiyya, Madrasat al-Falāḥ, Sulaymān b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Ṣanīʿ (d. 1389/1969), Muḥammad Ibrāhīm al-G̲h̲azzāwī (brother of the poet laureate), Muḥammad Surūr al-Ṣabbān, al-ʿAmūdī, Ibrāhīm Fūda, Aḥmad ʿAbd al-G̲h̲afūr ʿAṭṭār, and the late distinguished writer ʿAbd al-Ḳuddūs al-Anṣārī. (Section on libraries basically from al-Ziriklī, iii, 1035-7.)

Presses and publishing in Makka have been rather restricted. The first press was brought to the city ca. 1303/1885-6 by ʿOt̲h̲mān Nūrī Pas̲h̲a, who had arrived as Ottoman wālī in November 1881. Probably it was briefly directed by the historian Aḥmad b. Zaynī Daḥlān (d. 1304/1886-7). During the Hās̲h̲imite period, it was used to print the official gazette, al-Ḳibla . It was of course taken over by the Suʿūdī régime, new equipment was purchased, and other small local presses were bought by the government and added to it. The new enlarged operation was called Maṭbaʿat Umm al-Ḳurā after the new Suʿūdī official gazette Umm al-Ḳurā , which was published thereon. Subsequently, a separate administration was set up for it and its name was changed to Maṭbaʿat al-Ḥukūma (the government press). A Syrian expert at the same time was brought in to teach Suʿūdīs zinc etching and stamping ( ʿamal al-ṭawābiʿ). A special plant was set up for this purpose in 1346/1927. The next press to arrive was brought in by Muḥammad Mād̲j̲id al-Kurdī in 1327/1909. Called al-Maṭbaʿa al-Mād̲j̲idiyya, it was installed in his house and printed many books. His sons continued it after his death. The third press was that introduced by the famous Ḏj̲udda scholar, S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ Naṣīf, which he called al-Maṭbaʿa al-Salafiyya, but which he soon sold. Other presses include: al-Maṭbaʿa ʿArabiyya (or al-S̲h̲arika ʿArabiyya li-Ṭabāʿ wa'l-Nas̲h̲r) used to print Ṣawt al-Ḥidjāz newspaper (subsequently called al-Bilād al-Suʿūdiyya , subsequently al-Bilad); the press of Aḥmad al-Fayḍ Ābādī established in 1357/1938 on German equipment; Maṭābiʿ al-Nadwa, established in 1373/1953-4; the beautifully-equipped press of Ṣāliḥ Muḥammad Ḏj̲amāl (for printing books); Maṭbaʿat Ḳurays̲h̲, established by Aḥmad al-Sibāʿī, the author of the well-known history of Makka; and Maṭbaʿat Maṣḥaf Makka al-Mukarrama established in 1367/1948 with American equipment. Most of these were hand presses up until the 1960s, but many have doubtless been highly automated since then. (For other lesser presses, see al-Kurdī, ii, 156, who along with al-Ziriklī, 1023-4, is much followed in this section, and also Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Mudīriyya, 235.)

Newspapers and magazines published in Makka in modern times include in chronological order the following: 1. The first periodical in Makka (and in the Ḥid̲j̲āz) was an official gazette called al-Ḥid̲j̲āz which began publication in both Arabic and Turkish in 1326/1908 (not, apparently, in 1301/1884 as reported by Philippe Ṭarrāzī). It appeared in four small pages and ceased publication a year later with the Young Turk Revolution. It reappeared under a new name, S̲h̲ams al-Haḳīḳa (“The Sun of Truth”) that same year again in Arabic and Turkish as the organ of the Committee on Union and Progress in Istanbul. Its editor was Muḥammad Tawfīḳ Makkī and his assistant was Ibrāhīm Adham. Under the Hās̲h̲imites, al-Ḳibla , their official gazette, appeared starting in 1334/1916 on a weekly basis. Those who participated in the editorial work were Fuʾād al-Ḵh̲aṭīb, Muḥyī al-Dīn Ḵh̲aṭīb, and Aḥmad S̲h̲ākir al-Kar(?a)mī. When ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Āl Suʿūd captured Makka, the official gazette re-emerged once again on a weekly basis as Umm al-Ḳurā . The speed with which it began once again illustrates the energy of the new régime, for it started on 15 Ḏj̲umādā I 1343/12 December 1924, exactly one week after the sultan of Nad̲j̲d had entered the newly-conquered city. According to Ḥamāda, circulation was 3,000 during the Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ . The paper has remained the unrivalled documentary source for Suʿūdī affairs, but also has included much non-official material, especially literary. Successive editors of Umm al-Ḳurā starting with vol. i, no. 1 were YūsufYāsīn, Rus̲h̲dī Malḥaṣ, Muḥammad Saʿīd ʿAbd al-Maḳsūd, ʿAbd al-Ḳuddūs al-Anṣārī, and in 1952, al-Ṭayyib al-Sāsī. 2. Ṣawt al-Ḥid̲j̲āz , (“The Voice of the Ḥid̲j̲āz”), appeared in 1350/1932 as a weekly paper and lasted with that title for seven years. Like Umm al-Ḳurā , it had four, small-format pages. Its publisher was the well-known Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ Naṣīf and its initial editor was ʿAbd al-Wahhāb Ās̲h̲ī. His successors were a kind of Who's Who, including Aḥmad Ibrāhīm al-G̲h̲azzāwī, Ḥasan al-Faḳī, Muḥammad Saʿīd al-ʿAmūdī, Muḥammad Ḥasan ʿAwwād, Aḥmad al-Sibāʿī, Muḥammad ʿAlī Riḍā and Muḥammad ʿAlī Mag̲h̲ribī. 3. al-Manhal (“The Spring or Pool”), a magazine which was first published in al-Madīna in 1355/1936, but transferred to Makka a year later. It ceased publication for a while during World War II along with other periodicals (see below), and then resumed in Makka. It is essentially a literary magazine and was published and edited by the well-known ʿAbd al-Ḳuddūs al-Anṣārī. In the 1960s, al-Manhal's operations were moved to Ḏj̲udda. 4. al-Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ magazine started publication in 1366/1947 under the initial editorship of Hās̲h̲im al-Zawāwī, who was succeeded therein in 1370/1951 by Muḥammad Ṭāhir al-Kurdī. It is religiously oriented and includes literary and historical materials. It is published under the auspices of the Ministry of Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ and Awḳāf. 5. al-Iṣlāḥ (“Reform”) ran for two years as a monthly magazine starting in 1347/1928. It was published by the Department of Education and edited by Muḥammad Ḥāmid al-Faḳī. It is not to be confused with its late Ottoman predecessor of the same title. 6. al-Nidāʾ al-Islāmi was a bilingual monthly magazine (Arabic and Indonesian) which began publication in 1357/1938. It is to be noted that on 27 Ḏj̲umādā II/1360/21 July 1941, the government issued an official communiqué which ordered the cessation of all newspapers and magazines except Umm al-Ḳurā because of the war-time shortage of newsprint. When the wartime emergency was over, al-Manhal and al-Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ reappeared and have continued publication. 7. Ṣawt al-Ḥid̲j̲āz also reappeared but with a different name, al-Bilād al-Suʿūdiyya (“The Suʿūdi Land”)—first as a weekly again, then as a half-weekly. Starting in 1373/1953, it became the first daily in all of Suʿūdī Arabia. Its name was subsequently shortened simply to al-Bilād and, according to al-Ziriklī, (ii, 1024-8), much followed here, it was by far the best paper in the country from almost all points of view. Its editor was ʿAbd Allāh ʿUrayf for a long period after the Second World War, and it is worth noting that, as with several other periodicals, Makka lost al-Bilād to Ḏj̲udda in the 1960s. 8. A newer Makkan daily is al-Nadwa . It was founded in 1378/1958-9 and in 1387/1967 boasted a circulation of 9,000. 9. Finally, note should be taken of Mad̲j̲allat al-Tid̲j̲āra wa'l-Ṣināʿa (“The Journal of Commerce and Industry”), a monthly founded in 1385/1965 with a circulation of 2,000. (For additional journals, see al-Kurdī, ii, 156-60.) Both Nallino and Ḥamāda, writing about the same time, note that censorship existed. The former indicates that the Hayʾat al-Amr bi'l-Maʿrūf had responsibility for censorship and states that among books which had been disallowed were polemics against Ibn Taymiyya [q.v.], the forerunner of Wahhābism, books by Aḥmad b. Zaynī Daḥlān, and Muḥammad Ḥusayn Haykal's Fī manzil al-waḥy , the latter for its criticism of Wahhābī extremism. Ḥamāda says only that “a committee” oversees writers and journalists and passes on imported books. He wonders if his book will be approved.

