Talk:Black Stone

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.227.231.104 (talk • contribs) 15:16, August 1, 2007

Wiki isnt censored. this is america (as far as i know. where is wiki based?) it doesnt matter.Wiki isnt censored.♠♦Д narchistPig♥♣ (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please remove this picture of the Prophet as it is offensive. It is much easier to remove it rather than argue with the billion or so Muslims in this world. --Coolsafe (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

In life we often have to make choices between what is easy and what is right. The pictures will not be removed. RavShimon (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If you think that picture is necessary

Hi, if anyone thinks that the picture is necessary, please first add it to Main article: Muhammad. If a few muslims do not think it offensive, 99.9999% muslims feel it to be offensive. If you have any original photo of Muhammad, please add it. Otherwise, do not play with other's feelings. There was also a poll here. Its good, but illogical. On the internet, non-muslims are in minority. By this poll, you are just taking advantage of it. Please think before any offense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Builder w (talk • contribs) 14:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this Wikipedia, or IslamicPedia? Since when did an encyclopedia pander to the religous views of Muslims? On the internet, non-muslims are NOT in minority (contrary to Builder's claims). --Lacarids (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for religious reasons or customs. Please read this thoroughly. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

What kind of LOGIC this is? Did I stop you from publishing any FACT? This picture is not of Muhammad, if you have any actual image, give it to me, I'll copy it to all the wikipedia. If you want to add this, add this to the main article Muhammad first. I delete this because this is offensive to Muslims, but it is also not necessary here. There is no reason of this picture here. The text is ENOUGH to explain it. Copy it to youtube or flickr if you want.

I can delete it because I can do it within wikipedia policy. I am not hiding ANY information. I am not abusing anyone. I was not feeling this to be offensive. I thought someone copied it by mistake, but you are feeling my actions to be offensive.

Sorry man, there is no place here for this picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Builder w (talk • contribs) 21:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Builder w, I appreciate your views, but we've had an extensive discussion about this already, and the community consensus is that Wikipedia is not censored, and so even if some editors might find the image offensive, that it is still worthwhile including the image since our mission is as an information resource. If you disagree with this view, you can of course try to convince other editors as to the rightness of your opinion here on the talkpage, but please do not engage in edit-warring on the article itself. --Elonka 21:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess its important to know that a place (Namely wikepedia) that boasts of learned people to work for them, such ignorance towards muslims is shown, now that is sad to know. Does it not DEFY the very mission statement that promises higher learning for individuals who access it. Wikepedia must learn that it is offensive for any Muslim and why should they provide their website as a platform for their unrest. Its almost as if the individuals who allow such instances to happen do it with the purpose of disturbing millions across the world. Its is criminal on their part as even education and exposure hasn't done them any good. Dont quetion the Muslims, Why? Know they do not wish to go against their principles, do not instigate and exploit based on your narrow thinking, know we have immense respect for Allah;s last messenger but do not wish for him to be idolized as all prayers and appreciation are for Allah. If the people at Expedia need to speak to me kindly mail me and I shall gladly explain to them how they have done something so typical, so ignorant and shallow. Its almost as if people wishes to oust us for our beliefs and toy with our emotions. Why? Its twice as easy to do that with the contradictions present in all other religions then I wonder why the self acclaimed enlightened, educated, civilized nations or individuals dont show any such sign with how they feed of these exploits. Its sad, its really sad, that these perpetrators would sit back and watch when things cause a disbalance saying their intent was never this. Show some signs you are humans, believe in eqality and respect others for their beliefs. Kindly let the world live in peace. Do not stir emotions, do not provoke people and then act innocent. Kindly act human and show the world that you mean well. By actions and not deluding people into believing. Show it by removing these pictures as a good will gesture. Show the world you are not ignorant. Show them you really provide higher learning. Show them by learning your short fall and admitting you went wrong. And I shall congratulate you as the FIRST DECENT ATTEMPT TOWARDS WORLD PEACE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.48.171 (talk • contribs) January 31, 2008

