Talk:Black Stone

Photo

Is that a real photo of the rock? I thought pictures of it were forbidden.

This article states: "It is the cornerstone...", but [1] states "In the Eastern corner about 5 feet above ground the Hajar el Aswad (the blackstone) is fixed into the wall."

Can anyone confirm which is true, preferably from personal experience?

This photograph shows how it is built into the cornerstone. —No-One Jones 04:52, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"only god that the Arabs were allowed to worship" deleted. This black stone is not god and not all arabs are muslim and not all muslims are arab. FWBOarticle 02:16, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) (And it is not worshipped)

Kiswa

The article states: "The Stone is covered by the Black Cloth, or Kiswa. This word may be derived from SWA (meaning Self, Sanskrit), or SVH (Shiva)."

Any derivation of Kiswa from Sanskrit [or any other form of Indo-Aryan] is as unlikely as it could possibly be.

---

PLese remove the FAKE PIC Photo OF HOLY PROPHET HAZRAT MUHAMMAD PBUH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.48.172 (talk • contribs) (23:32, July 31, 2007) (UTC)

any pre islam information?

Where's the information about the Black Stone prior the Muhammad? Pilgrims would travel for miles to worship it centuries before Islam was created and Muhammad incorporated it into the religion.

This site gives in detail information about pre-islamic Kabba and Arabia. http://doormann.tripod.com/the0.htm

Cover of the black stone

I read that there is a golden cover of the black stone in the topkapi museum in Istanbul, Turkey.

See [2] Image: [3] The golden cover displayed was once the cover of the Hacer-ül Esved stone, the black stone which “fell from heaven” within the Kaaba.

Does anyone know how it came there? Could it have something to do with the Qarmatians that took it for 22 years?

I don't know, but Mecca was governed from Istanbul for 400 years (1517-1916) as part of the Ottoman Empire. So it probably was brought to 'the capital' during that time, after it had been replaced by a new one. Prater 17:04, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Damage

So it's damaged by Muhammad and put back together by him? --Menchi 05:31, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree, this seems unlikely. I've never heard this before... Muhammad always showed respect for the black stone when he visited the Kaaba. (He would salute it with his staff.) As far as I know, the cause of the damage is unknown. Prater 16:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The stone was damaged by an Ismaili sect, the Qarmatians, when they sacked Mecca and carried off the stone. I've corrected the article, and also removed a lot of duplicate info.

Qarmatians stole the rock, but i think it actually cracked in by cause of a fire.

Information re the Hajj, the Kiswah, and other matters doesn't belong in this article. We should link to those articles. Zora 22:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In fact there is a tradition about previous damage to the Black Stone: in a "pre-revelation" flood the Ka'aba was damaged and rebuilt but the main clans of the Quraish could not agree as to which one would have the honour of replacing the stone. After some discussion, Muhammed was asked to judge between the competing claims and came up with the solution that the stone would be placed on a sheet of cloth and representatives from each of the clans would participate in lifting the stone back into place. This is a "pious tradition" to underline the general acceptance in Mecca of Muhammed's "laqba" or nickname "Al-Amin" - the faithful/trustworthy one - prior to the revelation. The origin of the laqba is reputed to be Muhammed's first wife (and employer) Khadija who originally hired him to oversee her trading caravans. If memory serves, there is a version of this tradition in Martin Lings' book on the life of the prophet. I'll do some research and edit unless there is a major objection. Wildbe 3 July 2005 11:51 (UTC)

If we're putting in pious traditions about the Kaaba, sure, why not? Allow me also to call your attention to an article that I just now started, which needs lots of work: Islam and veneration for Muhammad. That may not be the best title (it could be changed), but Muslim editors keep inserting "pious traditions" in various articles and it seemed as if there should be a place to move them rather than delete them. This could be useful info for someone trying to find out about popular culture in Muslim-majority countries. Zora 3 July 2005 11:58 (UTC)

OK I see your point - that's why I didn't edit directly ;) In addition to the fact that I'm still quite a "newbie" and (sigh) my field of interest is a rather controversial one judging from the edit wars that go on. Wildbe 3 July 2005 12:05 (UTC)

No no no no ... I didn't mean "don't add it here". We've got folk traditions here already, so why not add this one too? I'm just saying that you could ALSO add it to the other article I mentioned. You probably also know other traditions re Muhammad -- the ones that we couldn't fit in the regular Muhammad article, because they're not accepted by Western scholars OR by the careful Muslim scholars. The hadith that aren't sahih <g>. Sorry if I was unclear. It's late here in Honolulu, I'm upset from dealing with various fug-headed editors (GRRRRR!), and I'm probably not expressing myself well. Zora 3 July 2005 12:12 (UTC)