Before turning to Makkan writers, we may noticeone or two incidental aspects of cultural life in the city. Bookstores were formerly clustered around the Ḥaram near its gates. When the enlargement of the mosque took place, they were forced to move and relocate in scattered directions. Of 12 listed by al-Kurdī (ii, 138, 148), four belonged to the Āl Bāz and three to the Āl Faddāʿ families, but al-Kurdī reports that only two were sought by scholars and students. The first was Maktabat al-Ḥaram al-Makkī, which was, he opines, founded “a number of centuries ago” by an Ottoman sultan. Originally, it was located facing Zamzam “in a room above a small dome,” but when the Ottoman mosque renovation (? by Sultan ʿAbd al-Med̲j̲īd) took place, it was relocated inside the mosque at Bāb al-Durayba. When the Suʿūdī expansion took place, the store was once again moved to a special place near Bāb al-Salām. The second, Maktabat Makka al-Mukarrama, he describes as newly-established. Information on the time spent in penning careful calligraphy is not commonly given. Muḥammad Ṭāhir al-Kurdī, whose history has often been cited in this article, started the calligraphy for a Ḳurʾān in 1362/1943-4. He published it, as Maṣḥaf Makka al-Mukarrama in 1369/1949-50. Some mention should also be made of the waḳf-established ribāṭ s of Makka, best defined perhaps as hospices. Some were for students; others for the poor and the wayfarer. They were, according to al-Kurdī (ii, 149), “numerous” and not a few were for women. Established for the most part by waḳfs, they usually provided students with single rooms. They were generally located adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the Ḥaram . When the Suʿūdī régimes pulled everything down around the mosque to make way for the enlargement, the ribāṭ s of course went. Some were paid compensation and hence rebuilt elsewhere; others were not, and hence have disappeared forever. Al-Kurdī remembers six of the latter, and claims that none was less than 400 years old. (For details of the Italo-Muslim hospice in Makka, al-Ribāṭ al-Ītālī al-Islāmī, see Nallino, 109-10.) PRIVATE