Apparently Rashid al-Din didn't find the image offensive, and according to their articles, he and his patron both converted to Islam long before the book was printed. Your request would place us in the position not only of deciding what Islam allows, but who is a good Muslim and who is not. Remember also that only a Muslim has any urge to idolize Muhammad - other readers see only a painting. However, in the spirit of the story illustrated in the drawing, we should consider that the content of the page is separate from any one reader. It should be possible to devise an alteration of the Monobook.js file (as is done for the "peer review" script) which changes how the page appears. Thus there should be some way by which a user can choose to suppress the display of images that are tagged as belonging to some category - in this case images representing Muhammad - solely from his own point of view. Would such a compromise be enough for you, or would it still bother you that other people were viewing the painting? Wnt (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hindu view

I'm very dubious about the "Hindu view" section that has been added to the article. I can't find any corroboration of its claims; what do other editors think? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious as well. I reverted the unexplained blanking of it as it does (initially) seem to be sourced. However the sourcing isn't available online and easily verified. It seems that this should not be difficult to with onlne resources. Dman727 (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I see it's been removed again. I suggest that we leave it out for now - I should be able to access the referenced sources tomorrow to check whether they corroborate what the section asserts. The thing that makes me suspicious about it is that no source that discusses the Black Stone (and I've found plenty via Google Books) even mentions a Hindu connection. If it was at all significant you would have thought someone would have mentioned it. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've had a look into this. It seems to be based on the views of a single, apparently fringe, scholar named Abdul Haq Vidyarthi, a member of the Ahmadiyya sect. He appears to have published a number of works asserting that various features of other religions all lead up to the advent of Islam (e.g. Advent of Holy Prophet Muhammad Foretold in the Books of the Old Testament of Jews and the New Testament of Christians). His works don't appear to be referenced by any mainstream sources that I've found. I think Vidyarthi fails as a reliable source and the views expressed by him are clearly fringe; they appear to have no independent notability outside the rather small area of Ahmadiyya scholarship. In view of this, I've removed the "Hindu Views" section as being unreliably sourced and giving undue weight to a fringe viewpoint. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it is not up to you, ChrisO, to judge the merits of a scholar. The view was published in an academic publication second to none- the Oxford University Press. Hadashot Livkarim (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No - the sourcing is totally inadequate and is being misused in the case of the OUP book. Let's go through the sources. Four are mentioned: "Abdul Haq Vidryarthi pg 91-7", "Atharva Veda, X:2.27", "Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization Oxford University Press, USA ISBN 978-019577940" and "Sayar-ul-Okul pg.191" Vidryarthi is cited as the primary source for the claims, but there's no indication of what book the citation is from, and as I've already said he doesn't seem to be cited by other sources; this fails the WP:V criterion that sources must be "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Wikipedia's policy requires us to "judge the merits of scholars" all the time, so your assertion on that score is simply not accurate. Same problem with Sayar-ul-Okul (who's he?); no works are cited and no page references are provided. There's no page reference for Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization and I've checked the book - it says nothing about the Ka'aba, the Black Stone or Vidryarthi. The anonymous editor who added the section seems to be promoting Vidryarthi's views and misusing the OUP publication as a supporting source, when it says nothing about Vidryarthi's claims. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The source regarding Abdul Haq if you look into the Google data base it states one source that was reviewed and digitized from the University of Michigan see ([[1]]) that review from the University of Michigan should be reliable enough. --BabaTabla (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That edit seems to be a view with sourced information. If the Hindus think its their temple or have some connection, nothing is wrong with adding views with sources --BabaTabla (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