Ah I see. Don't worry I didn't take your post the wrong way and I do understand your point about pious traditions - there is a difference between an encylopedia and hagiography. In any case I need to check my sources first before fiddling around with the text. One point I think worth making in the article is the common misconception that the Black Stone is the focus for Muslims while praying - the point being that when the Qarmatians "borrowed" the thing the Qibla didn't go walkabout at the same time but stayed where it was. BTW there is another stone set in Ka'aba as well - a red(dish) one at 180 degrees to the Black Stone set about the same height. I can't see any reference to it in the Ka'aba related articles.Wildbe 3 July 2005 13:03 (UTC)

Sure, add the bit about the red stone too. I've never heard about it, and I'd like to know more. Actually, it's been fun learning all this stuff about the Kaaba, which I had always thought something dark and mysterious, hidden from kafirs. Learning that there's nothing inside the Kaaba but marble and embroidered cloth removes the whole "Indiana Jones" aura of mystery. Zora 3 July 2005 22:00 (UTC)

Anon editor's additions

An anon editor added more traditions re the Black Stone, phrased as if all Muslims believed them. I worked them into the presentation, used English rather than Arabic, and tried to remain neutral between various Muslim beliefs about the Black Stone. Zora 18:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Idolatry

If "idolatry" is added just a link, without explanation, it is effectively an accusation. Therefore I rewrote the article so that the question of idolatry is put front and center, and discussed from several viewpoints. The idolatry link is found IN the article, not in the See Also list.

I also added bit re meteorite. I should probably source it. Wouldn't be hard, but I just don't have time to do the research now. I know I've seen it in several sources, not just one. Zora 00:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: Idolatry

I believe that a link to Idolatry is necessary here, as that article goes in depth covering all aspects of "idolatry". It even points out the views of idolatry in Islamic thought. If there is going to be a paragraph about "idolatry" and the black stone, I think that a link to the article on idolatry is a good thing to get more than 1 religious perspective on it.

It IS linked, in the article. Twice. As idolatry and as shirk. Zora 02:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: Re: Idolatry

What do you think that they're bowing to when they drop and turn to the east 5x a day? You have got to be kidding me. Please quit vandalizing the article. I cannot believe that Wikipedia does not even have a proper article on the Black Stone. It is something held close to 800 million people. Zora, you don't "own" this article.

Muslims are bowing to the Kaaba, not the Black Stone. Anyone INSIDE the Kaaba doing the daily prayers bows towards the outside, towards the walls of the Kaaba, and not the Black stone. People outside the Kaaba face the wall of the Kaaba closest to them, and not the Black Stone.

One Islamic site I skimmed had an opinion piece re the Hajj, saying that kissing the Black Stone was a pernicious custom, not to be indulged. The only reason for the Stone, said the article, was to mark a corner so that believers would know when they'd made one full circuit. I don't think every Muslim believes this -- some must hold the beliefs about the Stone absorbing sins -- but it seems as if the site would represent at least one segment of Muslim opinion.

A difference of opinion does not constitute vandalism. Zora 10:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

'Stone'

Just a little query. The article seems to use both 'Black Stone' and 'Stone' after the introduction. Should we just use one or the other for consistency ? ---Mpatel 15:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I've been switching between the two just so the prose doesn't become monotonous. It's purely a style decision. Zora 18:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Story re rebuilding of Kaaba

MPatel, you added the bit re disagreement as to who could replace the stone ... in the usual version, followed by a story about Muhammad suggesting that they put the stone on a cloak and raise it jointly. I believe the oldest version of that story is found in Ibn Ishaq, and it reads very much like a folk tale. Various secular historians have expressed skepticism about the tale, saying that a penniless orphan living in his uncle's house was not likely to have been consulted by the heads of all the Quraysh clans in a matter of some political delicacy. I strongly object to that story being inserted in the article as if it were an accepted fact. I'll try to rewrite it. Zora 18:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

It probably is a folk tale. I remember my grandmother telling me it when I was younger, along with the story of the old lady who would always through garbage at Muhammad's house ;).Heraclius 18:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Qur'an says Black Stone is meteorite?

