A Critical Examination of Dan Gibson’s Botanical Argument against Makkah as the Sacred Center of Early Islam

Abstract

This study critically examines Dan Gibson’s botanical argument against identifying Makkah as the sacred center of early Islam. Gibson argues that references in early Islamic sources to grasses growing in Makkah, particularly idhkhir and jalīl, are difficult to reconcile with the city’s predominantly arid landscape and therefore raise doubts about the identification of present-day Makkah with the Makkah described in the early Islamic tradition. This study reassesses this claim through an interdisciplinary analysis of Qurʾānic and Prophetic evidence, botanical classification, ecological characteristics, and modern studies of the flora of the Makkah region. Particular attention is given to the distinction between an uncultivated or non-arable environment and a landscape entirely devoid of natural vegetation. The analysis demonstrates that the Qurʾānic description of Makkah as wādin ghayri dhī zarʿ (“an uncultivated valley”) does not logically entail the absence of naturally occurring grasses, shrubs, or trees. Furthermore, idhkhir (Cymbopogon schoenanthus) and jalīl (Panicum turgidum) are arid-adapted grasses whose ecological characteristics are compatible with the environmental conditions of Makkah. Modern botanical evidence further strengthens this conclusion. A 2014 study of the Makkah flora documented 184 plant species belonging to 125 genera and 44 families, with Poaceae—the family to which both idhkhir and jalīl belong—representing 16.94% of the recorded flora. The documented presence of Panicum turgidum among the relatively abundant species is particularly significant for evaluating Gibson’s claim. The study concludes that Gibson’s botanical argument depends upon an unwarranted conflation of aridity, non-arability, and complete absence of vegetation. Consequently, botanical evidence does not provide sufficient grounds for rejecting Makkah as the sacred center of early Islam. More broadly, the study demonstrates the importance of integrating textual, historical, ecological, and botanical evidence when evaluating revisionist claims concerning early Islamic sacred geography.