Talk:Hajj

Islamic law dictates that only Muslims may enter the city of Mecca, and the penalty for a non-Muslim entering the limits of the city is death. This penalty would presumably not be enforced in modern times. Comment would be superfluous. Wetman 10:03, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How much of that is Saudi law and how much is Islamic law (meaning cite)? This is relevant because the main page is fairly ambiguous on this issue.

Al-Hajj should not redirect here, but rather be about sura 22. (at least that is how the links on sura are placed) dab (ᛏ) 22:28, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, I planned on doing it if I ever got around to making a page about

the sura.

Merge

Some of this article needs to be merged with Mecca: I am thinking of the section 'millions of people' or suchlike under this article, and its overlap with disasterous incidents paragraphy on 'Mecca'. 81.153.177.193 22:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Disaster

Hello all, I added in the hotel collapse in mecca under disaster, PLEASE fix it up, I was very tired when I did this, (and still am) so fix it as you please.--Maliki 786 14:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Gender neutrality

An anon editor worked over one section, on the spiritual aspects of the Hajj, to make it gender-neutral. That was a good idea. However, the copyeditor in me winced in pain at the use of "their" for "his or her". I ended up rewriting the section, which was (IMHO) somewhat bloated and discursive. I hope that Muslims will agree with what's left. Zora 21:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

A Question from a non-Muslim

Greetings. I have a question regarding the tradition of the Hajj, if you do not mind an outsider's curiousity. What happens if a Muslim does not have access to Mecca, and thus cannot make the traditional pilgrimage? Are there any precedents or interpretations in Islamic law regarding such a situation? If so, what is to be done? Thank you very much for your time. Brasswatchman July 31, 2005. 11:07 AM EST.

I also am a non-Muslim, so take my answer with a grain of salt. I don't know if this is the case any longer, but it used to be the custom that someone who had the money to do the Hajj, but was too ill to travel, could pay for someone else to do the Hajj and get credit for the pilgrimage by proxy. I know this was done by Indian Muslims. Whether this is still a custom, I dunno. Zora 21:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's a start, I suppose. Thank you very much for your time. I've asked something a little more specific on the Talk:Mecca thread, if you're interested. Thank you again. - --Brasswatchman 05:53, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I have a question why seven times during a tawaf? Is there any significance?

[annie}

In some sunni school the pilgrimage could be replaced if someone was die. I think that's would be better way to do, who know our own life and future? If someone could not perform this why should be enforced to do? Sure there is no answer about thawaf excep that the prophet do so!Aditthegrat 10:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Incidents during Hajj

I've copied the section, 'Incidents in Mecca' from the Mecca page and pasted it here under a new section heading (the section is still present in the Mecca article). I assume that all the incidents contained in the section refer to incidents during the Hajj - therefore it should be in this article. If not all the incidents mentioned in the section occurred during the Hajj, then at least the section title in the Mecca page should be changed to something more specific (maybe, Incidents during Pilgrimage), as it seems to refer to at least the Hajj (and possibly the Umra). ---Mpatel (talk) 11:35, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Just confirmed all but one (1987) of the incidents as occurring during Hajj. The section in the Mecca article has been updated (see the 3 new links in this article), deleted from there and placed here. ---Mpatel (talk) 11:54, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

1987 incident confirmed, but (oops) not sure about the 1979 incident - during the Hajj ? ---Mpatel (talk) 12:02, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

1979 confimed., I've added a bunch of links for support. ---Mpatel (talk) 13:38, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

revert

My edits got reverted. Care to share the motivation?--Striver 20:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Striver, I just cleaned up the article by making sections. Aside from that, you didn't explain the reasons for why you removed the procedure for performing the Hajj. I think it should be left in because it explains the entire Hajj on one page, and I will also make sections (e.g Umrah) in order to organize it. Hope that helps. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay striver, I have created the sections that show the Hajj step-by-step. I have also linked the Umrah article to it and even created an "In between" section like you wanted. Hope that satisfies you. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Great, that was exactly what i was going to propose! A pleasure co-operating with you! thx :) --Striver 21:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Non-Muslim "visitors"