An anon editor added a bit of text claiming that the Qur'an and Sunnah said that the Stone was a meteorite. I took that out, because there were no references. I believe I've seen references to some Meccan traditions re the fall of the Stone, but that isn't the Qur'an. I don't understand what the Sunnah has to do with it. Zora 21:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Just like SHiva cut od his fallus and threw it on earth in indian myths, a meteor as stranded too in Mekkah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N33 (talk • contribs) 17:28, May 27, 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Can you please provide a source to prove where this information comes from? --Elonka 23:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Information about Pre-Islamic Kabba

http://doormann.tripod.com/the0.htm

That's not information, that's kookery. Please stop. You are NOT going to get this into Wikipedia. Zora 20:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

However, can we use the old photographs of the Kaaba - seeing how much the surroundings have changed would be interesting in the article?

Recent edits

Hey! Those were my edits! They were not Muslim-bashing.

The sentences re shirk were there because I have spent some time erasing Muslim-bashing here that accuses Muslims of worshipping the stone. Instead of trying to erase accusations, you should meet them head on. Otherwise people scream cover-up and restore the accusations.

As for the secular historians -- I didn't give a source, because I couldn't remember where I'd read it, but I am SURE that I remember reading one academic treatise which pointed out that it was highly unlikely that a penniless orphan would have been consulted in a matter of such moment, and that the only explanation for the story is glorification of Muhammad.

It's just one instance of a general myth-making trend, in which Muhammad becomes incredibly handsome, he is universally admired and beloved, his face shines, etc., etc. Mecca becomes a huge wealthy city instead of the flea-bitten provincial town there is every reason to believe it was. Islam is not alone in this. For Distributed Proofreaders, I worked on a Tibetan biography of the Buddha that exagerrated the same way. It's kind of an endearing human trait -- like believing that your child is the handsomest and smartest that ever was -- but it has to be whacked on the head when doing history.

I haven't reverted, because I'm fairly sure that we can come to an amicable agreement without a revert war. Zora 23:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Ofcourse we can; we always do. What do you propose exactly?--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Can you restore the material you took out and then rewrite it in some way that's acceptable to you? I mean, I took my best shot at it, and I'd probably come up with another version of the same thing. Zora 00:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that the stone fits into idolatry, it just seems like a baseless criticism since I haven't ever heard, read or seen anyone consider it ever. Also how are "people" who are "there watching" not Muslims (only Muslims are allowed in Makkah)? The phrase really doesn't fit in to the article, just seems like a tossed around criticism. So I will leave that material out, but I will re-add the historian phrase. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems like a baseless criticism to you, but I believe that there have been at least two editors here who were convinced that Muslims were idolators who worshipped a stone. Indeed, there is some ground for that belief in the folk beliefs outlined in the article, re the stone interceding for those who kissed it. I think we both want Muslims and non-Muslims to understand each other, and this is something that should be met head on.

I should perhaps add that while in general I just do not like the Salafi/Wahabi way of thinking, on the one issue of shirk they have a certain justification, since many Muslim folk beliefs are as superstitious as any Catholic cult of the saints. Worshipping at graves and tying strips of rag to tomb railings and sacred trees, especially in pursuit of specific ends, like having children -- that's exactly the sort of instrumental approach to the divine that Muhammad thundered against. That's not to say that I approve of the Wahabi answer to this (using violence or the power of the state to destroy historical sites and to FORCE people to give up such practices).

In any case, this should be mentioned somehow, and linked to the article on Shirk. Zora 03:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

to zora your efforts are highly admired however you must be extremely careful when citing secular historians regarding islamic issues. History in the secular world and the islamic world is a weak science which is flawed and historians quite clearly give their view on what happenned in the past (his story). As it is said history is written by the victors, which clearly depicts do not expect truths in history expect biases.

Islam is a religion whose every valid detail can be found not in the books of history but in the books of hadith and their commentaries. These have been preserved in an immaculate format that whole sciences have been formed simply on the preservation of ahadith i.e Asmaa e Rijaal and Usool e Hadith.

My point being (please do not misunderstand me) be careful when citing secular/islamic historians as their slip of the tongues should not become yours. Islam has clearly expressed its views on words as a single word can change a persons status.

Regarding the so called 'mythology' of the handsomeness of Muhammed PBUH. This my dear friend has nothing to do with mythology but can be referenced over and over with hundreds of Shahih Ahadeeth from many illustrious Sahaabah. The simplicity of the matter is 'beauty is in the eyes of the beholder' and these Sahaabah had complete overpowering life changing and utterly selfless love for their leader and Prophet (may we emulate this love aameen). There is no room for myth in this.