Makka has not failed to produce its share of modern writers, some of whom were primarily poets, others prose authors. Many had other work, often in publishing, journalism and printing. Many of the names that follow (based on Nallino, 132-7, who based his work in turn on ʿAbd al-Maḳsūḍ and Balk̲h̲ayr's Waḥy al-ṣaḥrāʾ ), have appeared earlier in this article: 1. Aḥmad Ibrāhīm al-G̲h̲azzāwī (b. Makka 1318/1900-1). A poet, he studied at the al-Ṣawlatiyya and al-Falāḥ schools and held public positions both under the Hās̲h̲imites and the Suʿūds. A member of the Mad̲j̲lis al-Shūrā in 1936. Was designated “poet of the king” ( s̲h̲āʿir al-malik ; poet laureate, in Philby's words) in 1932. (For a sample of his verse see al-Zirikli, ii, 675-6). 2. Aḥmad Sibāʿī (b. Makka 1323/1905/6). Travelled abroad and studied two years at the Coptic High School in Alexandria. On his return, he taught in schools and then became the director of Ṣawt al-Ḥid̲j̲āz in 1354/1935-6. His Taʾrik̲h̲ Makka (“History of Makka”), the most judicious, comprehensive history of the city, was first published in 1372/1953. The sixth edition appeared in 1404/1984, a year after he was judged first in the state prize of honour (d̲j̲āʾizat al-dawla al-taḳdīriyya). 3. Amīn b. ʿAḳīl (b. Makka 1329/1911). Amīn studied at al-Falāḥ and then moved with his family to Mukalla in South Yemen, where he continued to study. He also was in Laḥid̲j̲ for a year-and-a-half and then returned to Makka and completed his studies at al-Falāḥ. In 1351/1932, along with a group of Ḥid̲j̲āzīs, he was briefly exiled in al-Riyāḍ on political grounds. Hismedium was prose. 4. Ḥusayn Ḵh̲aznadār (b. Makka 1336/1917-18). He studied at al-Ḵh̲ayriyya school and finished his studies at al-Falāḥ: a poet. 5. Ḥusayn Sarḥān (b. Makka 1334/1915-16). A member of the al-Rūsān section of the ʿUtayba tribe, he also studied at al-Falāḥ and was a poet. 6. Ḥusayn Sarrād̲j̲ (b. 1330-1/1912). Primary studies at al-Falāḥ, secondary in Jordan, he received his B.A. from the American University of Beirut in 1936; a poet. 7. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb Ās̲h̲ī (b. Makka 1323/1905). He studied at al-Falāḥ, taught at al-Fak̲h̲riyya school and at al-Falāḥ. A member of the Automobile Association, he became editor-in-chief of Ṣawt al-Ḥid̲j̲āz . In 1932 he was imprisoned for political reasons and exiled in Nad̲j̲d for two months. On his return, he joined the Ministry of Finance and in time became head of the correspondence section. 8. ʿAbd Allāh ʿUmar Balk̲h̲ayr (b. al-Ḥaḍramawt 1333/1914-15). He soon moved with his father to Makka, studied at al-Falāḥ and then at the American University of Beirut. Co-author of Waḥy al-ṣaḥrāʾ (with Muḥammad Saʿīd [b.] ʿAbd al-Maḳṣūd; Cairo, 1355[/1936-7]), an anthology of prose and poetry by then living Ḥid̲j̲āzī authors, this talented young man was diverted from writing into government service. He became the translator from English of world-wide radio reporting for King ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz during World War II and rose to be Minister of Information under King Suʿūd b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz. When the latter was deposed, S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ ʿAbd Allāh retired and in the 1980s has begun to write again. 9. ʿUmar Ṣayrafī (b. Makka 1319/1901-2). Upon completing his studies, Ṣayrafī taught in South Yaman and subsequently at al-Maʿhad Suʿūdī al-ʿIlmī. Prose was his forte. 10. ʿAbd Salām ʿUmar (b. Makka 1327/1909-10 studied at al-Falāḥ and also taught there until he took a post with the Ministry of Finance in the correspondence department, to which a number of writers—given the very high levels of illiteracy in the country—gravitated. ʿAbd Salām wrote prose. 11. ʿUmar ʿArab (b. Makka 1318/1900). Having studied in a kuttāb and then at al-Falāḥ, he taught at al-Falāḥ school in Ḏj̲udda, became secretary of the municipal council of Makka and then was transferred to the correspondence section of the viceroy's secretariat. 12. Muḥammad b. Surūr al-Ṣabbān (b. al-Ḳunfud̲h̲a 1316/1899) moved with his family first to Ḏj̲udda then to Makka, where he enrolled in al-Ḵh̲ayyāṭ school. At first he became a merchant and then, under the Hās̲h̲imites, accountant of the Makkan municipal government. He retained this post under the Suʿūdī régime. He was imprisoned on political grounds but released after the fall of Ḏj̲udda to ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz. Thereafter, he became assistant to the head ( amīn ) of the municipality of Makka, but in 1346/1927 he was incarcerated in al-Riyāḍ for more than a year. After his release, he became head of the correspondence department in the Ministry of Finance, of which he ultimately became the minister. He was the author of Adab al-Ḥid̲j̲āz (Cairo 1344/1925-6), an anthology of Ḥid̲j̲āzī authors. 13. Muḥammad Saʿīd al-ʿAmūdī (b. Makka 1323/1905-6), attended a kuttāb and al-Falāḥ school. After a stint in commerce, he was employed by the ʿAyn Zubayda authority. After several other posts, he became head of the correspondence department of the Department of Posts and Telegrams. He was also editor of Ṣawt al-Ḥid̲j̲āz . Al-ʿAmūdī wrote both prose and poetry. 14. Muḥammad Ḥasan Faḳī (b. Makka 1330/1911-12) attended both al-Falāḥ of Ḏj̲udda and that of Makka. He taught at the latter for three years, and he also became editor of Ṣawt al-Ḥid̲j̲āz . This poet and prose author was also chief ofthe contracts' department in the Ministry of Finance. 15. Muḥammad Ḥasan Kutubī (b. Makka 1329/1911) studied at al-Falāḥ and was a member of the mission that Muḥammad ʿAlī Zaynal Riḍā sent at his own expense to Bombay, India, for the study of religious science. After receiving his diploma there, Kutubī returned and he also became editor of Ṣawt al-Ḥid̲j̲āz . In addition, he taught courses for prospective kāḍīs at al-Maʿhad al-ʿIlmī Suʿūdī and later became director of public schools in al-Ṭāʾif. 16. Muḥammad Ṭāhir b. ʿAbd Ḳādir b. Maḥmūd al-Kurdī (b. Makka ca. 1323/1904-5. Al-Kurdī attended al-Falāḥ school, and after graduation entered al-Azhar in 1340/1921-2. That trip was the first of many to Egypt. He was a member of the executive committee on replacing the roof of the Kaʿba and on enlarging the Great Mosque. His works number more than 40, not all of which have been published. Among the published works are Maḳām Ibrāhīm ʿalayhi 'l-Salām (Cairo 1367/1947-8), Maṣḥaf Makka al-Mukarrama (1369/1949-50), Taʾrīk̲h̲ al-Ḳurʾān wa-g̲h̲arāʾib rasmihi wa-ḥukmihi, al-Tafsīr al-Makkī , a book (title unknown) on calligraphy, and al-Taʾrīkh al-Ḳawīm li-Makka wa-Bayt Allāh al-Karīm, 4 vols. (Makka 1385/[1965]; a fifth volume is promised. His work is traditional in conception, but scrupulous and comprehensive.

Health care.

Because of the Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ and its attendent health problems and because of the world-wide reach of returning pilgrims, health facilities in Makka are of more than passing importance. In the late Ottoman and Hās̲h̲imite periods, there were two “hospitals” one in Ad̲j̲yād and the other in al-Madʿā. They had about five doctors between them, and al-Kurdī reports (ii, 225) that the equipment was satisfactory. These doctors were all foreign—Indians, Indonesians, Algerians, etc. There was one proper pharmacy near al-Marwa and other shops which sold drugs on a casual basis. In a general way, observers noted that the combination of primitive sanitary facilities, low standards of personal hygiene and an oppressively hot climate were unhealthy, although Rutter said that vermin were almost non-existent as a result of the heat and summer dryness. Mosquitoes were apparently common enough but non-malaria bearing. Shortly after ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz reached Makka, he deputed his personal physician, Dr. Maḥmūd Ḥamdī Ḥamūda, to re-establish the medical services, and among his first acts was the appointment of doctors to the Department of Health and the reopening of the Ad̲j̲yād hospital. The hospital reportedly (Hamza, 200) had 275 beds and its facilities included an operating room, X-ray department, microscope room, pharmacy, obstetrics department and an out-patient clinic. It may be pointed out that it had become normal over the years for countries with large Muslim populations, and hence many pilgrims, to dispatch medical teams to Makka at Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ time. In 1345/1927 the regulations for the health department (Maṣlaḥat al-Ṣiḥḥa al-ʿĀmma) were established, and by the mid-1930s the spectrum of medical facilities in addition to the Ad̲j̲yād hospital included the following: 1. a mental hospital. 2. a contagious disease hospital. 3. a brand new hospital in al-S̲h̲uhadāʾ section with completely up-to-date equipment. 4. the Egyptian hospital in Dār al-Takiyya al-Miṣriyya—the official Egyptian presence in Makka. 5. an emergency aid society (Ḏj̲amʿiyyat al-Isʿāf) founded 1355/1936, which held a conference on hygiene and first aid and which owned its own ambulances and motor cycles. In its first year it treated 922 victims of misfortunes, almost all of them in its own facilities. The king, heir designate, and viceroy all contributed to this society,and it was authorised to levy a special 1/4 piastre stamp on top of the regular postage for the support of its activities. This society probably came into existence because of needs arising from the 1934 Suʿūdī war against the Yaman. It grew into the Red Crescent society of the whole country (Philby, Pilgrim, 39); 6. a school for midwives. Philby estimated that during the pilgrimage of 1349/1931, there were 40 deaths out of total pilgrims numbering 100,000 and in 1352/1934, 15 deaths out of 80,000 pilgrims. In the post-World War II period, there was predictably a great increase in facilities, and to the above list must be added: 7. The Dr. Aḥmad Zāhir hospital with 400 beds and 16 doctors. 8. an obstetrical hospital. 9. an eye hospital. 10. a bilharzia (schistosomniasis) control station (1975). 11. a venereal disease control demonstration centre.