But they don't. Take a look at Ahmadiyya - it seems to be a breakaway quasi-Islamic sect, not a Hindu group. As for your "review", it's nothing of the sort - it just indicates that the University of Michigan was one of the institutions which gave Google access to its library for scanning purposes. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This issue has previously been discussed on Talk:Kaaba I believe. There doesn't seem to be any real discussion of this theory beyond the partisan polemical literature. If there is any specific coverage by a reliable source, then it may merit inclusion. ITAQALLAH 16:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The Oxford source seems to be reliable enough and as explained earlier the source regarding Abdul Haq, if you look into the Google data base it states one source that was reviewed and digitized from the University of Michigan see ([[2]]) that review from the University of Michigan should be reliable enough. The sources seem to be in place with academic reviews. --BabaTabla (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The Abdul Haq is still an source and the academic Oxford should be one reliable source according to footnotes it falls into category. --BabaTabla (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide the exact passage from this work and in its correct context? ITAQALLAH 17:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It was already mentioned in the footnotes see [[3]] --BabaTabla (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The footnote says only "Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization Oxford University Press, USA ISBN 978-0195779400". No page ref, no passage. I've looked at the cited book and it mentions nothing about Abdul Haq Vidryarthi or any claims about the Ka'aba. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Theres no preview for that book. Perhaps this book will be available in my local library, soon there will be some development, i will post on this talk page the pages. The Abdul Haq seems to be a different book and the Atharv Veda must be a sacred script --BabaTabla (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering how important a topic that the Black Stone is, I would want to see multiple sources covering an unusual view, before it would be considered significant enough to be included in this article, per Wikipedia's policy on "undue weight". If there's only one reliable source which mentions the Black Stone in context with Hindu culture, then the Black Stone could be mentioned in some other article that is relevant. For example, if there is a reliable source which states that people of the Indus Valley worshipped the Black Stone, then it might be worth putting a mention into the Indus Valley article, but not the Black Stone article. If, however, multiple reliable sources can be produced which show that the Hindu relationship to the Stone has "significant coverage", then it might be worth a small mention, in proportion to the other material that is already in the article. --Elonka 19:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree. I know of no such reliable sources, but that doesn't mean they might not exist. It would be helpful if the anonymous IP editor who added the material in the first place could address some of the issues that have been raised above. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the limited sources, the inaccuracy of claiming there is a universal Hindu view and the "undue weight" problem of a long section outlining the views of a single sect tangential to the significance of the Stone to Islam, I support the removal of this section or at least a severe trimming to a couple of lines. If the Stone was a generally accepted part of Hindu myhtology or beliefs there would be a wealth of sources and references. As there isn't there's too little to support including the section. Euryalus (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The Hindu view sources are under footnotes they seem to fall into category. Perhaps some editor would want to go through the passage and take out some lines or shape the paragraph into wiki standards. --BabaTabla (talk) 23:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this should be included as per WP:WEIGHT. I had originally rv'ed the blanking of this material, but given the discussions and finding above, this view seems to be a particular;y minor viewpoint. If this view were more than an extreme minority view, this material should easily be able to verify via WP:RS. As it is, this information appears in only a few texts in a field of which thousands have been written about it. Dman727 (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It was published in a university magazine. Basta. Mallerd (talk) 10:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This source right here [[4]] - claims the black stone was a incarnation of shiva just as mentioned in the passage (note this book has refs for claims)

There seems to be indefinte amount of sources you can view [[5]] for more sources or information. --BabaTabla (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

See User talk:Dbachmann/Sair al-Okul. I've given this the benefit of doubt, to the conclusion that this is just the usual Hindutva blog trash. Nothing to see here. dab (𒁳) 17:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Where there is smoke, there is fire... How do you explain the circumnambulation, unlike anything else in Islam but prevalent throughout Hinduism? That is not blog trash. That is fact. Is there any evidence of Islamic circumnambulation because there are loads of Hindu examples? We know Buddhism spread from India and ancient artefacts and temples have been found far afield. If nothing else, it brings Islam closer to Hinduism and Hindus closer to Islam which can only be a good thing. If we acknowledge the different opinions of different faiths as we do for many issues concerning Christianity, Judaism and Islam then surely this wikipedia entry is more universal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AKS77 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Your circumnambulation theory is interesting, but the problem is its your theory rather than something put forward in verifiable third-party sources. The links I've marked in the preceding sentence outline why we can't include our own theories, no matter how likely they seem. On your second point, we should certainly acknowledge a range of views in the article, but there are several issues to consider before any new theory gets included:

• First, is it sourced properly? - theories that are unsourced or unreliably sourced cannot be included. Sourcing must be specific - simply giving the name of a book is not enough, you need the page number, edition, ISBN or similar. Without specifics, a source cannot be verified.
• Second, is it a fringe theory? - that is,a theory that is so far from the mainstream view that it requires additional and extensive referencing in sources other than its adherents. This doesn't suggest that fringe theories are false, just that as they are startling or unlikely they require greater independent backing;
• Thirdly, does inclusion give it undue weight? - even if a theory is extensively referenced, it might still be such a minority view or of such limited relevance that inclusion gives it more prominence than it realistically deserves.