Secondly on the quote of a pennyless orphan being put in charge of deciding who should place the stone. Well this pennyless orphan was quite commonly know as 'the trustworthy' and would commonly be entrusted with peoples earning savings and fortunes, and this practice carried on even after they rejected his call to Imaan. A man with such unparrallelled respect for his honesty and trustworthiness would undoubtedly be asked for important decisions. Again the above can be referenced over and over again in the Sahih Ahadith.

Please do not take my adivce in the wrong way but my point is for one who wants to reference Islam the legitimate references are limitless please direct your efforts in the right way may we all be guide to what is right and no ill feelings intended.

Sorry, but academic historians regard hadith with great suspicion, as even Muslim scholars will admit that many of them are da'if, or weak. Even Bukhari threw out 99% of the hadith he had collected, which suggests the urge to invent hadith to support a particular political or theological position. Academic historians believe that Bukhari and Muslim did not remove all the invented hadith. Zora 01:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Historians both academic and islamic themselves have no credbility and are regarded in academic and islamic circles with suspicion. You point out Bukhari threw out 99% of his hadith please reference this accusation. Bukhari has many publications not just his Sahih read Adabul Mufrad it might enlighten your eyes if you have knowledge in Usool e hadith. When referencing Islam its best to use Islamic sources as people want to know about Islam not what other historians academic or islamic have to say about it. Please study the science of hadith before you accept the flawed views of academic historians to inform people on matters Islamic. The choice is yours.

linga

looks like a linga--66.114.207.162 18:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

linga tend to be much more oblong (for obvious reasons). This is much too rounded to be a linga, and its also very black, which would be quite an odd colour for a linga.

Lingams aren't always cilinder-shaped, some are round even. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N33 (talk • contribs) 09:24, June 22, 2007 (UTC)

Just kissing it because Muhammed did

So why did Muhammed kiss it, or does no-one know?

More sources needed

The 'Significance of the Black stone' section has many beliefs about the Black Stone. The first one has a citation, but the rest desperately need some. Even some solid external links would be a start. MP (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I just noticed there is a relevant external link. Now I'm after some reliable book or journal references. No satisfying some people... :) MP (talk) 23:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've made a start at including some reliable sources. MP (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth is there no picture?

Because the picture that we had was removed for possible copyright violation. Someone needs to supply another picture. Zora 18:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Kaaba has a picture of the Black Stone so I've added it to this article. Mazer 19:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

looks like the image has been scanned from a publication, though the uploader has tagged it as PD. ITAQALLAH 15:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

John of Damascus

Someone added a statement from a medieval Christian writer claiming that the black stone was the head of a goddess. No one now believes that, and a random thousand year old slur doesn't deserve prominent treatment in the article. Zora 18:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Picture?

Could someone add a picture to illustrate the article?--Xtreambar 08:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The image was removed today by an anon (probably because it depicts Mohammad). I put it back, does WP have a policy about using his image yet? Should we find an image without his face or something? Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The only policy I know of would be WP:CENSOR..which would certainly allow the image. Dman727 22:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm only asking for a policy because it comes into dispute so much, and I've seen people say they were taking it to arbitration or something, although I've never noticed if anything came of it. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see. In that case I'm not aware of any arbitration decision in this regard. Personally I cant imagine that arbitration would support censorship based on sharia law...but then again anything could happen I suppose. Dman727 23:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any policy against using the image. Based on the list at the bottom of Image:Mohammed kaaba 1315.jpg, it's being used in several articles. --Elonka 04:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

See also: commons:Muhammad. --Elonka 05:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

picture of Mohammad is not allowed. Please remove all such pictures as it hurts us as we are Muslims. Thanking you in anticipation.

Straw poll: Should the image be included?