As noted earlier, various governments send medical missions to Makka during the ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ season. Ḥamāda reported (69) that in the 1930s, the Egyptian mission consisted of two units, one in Ḥārat Bāb near Ḏj̲arwal, the other in the permanent Egyptian mission building (al-Takiyya al-Miṣriyya), which used to face al-Masd̲j̲id al-Ḥarām before it was torn down to make way for the mosque enlargement. The latter unit was in addition to the permanent Egyptian medical service in the same building. In 1355-6/1937, the countries sending medical missions were Egypt, India, the Dutch East Indies, Algeria, Afghanistan and the USSR. They contributed a total of ten doctors plus pharmacists, assistants and supplies to the available medical services. During the same period, Hamza noted (200) that at Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ time there were a total of 13 government hospitals and clinics spread between Makka and ʿArafāt. Physicians, nurses and orderlies were hired on a temporary basis to man them. Reading from Fārisi's map, one finds that the latest indications are as follows: there were six hospitals, seven clinics (mustawṣaf) and three medical centres (markaz ṭibbī) in Makka proper and ten dispensaries in Minā, one hospital in Muzdalifa, and one medical centre in ʿArafāt. These latter doubtlessly function only during the Ḥadjdj.

Communications.

By 1985 Makka, like other Suʿūdī cities, was possessed of the most modern telephone, telex, radio and TV communications. Its roads were of the most modern design, and it was linked to the rest of the country by first-class highways, many of them divided and of limited access. Since Ḏj̲udda, which has one of the world's largest and most modern airports, is only some 60 km away and since a major airport at Makka would be difficult, both because of the terrain and because of the problem of non-Muslims being in proximity to the ḥaram area, there is no important airport in Makka. It may, however, be noted that a Ḏj̲udda-Makka service had been authorised in 1936 to Misr Air (now Egypt Air). It was cancelled following an accident in 1938. In a similar vein, a railroad project from Ḏj̲udda to Makka was authorised by a royal decree in 1351/1933 with a concession granted to ʿAbd al-Ḳādir al-Ḏj̲īlānī. It was revoked 18 months later because of his failure to carry it out.

The modernisation of communications has been dramatically rapid. Rutter describes (455) how in 1925 camel caravans for al-Madīna assembled in an open space called S̲h̲ayk̲h̲ Maḥmūd on the western edge of Ḏj̲arwal; a camel in Ḏj̲arwal in 1985 would be about as common as a horse in Paris. The use of cars spread very rapidly after the Suʿūds' conquest and the development of the Ḏj̲udda-Makka road was a natural early priority because of the pilgrim traffic. Itwas first asphalted in the period just before the out-break of World War II.

Telecommunications were early emphasised by King ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz because they represented a means of control as well as a convenience. In King al-Ḥusayn's time, there had been about 20 telephones in the city—all reserved for high officials and probably only functional within the city. By 1936, subscribers in Makka had grown to 450 (slightly over half of all those in Suʿūdī Arabia), and lines had been extended to Ḏj̲udda and al-Ṭāʾif (but not al-Riyāḍ, or al-Madīna). Ḥamza also reports (230-1) that, in addition to the regular telephones, there were “automatic” (?) telephones which were used by officials. Of this type, 50 were in Makka. After World War II, the first telephone training mission (10 persons) was sent abroad in 1367/1947-8. By 1385/1965-6, Makka had 5,000 telephones but service was still through operators. Dial phones were introduced soon after this, and within a dozen years there was fully automatic direct-dial service anywhere in the world. There had been limited radio communication within the Ḥid̲j̲āz under the Hās̲h̲imites. In 1348/1929, using Philby as an intermediary (for details see Jubilee, 173-4; Days, 286-9; Saʿudi Arabia, 316-17), the king contracted with the Marconi company for wireless stations in various towns. That of Makka was of 25 kw power (as was al-Riyāḍ), and by the spring of 1932 the network was fully functional. Soon after World War II, by contract with the German Siemens company, this network was greatly expanded and improved. Radio communication has been used at various key points in directing the pilgrimage since about 1370/1950. Public radio broadcasts were initiated on yawm al-wuḳūf (“standing day”) during the pilgrimage of 1368/1949 with Hunā Makka (“This is Makka”) as the opening words. Initial power was only 3 kw, but with the creation of the Directorate General of Broadcasting, Press and Publications (by a decree of 1374/1955) under ʿAbd Allāh ʿUmar Balk̲h̲ayr, there was rapid improvement. Within less than a year, power had increased to 10 kw, and it was boosted in 1377/1957 to 50 kw, making Radio Makka one of the most powerful in the Near East at that time. Later, power was increased still more to 450 kw. In keeping with Wahhābī tradition, music was initially kept off the air, but it was gradually introduced. TV in Makka began service in 1386/1966-7 and has since become a pervasive part of life there as everywhere else in the world.

Water supply.

Before oil-induced modernisation, the water supply of Makka came from two basic sources. The first was local wells. The water of these, of which Zamzam is one, was generally brackish, and they were located in houses. The second was fresh or sweet water most of which came from ʿAyn Zubayda by man-made underground channels of the ḳanawāt [see ḳanāt ] type. Locally, the system is called k̲h̲araz. A very sporadic third source was rainfall which, although it brought the threat of destructive floods, was eagerly collected in every way possible. Water distribution was by hand. A man carried two 20 litre petrol tins (tanaka) attached to the ends of a stout board or pole on his shoulders to the individual houses of those who could afford such service. Philby noted (Forty years, 172) that in the 1930s, 8 gallons cost one penny. His monthly bill seldom exceeded five shillings. The mass of the people went individually to get their own water at one of the small reservoirs or cisterns (bāzān). Of these in Rutter's time, there were seven in the city and one each in Minā, Muzdalifa, and ʿArafa. The water for all of these came from ʿAyn Zubayda.