The section on people sneaking in mentions "risking their life" but nowhere in the article does it indicate why this might be a fatal attempt. Could not see an easy way to correct this in light of the fact that someone at some point removed the sentence that mentioned the possible penalty for entrance. Can anyone explain why this was removed, or figure out a way to fix the problem in my first sentence? Thanks. Turnstep 03:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that non-Muslims would be killed for entering Mecca in these times. They would have been in the past. I've been reading explorers' accounts of journeys in Arabia in the 19th century. Yes, non-Muslims were hated and were often in danger of their lives. In the accounts I read, the danger came from rioting townspeople and it was the authorities who had to act quickly to remove the visitors before there was a death and an international incident.

BTW, all this fussing over the article has made it somewhat incoherent and repetitive. I don't have time or energy to work on it now, but something needs to be done. Zora 07:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Masjid al-Nabawi

I feel a little bit uncomfortable about one thing, but dont want to make any change on my own: It says that Muhammad (pbuh) lies with Umar and Abu Bakr in Masjid al-Nabawi. That sound a little bit (not much) as sunni triumphalist... Maybe add that he does NOT lie with Uthman? No, of course not... Just telling how i feel :) Ma salam. --Striver 01:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Mut'ah of Hajj

When I deleted that, I didn't know that it was something Striver had added. It just seemed completely unnecessary. I haven't seen the term in any of the Muslim websites re the Hajj that I've browsed. I also tweaked some of AE's edits. Emphasis on the "appeal" of the Hajj is misplaced, IMHO. It might "appeal" to a Muslim, but to those of us who aren't, the appeal is just about nil. I've read Burton and portions of Burkhardt, it's very clear to me that the appeal was the mystery and the prohibition, not the Hajj. Zora 00:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok then, no problem, no bad feelings. Hajj at tamatum (Mut'ah of hajj) is hardly mentioned in most places by name. Can you guess why`? --Striver 01:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Man you removed it AGAIN?! Then we do have a problem. Try to read some more if you cant find it, but dont remove things only because you didnt know it exists. --Striver 01:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I re-edited the article so that the link to Mut'ah makes sense, but now I'm going to have to rewrite your article so that it isn't POV. Striver, there's got to be something more to Shi'a Islam than hatred of Umar and Abu Bakr. A religion based on hatred is no religion at all. I don't think you're making the best impression on the rest of us with your version of Shi'a Islam. Zora 04:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course there is more to it, but you keep deleting every positiv thing i add about Ali and Ahl al-Bayt also, so i stoped with that part and content with opposing Umar, its simply more fun :P

Zora, what are you doing? Mut'ah of Hajj being a contetios issue between Shia and Sunnis? Says how? Its not more contetious than Tayammum, its really simple: Umar issued a stupid fatwa and people dont care. However regarding Mut'ah of Hajj, it took Sunnis a little while to stop caring, a little bit longer than for Tayammum. Thats all!

--Striver 10:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Is the historical dispute the only basis for Shi'a Islam? There is no caliph and most Shi'a believe that there is no imam on earth. In terms of present-day practice of religion, the only differences between Sunni and Shi'a seem to be some legal issues and some holidays. Those seem to me to be utterly trivial matters. What about the cultivation of character? What about love, justice, truth, self-discipline? Do Shi'a believe in those? If so, do your actions demonstrate them? Zora 20:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I gues that means you have no counterargument againg what i wrote, so im going to revert the non correct statement you added.