There seems to be an edit war brewing about the inclusion of this image: Image:Mohammed kaaba 1315.jpg, so I thought I'd help clarify consensus here on the talkpage. If you have an opinon on whether it should or shouldn't be included, please post here. Please note that this is not a vote -- it is a discussion. But we'd like to hear from as many editors as possible, to check consensus, thanks. --Elonka 16:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Include. It's an appropriate image of 14th century artwork, that is directly relevant to the article. --Elonka 16:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: wikipedia is not a democracy where if you have majority then the image should be included. Please do not start voting on this. Mostly Muslims do not depict Muhammad in Pictures and I wish to have arbitration case on this issue sometimes soon. Per wikipedia WP:Undue weight, WP:Profanity this image have no place in the article. --- A. L. M. 16:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Mostly? Doesnt really sound like a hard and fast rule. Dman727 16:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Majority sound better? Replace it with majority and read again. More details at User:ALM_scientist/Is_wikipedia_Anti-Islam. --- A. L. M. 16:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Still doesnt sound like a hard and fast rule. Even if it is, its for Muslims anyway and doesnt apply to the larger wiki community. Dman727 16:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks God wikipedia is not a democary. Wikipedia is not a democracy. --- A. L. M. 16:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

ALM, profanity doesnt apply here: "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.": First of all, the typical Wikipedian editor is not a Muslim so this image cannot be labelled as profane. Second, the exclusion of the image will cause it to be less informative, relevant and accurate. 3rd, not all Muslims find images of Mohammed offensive. 4th, images of Muhammad have already been included in Muhammad. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Include. Entirely appropriate, tasteful and relevant. Also wiki does not censor as per WP:CENSOR Dman727 16:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Exclude per User:ALM_scientist/Is_wikipedia_Anti-Islam, That means per WP:Undue weight, WP:Profanity and WP:NPOV. Those picture represent a minority tradition hence including them is giving undue weight and against basic priniciples of (any) enyclopedia. --- A. L. M. 16:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: How can you say 'per' something that is an essay, not a Wikipedia policy? I could just as easily write an essay saying that all articles about black objects must have photos of them and then say 'per' that essay. Philip Trueman 16:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: It talk about policies (including WP:Undue weight, WP:Profanity, Wikipedia is not a democracy) and give many references. That is my argument. Just like above single line is your argument. Instead of saying same thing again I wish to refer to it. --- A. L. M. 16:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  I agree with Philip, this is a personal essay which a user might have tried to pass off as some sort of policy. I think having that kind of page is not allowed. ALM, can you check on that and delete that page if policy requires that? I will check on that with you later. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  Comment. No, such a page is definitely allowed. It's in his user space and poses a valid concern and his argument. It's obvious from the title of the page and the fact that it's part of his user space that he's not attempting to pass it off as a policy, although the use of "per" may be a bit misleading/can be misinterpreted (perhaps he should have instead written "per the arguments in..."). (This comment is based on what he wrote originally, not including the further clarification) — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 09:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. For precedent, it is probably useful to review this other Wikipedia article, Depictions of Muhammad, which has several depictions of Muhammad, and appears to be close to Good Article status. --Elonka 17:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Include The image is both appropriate and relevant, and as mentioned Wikipedia is not censored. -- Karl Meier 17:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Include This very notable image could hardly be more topical.Proabivouac 18:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Include: Entirely appropriate, an excellent addition to the article. Thanks for taking the initiative to improve the article. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Include Directly relevant to the topic, no policy based reason to not include it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Exclude per ALM.--Kirby♥time 22:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Kirbytime, you've been blocked 2 times for requesting offensive pictures relating to Child Porn, so I find it very funny that you would find this harmless picture of Muhammad offensive. As a Muslim, you should also know that there are many moderate Muslims who do not find images of Mohammed offensive. I would appreciate your input at an essay page I created here. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Exclude per ALM. → Aktar ^{(talk • contribs)} — 23:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Kirbytime and AktarAhmed, ALM didn't give an argument, but only linked to an essay in his user space which doesn't mention this article. What, then, can be meant by "per ALM?" Unless you are willing to state your reasons, I don't see why your "votes" should be taken into account.Proabivouac 23:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with Proabivouac. This is not a vote. So anyone simply saying "support" or "oppose" is going to be ignored unless they actually have a comment that they wish to make. --Elonka 23:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree as well. I would like to ask these users Kirbytime and Aktar, what precisely they agreed with ALM on. I could expect to get a rational answer from Aktar. I think its pretty clear, the image will be a Keep (include) in the end.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Are you seriously asking this on purpose? The reasons for the exclusion of the picture is outlined in that essay. Do you want him to copy/paste his reasons here?--Kirby♥time 06:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the essay brings up points which would favor inclusion of the image. Normal interpetation of concepts mentioned such as WP:Undue weight and Wikipedia is not a democracy would indicate inclusion. At least one reason is ludicrous - WP:Profanity. The essay of course neatly skips over other policies such as WP:CENSOR. Regardless, while the poster certainly is entitled to write an essay if that pleases her, that is no way shape or form is indicative of wiki policy. Dman727 07:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Kirbytime, I asked you and AktaraAhmed respectively for your reasons why you believe this image shouldn't be included. Even so, ALM's essay says nothing about this image on this article. Were you to say that, beneath all the wikilawyering, the real point of his essay is that depictions of Muhammad should not appear anywhere for any reason because they offend his personal religious sensibilities, I would agree with that, but then that would amount to an admission that appeals to policy and context are only arguments of convenience. Taken naïvely and at face value, his essay purports to be analysis of the proper interpretation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight as it applies to Muhammad. That ALM has appealed to it here, to those who will take the time to consider it, confirms (again) that his current arguments are not sincere.Proabivouac 07:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have given my reason in more detail and now will change wording of User:ALM_scientist/Including_Muhammad_Pictures_Against_wiki-policies too today. --- A. L. M. 08:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