The immediate source of the ʿAyn Zubayda water is the mountains ( Ḏj̲abal Saʿd and Ḏj̲abal Kabkāb) which lie a few kilometers east of Ḏj̲abal ʿArafa or about 20 km east southeast of Makka. The main source is a spring in the mountains, ʿAyn Ḥunayn, which according to Rutter is a two-hour walk from the Wādī Naʿmān plain. Several other small springs are led to the beginning of the subterranean aqueduct which starts at the foot of the mountain. The aqueduct is attributed to Zubayda [q.v.], the wife of Hārūn al-Ras̲h̲īd, but in all probability it far predates her, and she should be credited with improvement of the system rather than creation of it. Like other ḳanawāt , the ʿAyn Zubayda system is characterised by access wells (fataḥāt) at intervals of about one km which are marked by circular erections around them. King ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz did not lack interest in the water supply system, and made personal financial contributions from time to time. Philby reports (Jubilee, 116-17) an expedition of autumn 1930 when the king and his party drove out to inspect work in progress at one of the access wells which was being cleaned. A thorough cleaning of the whole system had been ordered because flow had been declining as a result of inadequate maintenance in the prior, disturbed years. A pit some 30 m deep had been dug “at the bottom of which the top [Philby's italics] of one of the original manholes could be seen.” Philby theorised that the valley silt had built up at a rate of about 3 m a century. In any case, the new pit was surfaced with masonry and the channel between it and the next pit thoroughly cleaned. When the whole process was completed, the flow of water in Makka increased greatly, although Philby notes that the growth of private gardens in the suburbs was putting pressure on supplies. The ʿAyn Zubayda system (as well as other lesser ones) was so important to the city that a separate ʿAyn Zubayda administrative authority had been created. Its budget came from the government and fell under the purview of the Mad̲j̲lis al-S̲h̲ūrā . In addition, pilgrims often made pious contributions to the upkeep of the system. Ḥamāda notes (77) that supervision of it had to be increased during pilgrimage season because of the danger of defilement. He also, writing for an Egyptian audience, assures his readers that Zubayda water is little inferior to Nile water! In the early 1950s, a modern pipline was run from al-Ḏj̲adīda, 35 km northwest of Makka at the head of the Wādī Fāṭima, to the city. It doubled the water supply. One may assume that by the 1980s, water was piped into most Makkan houses, offices and apartments and that indoor plumbing and metered water, desalinated from sea water, were the norm. Detailed information is not, however, readily available.

Floods in Makka have been a danger since earliest times. Al-Kurdī counts a total of 89 historic ones, including several in the Suʿūdī period. The most severe one was in 1360/1942 when it rained for several hours. Water reached the sill of the Kaʿba's door, and prayers and ṭawāf were cancelled. The streets of the city filled with mud, and there was severe damage to stocks in stores. Tombs in al-Maʿlā were washed out and houses were destroyed (al-Kurdī, ii, 200). Philby also reports (Saʿudi Arabia, 320) a flood in 1950 which reached a depth of seven feet in the mosque. Soon thereafter the improved modern technologies and easier financial situation led to the construction of dams, one on the Wādī Ibrāhīm, which is the main source of floods, the other across the Wādī al-Zāhir, which threatens the northern and western sections. These dams were helpful, and the great underground conduit built in connection with the mosque enlarge-ment may have permanently ameliorated the problem of floods.

(R.B. Winder)

Introduction.

In Ḳurʾān, II, 144, Muslims are enjoined to face the sacred precincts in Mecca during their prayers. The Kaʿba was adopted by Muḥammad as a physical focus of the new Muslim community, and the direction of prayer, ḳibla , was to serve as the sacred direction in Islam until the present day.

Since Muslims over the centuries have faced the Kaʿba during prayer, mosques are oriented so that the prayer wall faces the Kaʿba. The miḥrāb [q.v.] or prayer-niche in the mosque indicates the ḳibla , or local direction of Mecca. Islamic tradition further prescribes that certain acts such as burial of the dead, recitation of the Ḳurʾān, announcing the call to prayer, and the ritual slaughter of animals for food, be performed in the ḳibla , whereas expectoration and bodily functions should be performed in the perpendicular direction. Thus for close to fourteen centuries,Muslims have been spiritually and physically oriented towards the Kaʿba and the holy city of Mecca in their daily lives, and the ḳibla or sacred direction is of fundamental importance in Islam [see kaʿba and ḳibla , i. Ritual and legal aspects].

A statement attributed to the Prophet asserts that the Kaʿba is the ḳibla for people in the sacred mosque which surrounds the Kaʿba, the Mosque is the ḳibla for the people in the sacred precincts ( ḥaram ) of the city of Mecca and its environs, and the sacred precincts are the ḳibla for people in the whole world. To ʿĀʾisha and ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, as well as to other early authorities, is attributed the assertion that Mecca is the centre of the world. The early Islamic traditions with Mecca as the centre and navel of the world constitute an integral part of Islamic cosmography over the centuries (see Wensinck, Navel of the earth, 36), although they do not feature in the most popular treatise on the subject from the late mediaeval period, namely, that of al-Suyūṭī [q.v.]; see Heinen, Islamic cosmology.

From the 3rd/9th century onwards, schemes were devised in which the world was divided into sectors (d̲j̲iha or ḥadd ) about the Kaʿba. This sacred geography had several manifestations, but the different schemes proposed shared a common feature, described by al-Maḳrīzī, “The Kaʿba with respect to the inhabited parts of the world is like the centre of a circle with respect to the circle itself. All regions face the Kaʿba, surrounding it as a circle surrounds its centre, and each region faces a particular part of the Kaʿba” ( Ḵh̲iṭaṭ i, 257-8).

Islamic sacred geography was quite separate and distinct from the mainstream Islamic tradition of mathematical geography and cartography, which owed its inspiration to the Geography of Ptolemy [see d̲j̲ug̲h̲rāfiya and k̲h̲arīṭa ]. Indeed, it flourished mainly outside the domain of the scientists, so that a scholar such as al-Bīrūnī [q.v.] was apparently unaware of this tradition: see his introduction to astronomy and astrology, the Tafhīm, tr. R. R. Wright, London 1934, 141-2, where he discusses the Greek, Indian and Persian schemes for the division of the world, but makes no reference to any system centred on Mecca or the Kaʿba.

The orientation of the Kaʿba.

In the article kaʿba , it is asserted that the corners of the Kaʿba face the cardinal directions. In fact, the Kaʿba has a rectangular base with sides in the ratio ca. 8:7 with its main axis at about 30° counter-clockwise from the meridian. When one is standing in front of any of the four walls of the Kaʿba, one is facing a significant astronomical direction; this fact was known to the first generations who had lived in or visited Mecca. In two traditions attributed to Ibn ʿAbbās and al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī [q.vv.], and in several later sources on folk astronomy, it is implied that the major axis of the rectangular base of the Kaʿba points towards the rising of Canopus, the brightest star in the southern celestial hemisphere, and that the minor axis points towards summer sunrise in one direction and winter sunset in the other (Heinen, Islamic cosmology, 157-8).

For the latitude of Mecca, the two directions are indeed roughly perpendicular. (A modern plan of the Kaʿba and its environs, based upon aerial photography, essentially confirms the information given in the texts, but reveals more: for epoch 0 AD, the major axis is aligned with the rising of Canopus over the mountains on the southern horizon to within 2°, and the minor axis is aligned with the southern-most setting point of the moon over the south-western horizon to within 1°. This last feature of the Kaʿba is not known to be specifically mentioned in any mediaeval text, and its significance, if any, has not yet been established.) In early Islamic meteorological folklore, which appears to date back to pre-Islamic times, the Kaʿba is also associated with the winds. In one of several traditions concerning the winds in pre-Islamic Arabia, the four cardinal winds were thought of as blowing from the directions defined by the axes of the Kaʿba. This tradition is in some sources associated with Ibn ʿAbbās (see maṭlaʿ and also Heinen, 157).