Regarding what you answered, since when does "love, justice, truth, self-discipline" dictate that one should settle with the ommision of facts that speak in the favor of your histrica view? Do the same things dictate one to behave sa you do, that is, removing everything i do on some unknown basis? You seem to be under the impresion that facts may be presented only as long as they do not put Sunnis or Salafis on a weaker stand, way else would you oppose me to write about Ibn baz on his own biography? It contains hardly anything as it is now, yet still you are trying to barge his fatwas from it an keep them on other articlse. That is a violation of WP rulse, POV does not constitute removing embarasing statements, as you very well know: you didnt object to having the rape incident on Khalifa, but you refuse to let me have Bin Baz belifs on his own artilce! On the other hand, you hade nothing against it when the Abu Bakr article claimed that the prayer incident was factual, even though i did told you that Shia oppose that as being factual. Does that behavior originate from the virtues you mentioned? Does second guesing that there is a dispute regardin Mut'ah of Hajj between Shias and Sunni, only on the basis that Umar gave a stupid fatwa on the issue originate from the virtues you mentioned? Does removing hadith that suport the shia beilfe, caling them as fables, and later removing the claiming that they are presented as facts, when they where presented as tradition originate from those virtues? GET OF MY BACK! stop harrasing me, stop stalking me!

--Striver 12:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Picture of tawaaf

Malik (did I remember your name right?) -- I'm not sure how I feel about the picture you posted. I think it could be much prettier than it is. Also, I'm not sure that all Muslims would agree that this is the proper method of tawaaf. I'm not a Muslim, and I could be wrong but ... I think Shi'a Muslims venerate a particular corner of the Kaaba that they associate with the birth of Ali, so would do tawaaf differently.

I moved the picture to the left and made it even smaller. It shouldn't dominate the article.

Let's talk about this. There could be other ways of conveying the same information ... Zora 06:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, first off, THANKS FOR CONTACTING ME FOR THE PIC!!!!!!!!!!!! {:~p Very few people talk about the thing's I put up, they just delete it, and second, thank's for fixing the screw up I did, I also screwed up the top by posting that sky veiw of the kaaba. Well, regarding the tawaaf, sunni, shia, heck, even sufi do it all the same way, going out, then slowly in, then heading back out, well, the only difference is the the shia 'grasp' the corner they assume Ali was born in. So basically, it's mostly the same, but change any thing you feel fit.(P.s. I'm only 15, so you probably know more, and being a muslim,sunni, I think you did an excellent job!!) --Maliki 786 06:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I've removed this image as an apparent copyright violation. If someone could draw their own image and put it under a free license, that would be great. Also, Image:Hajj.JPG has no source and it's been removed as well unless it is shown that it is free use.--Pharos 09:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Links

I pruned the links. I removed personal essays, commercial sites, and links with reflections on the meaning of the Hajj. The reason for that last is that if we let a Sunni site (Islamonline) link, then we have to let all the other Islamic groups give THEIR perspective on the Hajj. What I left was useful info (that might otherwise be hard to find) about vaccinations, finding one's way in the air terminal, and finding the special pillars in the Prophet's Mosque. Zora 12:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization?

Is Hajj always capitalized or not? This article appears (to an ignoramus like me) to be inconsistent. --Bletch 22:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's inconsistent. I'm not sure myself whether hajj/Hajj should be capitalized or not. Pious Muslims capitalize everything in sight. Secular editors would presumably regard hajj as just a translation of pilgrimage and decide that capitalizing the Pilgrimage was POV. What do you think? Zora 22:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it probably should written as "hajj". I looked it up in an Oxford desk dictionary and that is how it is written there. Pepsidrinka 22:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, its interesting to know if it translate as a specific pilgramge (i.e. the pilgrimage to Mecca) or to just pilgrimage. Maybe someone with a Hans-Wehr dictionary can look it up. Pepsidrinka 22:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm just inclined to pull out a dictionary and go with that. If the Oxford dictionary uses "hajj", I'm game. --Bletch 02:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason I make the point over the defintion is if it is a specific pilgrimage, it would be a proper noun wouldn't it? And if it were just a pilgramage in general that happens to the majority of the time refers to the Mecca pilgrimage, then it would not be. Pepsidrinka 02:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, just like "treaty" is not capitalized, but "Treaty of Ghent" is. --Bletch 04:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Question about the Islamic Calendar

I wonder if you could answer my question? I saw you edited recently. Khoda Hafez -- Tompsci 00:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I posted a response to your question on the Islamic calendar talk page as well as on your talk page. joturner 01:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cam. Is it better to use 'pillar' (jamaraat) or 'wall', as this year the pillars have been replaced by walls ? Maybe this could be clarified. MP (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I changed it here as well as at Stoning of the Devil. --Cam 16:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This page was linked on Yahoo! News