ALM, just give your reasons here instead of refering us to a 5000 word essay over something that doesnt deal with this directly.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have already given my reasons above. Please read them. A. L. M. 11:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Replied above. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

ALM, here is my response: Pictures of Muhammad and Wikipedia policies. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That essay cannot reflect any sort of community consensus as not only is ALM deciding who edits it, but who posts on the talk page. The fact is that essay reports the situation in a way that is not as informative as it could be(and in fact may misinform), see the edits I have not been allowed to post on that essays talk page for details[4]. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Include What could ever be the reason for suppressing it, other than pandering to the sensibilities of the <insult removed>. And Wikipedia is above that. This image has a notable relationship to the subject matter and aids to illustrate and broaden the context for encyclopaedic treatment.203.49.244.63 00:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Caption

Just a thought: Would the tensions de-escalate here, if we removed the name "Mohammad" from the image caption? For example, instead of "A 1315 image of Mohammad lifting the Black Stone into place", change it to, "A 1315 image showing the Black Stone being lifted into place"? Then we could include a paragraph or two about Mohammad and the actual related story, further down in the article (which I think would be a good addition anyway). --Elonka 03:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No.--Kirby♥time 06:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I would support such a modification if it would de-escalate and lead to a reasonable compromise. However I sense there is no willingness to compromise whatsoever. Therefore I support leaving this appropriate, topical and tasteful art in place. Dman727 07:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No. As long as it is one of those few paintings that represent a minority tradition, it should be deleted from the article. It is agaisnt WP:Undue weight, WP:NPOV and WP:Profanity. --- A. L. M. 08:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, the majority of the world doesnt have a problem with this. Of course we reconigze that A minority portion representing Muslims do object, and yet a further sub-minority of Muslims agrees with the rest of the world. WP:Undue weight indicates that to WP:CENSOR it based on a minority opinion, would violate WP:NPOV. Objections based on WP:Profanity are quite ridiculous - the paintings hardly represent pornograph in way shape or form. Even then WP:Profanity is permitted if "their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, ". Dman727 09:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It is much more worst than pornography hence WP:Profanity do applies. Secondly, In wikipedia no Muslim had been supporting Muhammad pictures. It is rediculus that Muslim do all the contributions and non-Muslim add pictures of their choices. --- A. L. M. 09:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

On what basis do you purport to know the religous beliefs of individual editors? To suggest that some editors are less worthy due to your determination of their religion is prejudicial, discriminatory, offensive and improper. This kind of intolerance has no place on wiki, or anywhere else in the world. Dman727 13:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There are alternatives available. Get any photo of black stone. If you wish then I can provide one from flickr. Hence WP:Profanity do applies. --- A. L. M. 09:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with DMan. The majority of the world doesnt have a problem with this and hence its wrong to take down the image. I do believe we should say "Muhammad" in the article because thats what it is. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 12:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no problem with the picture. No good reason has been given for the removal other than that essay, and ALM won't even discuss that essay on the talk page of that essay, so how can I address the issues brought up? Every point brought up has been addressed by months of discussion in the past. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving the image lower on the page