The term ḳibla , and the associated verb istaḳbala for standing in the ḳibla , appear to derive from the name of the east wind, the ḳabūl . These terms correspond to the situation where one is standing with the north wind (al-s̲h̲amāl) on one's left (s̲h̲amāl) and the Yemen on one's right ( yamīn ); see Chelhod, Pre-eminence of the right, 248-53; King, Astronomical alignments, 307-9. In other such traditions recorded in the Islamic sources, the limits of the directions from which the winds blow were defined in terms of the rising and setting of such stars and star-groups as Canopus, the Pleiades, and the stars of the handle of the Plough (which in tropical latitudes do rise and set), or in terms of cardinal directions or solstitial directions [see maṭlaʿ ].

It appears that in the time of the Prophet, the four corners of the Kaʿba were already named according to the geographical regions which they faced and which the Meccans knew from their trading ventures: namely, Syria, ʿIrāḳ, Yemen, and “the West”. As we shall see, a division of the world into four regions about the Kaʿba is attested in one of the earliest sources for sacred geography. Since the Kaʿba has four sides as well as four corners, a division of the world into eight sectors around it would also be natural, and, as we shall see, eight-sector schemes were indeed proposed. However, in some schemes, the sectors were associated with segments of the perimeter of the Kaʿba, the walls being divided by such features as the waterspout (mīzāb) on the north-western wall and the door on the north-eastern wall (see Fig. 1).

The directions of sunrise and sunset at mid-summer, midwinter and the equinoxes, together with the north and south points, define eight (unequal) sectors of the horizon, and, together with the directions perpendicular to the solstitial directions, define 12 (roughly equal) sectors. Each of these eight- and 12-sector schemes was used in the sacred geography of Islam.

The determination of the sacred direction

The article ḳibla , ii. Astronomical aspects, ignores the means which were used in popular practice for determining the sacred direction, since at the time when it was written, these had not yet been investigated. It is appropriate to consider them before turning to the topic of sacred geography per se.

From the 3rd/9th century onwards, Muslim astronomers working in the tradition of classical astronomy devised methods to compute the ḳibla for any locality from the available geographical data. For them, the ḳibla was the direction of the great circle joining the locality to Mecca, measured as an angle to the local meridian. The determination of the ḳibla according to this definition is a non-trivial problem of mathematical geography, whose solution involves the application of complicated trigonometric formulae or geometrical constructions. Lists of ḳibla values for different localities and tables displaying the ḳibla for each degree of longitude and latitude difference from Mecca were available. Details of this activity are given in ḳibla . ii. Astronomical aspects. However, mathematical methods were not available to the Muslims before the late 2nd/8th and early 3rd/9th centuries. And what is more important, even in later centuries, the ḳibla was not generally found by computation anyway.

In some circles, the practice of the Prophet in Medina was imitated: he had prayed southwards towards Mecca, and there were those who were content to follow his example and pray towards the south wherever they were, be it in Andalusia or Central Asia. Others followed the practice of the first generations of Muslims who laid out the first mosques in different parts of the new Islamic commonwealth. Some of these mosques were converted from earlier religious edifices, the orientation of which was considered acceptable for the ḳibla ; such was the case, for example, in Jerusalem and Damascus, where the ḳibla adopted was roughly due south.

Other early mosques were laid out in directions defined by astronomical horizon phenomena, such as the risings and settings of the sun at the equinoxes or solstices and of various prominent stars or star-groups; such was the case, for example, in Egypt and Central Asia, where the earliest mosques were aligned towards winter sunrise and winter sunset, respectively. The directions known as ḳibla al-ṣaḥāba , the “ ḳibla of the Companions”, remained popular over the centuries, their acceptability ensured by the Prophetic dictum: “My Companions are like stars to be guided by: whenever you follow their example you will be rightly guided”.

Astronomical alignments were used for the ḳibla because the first generations of Muslims who werefamiliar with the Kaʿba knew that when they stood in front of the edifice, they were facing a particular astronomical direction. In order to face the appropriate part of the Kaʿba which was associated with their ultimate geographical location, they used the same astronomically-defined direction for the ḳibla as they would have been standing directly in front of that particular segment of the perimeter of the Kaʿba. This notion of the ḳibla is, of course, quite different from that used by the astronomers. Such simple methods for finding the ḳibla by astronomical horizon phenomena (called dalāʾil) are outlined both in legal texts and in treatises dealing with folk astronomy. In the mediaeval sources, we also find ḳibla directions expressed in terms of wind directions: as noted above, several wind schemes, defined in terms of solar or stellar risings and settings, were part of the folk astronomy and meteorology of pre-Islamic Arabia.

The non-mathematical tradition of folk astronomy practiced by Muslims in the mediaeval period was based solely on observable phenomena, such as the risings and settings of celestial bodies and their passages across the sky, and also involved the association of meteorological phenomena, such as the winds, with phenomena in the sky [see anwāʾ , manāzil, maṭlaʿ and rīḥ ]. Adapted primarily from pre-Islamic Arabia, folk astronomy flourished alongside mathematical astronomy over the centuries, but was far more widely known and practised. Even the legal scholars accepted it because of Ḳurʾān, XVI, 16, “... and by the star[s] [men] shall be guided”. There were four main applications of this traditional astronomical folklore: (1) the regulation of the Muslim lunar calendar; (2) the determination of the times of the five daily prayers, which are astronomically defined; (3) finding the ḳibla by non-mathematical procedures; and (4) the organisation of agricultural activities in the solar calendar (see King, Ethnoastronomy, and Varisco, Agricultural almanac ).

Historical evidence of clashes between the two traditions is rare. Al-Bīrūnī made some disparaging remarks about those who sought to find the ḳibla by means of the winds and the lunar mansions ( Kitāb Taḥdīd nihāyāt al-amākin, tr. J. Ali as The determination of the coordinates of cities, Beirut 1967, 12 (slightly modified): “When [some people] were asked to determine the direction of the ḳibla , they became perplexed because the solution of the problem was beyond their scientific powers. You see that they have been discussing completely irrelevant phenomena such as the directions from which the winds blow and the risings of the lunar mansions”.

But the legal scholars made equally disparaging and far more historically significant remarks about the scientists. According to the 7th/13th century Yemeni legal scholar al-Aṣbaḥī (ms. Cairo Dār al-Kutub, mīḳāt 984, 1, fol. 6a-b): “The astronomers have taken their knowledge from Euclid, [the authors of] the Sindhind , Aristotle and other philosophers, and all of them were infidels”.

It is quite apparent from the orientations of mediaeval mosques that astronomers were seldom consulted in their construction. Indeed, from the available architectural and also textual evidence, it is clear that in mediaeval times several different and often widely-divergent ḳibla s were accepted in specific cities and regions. Among the legal scholars there were those who favoured facing the Kaʿba directly ( ʿayn al-Kaʿba ), usually with some traditionally acceptable astronomical alignment such as winter sunrise, and others who said that facing the general direction of the Kaʿba (d̲j̲ihat al-Kaʿba ) was sufficient (see Pl. 1).Thus, for example, there were legal scholars in mediaeval Cordova who maintained that the entire south-eastern quadrant could serve as the ḳibla (see King, Qibla in Cordova , 372, 374).