Under the main Link "religion full coverage" page. The headline dealt with Saudi Arabia's effort to make the Hajj safer (the exact time corresponds with my signature stamp). This page was listed as a secondary article, "Hajj Overview at Wikipedia". I noticed Wikipedia sometimes pats itself on the back when that happens, so I thought I'd mention it here since I don't know the code for marking the article as such in the discussion section Bobak 22:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

'Omra'

Geo Swan has added a link to Omra, but I think this has been confused with Umrah. There is also a very dubious external link on that page. I've put the article up for deletion, as firstly, I think it's superfluous and secondly, I am unsure regarding Geo Swan's intentions about inserting that external link. MP (talk) 09:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I created an article entitled "Omra" because I encountered this term in the testimony of one of the Guantanamo detainees during his Combatant Status Review Tribunal. The Tribunal's translator offered a brief and only partially correct explanation of the term. Wikipedia didn't have an article for "Omra". I thought it was important. I don't think I have anything to apologize for for creating this stub.

Following MPatel's heads up I redirected "Omra" to "Umrah". I disagree with them that it is "superfluous" and should be deleted. So long as the official DoD translators use unexpected transliterations we will need to have entries that redirect those transliterations to the regular articles.

The external link that roused MPatel's suspicion directed readers to page 15 of the unclassified dossier from Abd Al Aziz Sayer Uwain Al Shammeri's Combatant Status Review Tribunal. The translator's brief, and partially incorrect, explanation of "Omra" started on page 15. I don't think I have anything to apologize for for including that link. I am going to encourage MPatel to assume good faith. -- Geo Swan 16:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Types of Hajj and views of Islamic scholars

This article needs a little section containing information on the 3 types of Hajj that the Islamic scholars (by that I mean the Hanbali, Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki and Imamiyyah scholars) distinguish between. There is an external link in the Umrah and tawaf articles that I've added. I think it's written by a Shia, but contains some great details on the Sunni and Shia positions regarding details of the rituals. MP (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep close eye on article

The vandal 82.5.76.64 removed most of the 'Types of Hajj' section on July 11th 2006 (at 06.04) and nobody (including me) seemed to notice. I created that section and will put in a reference soon (can't remember if it's in external links). MP (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

Someone had added some extraneous, sixth-grade level prose to the intro. The external links were all of them proselytizing links. There were two obscure sections, lists of items in Arabic, that seemed to repeat the gist of the article in forms accepted by a particular branch of Islam. There was a space-hogging template that was completely unnecessary. Zora 05:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Mecca vs Makkah

This article should stay consistent with whether it calls it Mecca or Makkah. Mecca is the more Americanized version, while Makkah is usually what Muslims call it. Which is more appropriate? I believe we should stick with Makkah. 165.82.96.115 18:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times. WP uses the transliterations most common in English. In this case, that's Mecca. An accepted metric is google hits (ghits). Makkah gets 1,880,000 ghits and Mecca gets 11,600,000. Six times as many. It's clear that Mecca is the preferred term. Zora 19:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for pointing out that it had been changed to Makkah in a few places. I changed it back. Zora 19:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Haj countrywise figures and groups allowed

I saw a show on TV that said the smallest national Haj contingent consisting of something like 2 pilgrims was from North Korea. I know that the Saudi government imposes restrictions on the number of people who can attend Haj from a single country (I think its something like 1000 pilgrims for every million Muslims in that country, not sure though) Does anyone have information about this, like a countrywise breakup of the number of people permitted to attend Haj from each country? Also I read somewhere that Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan who are allowed to send around 25,000 and 5,000 pilgrims from their country's by the Saudi government have restricted this to only 5000 and 188 (in Turkmenistan's case it only allowed 1 flight carrying pilgrims).

Finally, what is the status of Ahmadiyas, Ismailis,Nation of Islam members and a number of other groups that identify as Muslim but are not considered Muslim by the Saudi government/ larger Islamic community? Are they allowed on the Haj?