Here's another possible way of handling it. In the Ba'hai faith, it is considered disrespectful to display a photograph of their founder. In the Bahá'u'lláh article, they covered this by posting a clear disclaimer at the top, that the image was at the bottom. This allowed those who were interested in seeing it, to get there, but kept it away from the eyes of those who would have rather not seen it. Would this kind of a solution work for everyone here at the Black Stone page? We could move the grainy Black Stone image up to the top of the article, and move the Muhammad image down to the bottom, with a disclaimer saying, A 1315 artistic rendition of Muhammad lifting the Black Stone into place can be found at the end of this article. --Elonka 22:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The Bahá'u'lláh situation is terrible, and shouldn't be repeated here. However - and I am loathe to aid the cause of religious censorship, but nevertheless - the photograph of the Black Stone would be a more topical lead image than the one illustrating this dubious hagiographic tale, which should probably accompany the text recounting the myth in the section, "Significance of the Black Stone."Proabivouac 23:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to treat this differently than any other image. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That being said, Image:Blackstone.JPG seems to be the better choice for the lead, it being a real photograph. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. I am trying to do what should be done if demands for censorhip are simply ignored.Proabivouac 23:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

To others who may have misgivings about this move, consider the text of the lead:

"It is the eastern cornerstone of the Kaaba…The Stone is roughly 30 cm (12 in.) in diameter, and 1.5 meters above the ground…The Stone is in pieces, from damage which was inflicted as part of a theft in 930. Qarmatian warriors sacked Mecca and carried the Black Stone away to their base in Bahrain. It was returned twenty-two years later, but in a cracked and damaged state. It is now held together by a silver frame, which is fastened by silver nails to the Stone."

The photograph couldn't be more informative.

"Early chroniclers say that the Kaaba was rebuilt during Muhammad's lifetime, after damage caused by a flood. Around 600 A.D., the various tribes worked together on the project, but there was some contention among the Quraysh, Mecca's ruling clan, as to who should have the honor of raising the Black Stone to its final place in the new structure. Muhammad is said to have suggested that the Stone be placed on a cloak and that the various clan heads jointly lift it. Muhammad then placed the Stone into its final position with his own hands"

Ditto for the Muhammad illustration.Proabivouac 23:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't pander to Islam, that's for muslims. If a subject warrant a mention on wikipedia, it warrants a bold treatment.

I like the current condition. The primary picture (just the black stone) is at the top and the secondary image is at the bottom. Elonka thanks so much for your initiative in this whole issue.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course pandering to extremist IS wrong, however in this case I think the photo at the top is a better choice on its own merits. Its an actual photo of the stone and the painting, which definitely belongs in the article is still there. While I suspect that this will still not satisfy the extremist on this matter, this is an improvement to the article. Dman727 01:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Please use terrorist instead of extremist. I am more used to hear terrorist then extremist now. Thank you. --- A. L. M. 12:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The word extremist better describes your point of view(it is a bit extreme), terrorist would be an inappropriate term. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur, this is an extreme view that pictures should not be included and all. There are many moderate people out there who dont have problems with images like this. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I like this format better, and it makes more sense to have the images closer to the actual text where they are discussed. --Elonka 01:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

ALM, please AGF. Do you think there's anything further you want to do about this issue? Arbitration is going to be a mirror of the process here, you can be assured, so you should not try that. It will just waste the time of the administrators (but its up to you ofcourse). Once again, no one is there out to get you or other people. This is a nuetral encyclopedia. Its primary job is to collect information. If we start worrying about who its offending then this could result in the primary mission being compromised and thats not good obviously. I hope you understand this. If you always do the rational thing, you'll end up better.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 12:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you guys beleive we have to go through so much trouble just for including an image where it absolutely belongs? I could go right now and put a picture of a carrot in the "vegetables" article and no one would care. But in this case this is like we had to face so much resistance putting a picture of a carrot in the carrot article itself, where it absolutely belongs. But things have gotten better in this encyclopedia with time. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 12:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOAP. And also, this article isn't titled Depictions of Muhammad.--Kirby♥time 02:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Precisely how is it soap? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

How does whining contribute to writing a better article? Per WP:TALK--Kirby♥time 03:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask you again: Tell me how this satisfies SOAP. You have to know more than just the name of the shortcut.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Kaaba?