Islamic sacred geography

The earliest known Kaʿba-centred geographical scheme is recorded in the Kitāb al-Masālik wa 'l-mamālik , ed. de Goeje, 5, of the 3rd/9th century scholar Ibn Ḵh̲urradād̲h̲bih [q.v.]. Even if the scheme is not original to him, there is no reason to suppose that it is any later than his time. In this scheme, represented in Fig. 2, the region between North-West Africa and Northern Syria is associated with the north-west wall of the Kaʿba and has a ḳibla which varies from east to south. The region between Armenia and Kashmir is associated with the north-east wall of the Kaʿba and has a ḳibla which varies from south to west. A third region, India, Tibet and China, is associated with the Black Stone in the eastern corner of the Kaʿba, and, for this reason, is stated to have a ḳibla a little north of west. A fourth region, the Yemen, is associated with the southern corner of the Kaʿba and has a ḳibla of due north.

The 4th/10th century legal scholar Ibn al-Ḳāṣṣ wrote a treatise entitled Dalāʾil al-ḳibla which is unfortunately not extant in its entirety. The Beirut ms. is lost, and the Istanbul and Cairo mss. (Veliyuddin 2453,2 and Dār al-Kutub, mīḳāt 1201) are quite different in content. In the Istanbul copy, Ibn al-Ḳāṣṣ states that the world is centred on the Kaʿba and then presents a traditional Ptolemaic survey of the seven climates [see iḳlīm ]. In the Cairo copy, he surveys the different stars and star-groups used for finding the ḳibla .

The principal scholar involved in the development of sacred geography was Muḥammad b. Surāḳa al-ʿĀmirī, a Yemeni faḳīh who studied in Basra and died in the Yemen in 410/1019. Little is known about this individual, and none of his works are known to survive in their original form. However, from quotations in later works, it appears that he devised a total of three distinct schemes, with eight, 11 and 12 sectorsaround the Kaʿba. In each scheme, several prescriptions for finding the ḳibla in each region are outlined. Ibn Surāḳa explains in words and without recourse to any diagrams how one should stand with respect to the risings or settings of some four stars and the four winds; the actual direction which these prescriptions are intended to help one face is not specifically stated. Thus, for example, people in ʿIrāḳ and Iran should face the north-east wall of the Kaʿba, and to achieve this one should stand so that the stars of the Plough rise behind one's right ear, the lunar mansion al-Hanʿa rises directly behind one's back, the Pole Star is at one's right shoulder, the East wind blows at one's left shoulder, and the West wind blows at one's right cheek, and so on (see Table 1). Ibn Surāḳa did not actually point out that the ḳibla in ʿIrāḳ was toward winter sunset.

Ibn Surāḳa's eight-sector scheme is known from the writings of one Ibn Raḥīḳ, a legal scholar of Mecca in the 5th/11th century, who wrote a treatise on folk astronomy (extant in the unique Berlin ms. Ahlwardt 5664; see especially fols. 23a-25b). Several significant regions of the Muslim world were omitted from this scheme. A similar but more refined eight-sector scheme is proposed by the 7th/13th century Libyan philologist Ibn al-Ad̲j̲dābī [q.v.] ( Kitāb al-Azmina..., ed. I. Hassan, 120-35). Here eight sectors are neatly associated with the four walls and the four corners of the Kaʿba, and the ḳibla s in each region are defined in terms of the cardinal directions and sunrise and sunset at the solstices. A cruder scheme based on the same notion is proposed by the 6th/12th century Egyptian legal scholar Dimyāṭī (ms. Damascus, Ẓāhiriyya 5579, fol. 14a). He represents the Kaʿba by a circle and associates each of the eight regions around the Kaʿba with a wind (see Pl. 2).

Yet another eight-sector scheme is presented in an anonymous treatise preserved in a 12th/18th century Ottoman Egyptian manuscript (Cairo, Ṭalʿat, mad̲j̲āmīʿ 811, 6, fols. 59a-61a (see Pl. 3). From internal evidence, it is clear that this scheme, in which the ḳibla s are actually defined in terms of the stars which rise or set behind one's back when one is standing in the ḳibla and in terms of the Pole Star, was already at least five centuries old when it was copied in this manuscript. For example, various 7th/13th century Yemeni astronomical sources contain 12-sector schemes based on precisely the same eight ḳibla directions. In the eight-sector scheme, Palestine had been omitted and two regions were associated with two entire walls of the Kaʿba. The individual who first devised this particular 12-sector scheme added a sector for Palestine and three more for segments of those two walls.

Ibn Surāḳa's 11-sector scheme is known from an 8th/14th (?) century Egyptian treatise (ms. Milan Ambrosiana, II.75 (A75), 20, fols. 174a-177b), and in it he has simply added three sectors to his eight-sector scheme and modified the prescriptions for finding the ḳibla . His 12-sector scheme is yet more refined. It was used by Dimyāṭī in his Kitāb al-Tahd̲h̲īb fī maʿrifat dalāʾil al-ḳibla (ms. Oxford, Bodleian Marsh 592, fols. 97b-101b, and 126a-28a), who complained that Ibn Surāḳa had placed Damascus and Medina in the same sector, and so he himself presented a 13-sector scheme, subdividing the sector for Syria and the Ḥid̲j̲āz. Ibn Surāḳa's 12-sector scheme was also used by the 7th/13th century Yemeni astronomer al-Fārisī in his treatise on folk astronomy. The unique copy of this work (ms. Milan Ambrosiana X73 sup.) includes diagrams of Ibn Surāḳa's 12-sector scheme and the different 12-sector scheme discussed above (see Pl. 4).

Several sources contain schemes in which the prescriptions for finding the ḳibla in each region of the world are based only on the Pole Star (al-Ḏj̲udayy or al-Ḳuṭb ). Although the earliest known scheme of this kind dates from the 6th/12th century, others must have been in circulation prior to this time, since al-Bīrūnī (Taḥdīd, tr. Ali, 13, modified) wrote: “Of the majority of people [who write about the ḳibla in non-mathematical terms], none are closer to the truth than those who use (iʿtabarahu bi-) the Pole Star known as al-Ḏj̲udayy. By means of its fixed position, the direction of a person travelling can be specified approximately”. PRIVATE

The most detailed scheme of this kind is recorded by the 7th/13th century Egyptian legal scholar S̲h̲ihāb al-Dīn al-Ḳarāfī [q.v.] in his Ḏh̲ak̲h̲īra, ed. Cairo, i, 489-508; in this, some nine regions of the world are identified and instructions for finding the ḳibla are given as follows: “[The inhabitants of] Sind and India stand with [the Pole star] at their [right] cheeks and they face due west, etc.” See Fig. 3 for a simplified version of this kind of scheme.