I wonder if this article shouldn't be merged with Kaaba, by adding a Black Stone section to that article. The Black Stone is for all practical purposes part of the Kaaba, and an important one. There is nothing here which would be off-topic there. Length is not a problem, as the combined article would be under 29k. Of course, if we had reams of material on only the Black Stone, then a separate article would be warranted, but we'd still probably want to summarize it in Kaaba. Such a result, I feel, would be greater than the sum of its parts.Proabivouac 21:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the subjects are sufficiently distinct to warrant separate pages. --Elonka 20:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The Picture is forbidden

This Article include the fake sketch of Holy Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) which is not accepted in islam and to the muslims. Whether it is drawn to convey complete knowledge or for any other resons, it is forbidden in islam, and it hurts the feelings of Muslims. So please Remove the picture as soon as possible. Thank You.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aamir009 (talk • contribs)

This is Against Islamic law

This is against islamic law(Sharea) to take picture or draw sketch of any living thing specially Skectch of Hazrat Muhammad PBUH.So please try to avoid any disgracefull mistake in the future and remove that skecth as early as possible. Regards (Jadoontahir 15:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC))Tahir

Sharea law has no relevance here. Please refer to wiki policies such as wp:censor— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.212.135.66 (talk • contribs)

this is agaist our gr8 religion Islam.. plz remove the Fake Sketch of OUr Prophet Hazrat Muhammad PBUH.it is totally ilegel and unethical.if u want to Expalin any report regarding islam,u want to show any picture regarding our Holy peoples to more explaination can not acceptable to every muslim. In our religion (islam) do not give Permission of particulerly human being pictures. May be you did not know about this particuler law.so please you will remove the Sketch. regards

please remove the fake Sketch of OUr HOLY PROPHET HAZEAT MUHAMMAD PBUH— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.48.186 (talk • contribs)

we being muslims all protest against it n ask you plz remove the pic of our HOLY PROPHET(PBUH) as it is not allowed in islam to make His sketch or pic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.83.169.121 (talk • contribs) 03:23, August 1, 2007 (UTC)

I have great respect for Islam, but the rules for Muslims, are for Muslims to follow. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for all people, not just Muslims. The rules about Muhammad's image do not apply to non-Muslims. I am sorry if you do not like the image, but our rules say that we cannot remove it. --Elonka 08:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Say, User:203.82.48.186, are you the same person as User:Aamir009, as User:Jadoontahir, or both?Proabivouac 10:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Its not about law, its about ethics, every one should avoid the things which hurts other, and this picture hurts the feelings of all muslims. We should show respect to others religion so that others may respect ours. and i have no ids other than aamir009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.30.106.146 (talk • contribs) 12:00, August 1, 2007 (UTC)

REMOVE FAKE SKETCH/ IMAGE OF HOLLY PROPHET MUHAMMAD (SAW) PLEASE do not play with our emotions, and remove fake images of PROPHET MUHAMMAD (SAW) not only from this article but from all articles which contain these images. You are writing about Islam and you posted images which Islam never accepts. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE REMOVE ALL FAKE IMAGES OF OUR PROPHET (SAW). It will be a nice gesture of you if you do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naeem 017 (talk • contribs) 13:01, August 1, 2007 (UTC)

In order to have a voice in discussions on Wikipedia, it is best to show that you work on many articles. I recommend that you help with other articles at Wikipedia. First learn what the rules are here, and then you will be better able to help if you want to change them.  :) --Elonka 19:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sidestepping the issue

This probably won't satisfy anyone, but here goes. Aside from any question as to whether Wikipedia should consider itself permitted to post images forbidden under any particular interpretation of any religion, two other questions present themselves. First, does the image actually contribute to the article? Does it convey something that the text does not? Is it worth its space in bytes? Second, infinite resources--including infinite energy among Wikipedia editors and staff--do not exist. In this case, if the image in question doesn't really contribute something new, additional, or helpful to the article; and if it basically burns up resources among Wikipedia contributors, in exchange for no real benefit (see question #1), then why do it? If the image doesn't really contribute something new or additional, yet chews up a lot of good will, why bother with it? Is anything really lost from the article if the image is removed? To those who will argue something along the lines of "Yes! Freedom of speech!", I'm sympathetic, but would remind all that Wikipedia isn't meant to be a soapbox for this purpose. (...true, not meant as a soapbox for propounding particular religious views, either...) In short, this isn't a place to make a symbolic stand just for the sake of making a symbolic stand. I'd like to see some frank discussion and evaluation of whether the image in question is actually worth the fuss, whether it really does contribute something NEW or ADDITIONAL to the article that the other parts do not. Xenophon777 18:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Read the preceding discussion: it's not about freedom of speech at all, but responsibility to build the best encyclopedia. Learn about the image and its history: it's as far as it can be from an arbitrary image chosen to prove a point. Were it only a 1315 illustration of the Kaaba, who would think that disposable? Yet it even more informative than that, and was produced under the supervision of a famous scholar Rashid al-Din as part of a famous work of great historical significance.Proabivouac 19:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)