At least one of the 12-sector schemes mentioned above must have been in circulation outside the Yemen before the 7th/13th century, because it was copied by the geographer Yāḳūt (Buldān, Eng. tr. Jwaideh, 51), who worked in Syria in ca. 600/1200. The instructions for finding the ḳibla are omitted from his diagram. A similar diagram is presented in al-Ḳazwīnī's Āthār al-bilād, 76, (see Fig. 4), and the same scheme is described in words in al-Ḳalḳas̲h̲andī, Ṣubḥ , iv, 251-5. Another such simple 12-sector scheme occurs in the cosmography Ḵh̲arīdat al-ʿad̲j̲āʾib of the 9th/15th century Syrian writer Ibn al-Wardī [q.v.], a work which was exceedingly popular in later centuries. In some copies of this, a diagram of an eight-sector scheme is presented. In others, diagrams of 18-, 34-, 35-, or 36-sectors schemes occur. In one manuscript of a Turkish translation of his treatise (ms. Istanbul Topkapi, Turkish 1340 = Baǧdat 179), there is a diagram of a scheme with 72 sectors. In the published edition of the Arabic text (Cairo 1863, 70-1), extremely corrupt versions of both the 12- and the eight-sector schemes are included.

These simple diagrams were often much abused by ignorant copyists, and even in elegantly copied manuscripts we find the corners of the Kaʿba mislabelled and the localities around the Kaʿba confused. In some copies of the works of Ḳazwīnī and Ibn al-Wardī containing the 12-sector scheme, Medına occurs in more than one sector. In other copies, one of these two sectors has been suppressed and only 11 sectors appear around the Kaʿba (see Pl. 5).

Yet another scheme occurs in the navigational atlas of the 10th/16th century Tunisian scholar ʿAlī al-S̲h̲arafī al-Ṣafāḳusī (see Pl. 6). There are 40 miḥrāb s around the Kaʿba, represented by a square with its corners facing in the cardinal directions, and also by the fact that the scheme is superimposed upon a 32-division wind-rose, a device used by Arab sailors to find directions at sea by the risings and settings of the stars. Even though al-Ṣafāḳusī had compiled maps of the Mediterranean coast, the order and arrangement of localities about the Kaʿba in his diagram in each of the available copies (mss. Paris, B.N. ar. 2273 and Oxford, Bodleian Marsh 294) are rather inaccurate. Again, no ḳibla indications are presented.

Mainly through the writings of Ḳazwīnī and Ibn al-Wardī, these simplified 12-sector schemes were copied right up to the 19th century. By then, their original compiler had long been forgotten, and Muslim scholars interested in the sciences were starting to use Western geographical concepts and coordinates anyway. In most regions of the Islamic world, traditional ḳibla directions which had been used over the centuries were abandoned for a new direction computed for the locality in question using modern geographical coordinates.

The orientation of Islamic religious architecture

A variety of different ḳibla values was used in each of the major centres of Islamic civilisation (see King, Sacred direction). In any one locality, there were ḳibla s advocated by religious tradition, including both cardinal directions and astronomical alignments advocated in texts on folk astronomy or legal texts, as well as the directions computed by the astronomers (by both accurate and approximate mathematical procedures). This situation explains the diversity of mosque orientations in any given region of the Islamic world. However, since very few mediaeval mosques have been surveyed properly for their orientations, it is not yet possible to classify them, and for the presentwe are forced to rely mainly on the information contained in the mediaeval written sources.

In Cordova, for example, as we know from a 6th/12th century treatise on the astrolabe, some mosques were laid out towards winter sunrise (roughly 30° S. of E.), because it was thought that this would make their ḳibla walls parallel to the north-west wall of the Kaʿba. The Grand Mosque there faces a direction perpendicular to summer sunrise (roughly 30° E. of S.), for the very same reason: this explains why it faces the deserts of Algeria rather than the deserts of Arabia. In fact, the axis of the Mosque is “parallel” to the main axis of the Kaʿba.

In Samarḳand, as we know from a 5th/11th century legal treatise, the main mosque was oriented towards winter sunset, in order that it should face the north-east wall of the Kaʿba. Other mosques in Samarḳand were built facing due west because the road to Mecca left Samarḳand towards the west, and yet others were built facing due south because the Prophet, when he was in Medina, had said that the ḳibla was due south, and some religious authorities interpreted this as being universally valid.

Similar situations could be cited for other mediaeval cities. In some of these, the ḳibla , or rather, the various different directions accepted for the ḳibla , have played an important role in the development of the entire city in mediaeval times. Investigations of the orientations of Islamic cities are still in an early phase. However, the city of Cairo represents a particularly interesting case of a city oriented towards the Kaʿba.

The first mosque in Egypt was built in Fusṭāṭ in the 1st/7th century facing due east, and then a few years later was altered to face winter sunrise (about 27° S. of E.). The first direction was probably chosen to ensure that the Mosque faced the Western Corner of the Kaʿba, the second to ensure that it faced the north-western wall, but these reasons are not mentioned in the historical sources. When the new city of al-Ḳāhira was founded in the 4th/10th century, it was built with a roughly orthogonal street plan alongside the Pharaonic canal linking the Nile with the Red Sea. Now, quite fortuitously, it happened that the canal was perpendicular to the direction of winter sunrise. Thus the entire city was oriented in the “ ḳibla of the Companions”. The Fāṭimids who built al-Ḳāhira erected the first mosques in the new city (the Mosque of Ḥākim and the Azhar Mosque) in the ḳibla of the astronomers, which at 37° S. of E. was 10° south of the ḳibla of the Companions. Thus their mosques were skew to the street plan.

The Mamlūks built their mosques and madrasa s in such a way that the exteriors were in line with the street plan and the interiors skew to the exteriors and in line with the ḳibla of the astronomers. When they laid out the “City of the Dead” outside Cairo, they aligned the street and the mausolea with the ḳibla of the astronomers. In the other main area of greater Cairo known as al-Ḳarāfa, both the streets and the mosques follow a southerly ḳibla orientation. Al-Maḳrīzī discussed the problem of the different orientations of mosques in Egypt, but without reference to the street plan of Cairo. Now that the methods used in mediaeval times for finding the ḳibla are understood, the orientation of mediaeval Islamic religious architecture in particular and cities in general is a subject which calls out for further investigation.

Concluding remarks

This purely Islamic development of a sacred geography featuring the world centred on the Kaʿba,provided a simple practical means for Muslims to face the Kaʿba in prayer. For the pious, to whom the “science of the ancients” was anathema, this tradition constituted an acceptable alternative to the mathematical ḳibla determinations of the astronomers. As noted above, it was actually approved of by the legal scholars, not least because of Ḳurʾān XVI, 16. The number and variety of the texts in which this sacred geography is attested indicate that it was widely known from the 4th/10th century onwards, if not among the scientific community. The broad spectra of ḳibla values accepted at different times in different places attest to the multiplicity of ways used by Muslims to face the Kaʿba over the centuries, and all of this activity was inspired by the belief that the Kaʿba, as the centre of the world and the focus of Muslim worship, was a physical pointer to the presence of God.