There are other issues as well, like a neutral tone and avoiding syntheses, but the above are enough to start with on why the consensus is against inclusion of the "Hindu view" you've proposed. I don't mean this to sound unwelcoming, and I appreciate it sounds like a lot of obstacles for inclusion of a fairly short section. However you are proposing something out of the mainstream and that's inevitably a harder task. Euryalus (talk) 03:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Alfred Wegener was a fringe scientist in his days. Look at what most of us seem to believe nowadays. Fringe doesn't say anything: paradigm. Mallerd (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The circumnambulation being discussed is a practice and an observable phenomenon in practice even today and not a theory. The question raised regarding it is valid. Besides, not all theories in the domain of theories have been verified and all theories belong to somebody, so the "your theory" remark is unwarranted. Going by the same rigor, the reports of the various westerners who have seen the Black Stone in the 19th century cannot be seen to be authentic either as they were based on "one view". Going beyond, the "Hindu view" is just a view. The fact that the Black Stone is not allowed for examination and scholarly appraisal by a self interested group which wants to protect it from outside eyes and the fact that there are stories of the Kaaba itself being covered to hide pre-islamic inscriptions; all of this give sufficient lee-way for the "Hindu view". There's a case for it, academically speaking, so let's not get coy just because some people get jumpy about it! TheOnlyEmperor (talk) 11:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)TheOnlyEmperor

Ignited by an arrow?

The part that states the stone was ignited by a flaming arrow should be re-written to sound more neutral. I don't think it's possible for a stone to be ignited by a flaming arrow; the flame would go out quickly once the arrow was embedded in the rock, unless the rock was coated in oil for some reason... I'm not going to edit it though, since this whole article seems to be sensitive for some people.-- Worldruler20 (talk) 04:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "uscmsa" :
  • {{cite web|author=University of Southern California|title=The Prophet of Islam - His Biography|publisher=|accessmonthday=August 12 |accessyear=2006|url=http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/prophet/profbio.html}}
  • {{cite web|author=University of Southern California|title=The Prophet of Islam - His Biography|publisher=|accessdate=August 12|accessyear=2006|url=http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/prophet/profbio.html}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 03:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Picture at least

In the section of Origins and History sub-headed Islamic Views there is a particular image of Muhammad(PBUH) suppposedly placing the Black stone. This picture has various factual errors as it was fabricated at about 1315 about 7 centuries after the prophet Muhammad(PBUH)'s life so therefore the author's depiction is incorrect. Moreover, the artist himself "Rashid al-Din" is from a Jewish denomination so therefore the image that he has fabricated is biased due to conflicts between Islam and Judaism. As well as the text under the picture tells the reader that this is a picture of Muhammad(PBUH) and does not make it clear that this is an fabrication by a Jewish artist that has much controversy. By allowing this picture to be displayed on Wikipedia, you are in effect twisting people's knowledge and beliefs on Islam. Please remove the unwanted image.

Note:This is an insult. What is the significance of this picture it does not give any more information and just wrongly and biasly depicts Muhammad(PBUH). So am I allowed to edit an article of a reverred person by including an insulting picture and below stating this is my view of such and such a person with my name and date. I dont think so. Please review this and Please remove this image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.209.188 (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Regards,

A Barden

Remove the picture/ sketch depicting an important event in the history of Islam, where the different tribes were united for a common goal. there is no need to depict a picture , wikipedia is hurting the sentiments of one billion believers of the greatest of monotheistic faiths. don't have a rigid views, infact western concept of liberalism is a myth and a way of convenience.Remove the pictures. Irfan Ahmed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.52.166 (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I rather like the image, it illustrates the article nicely. I've made it a point to try to add relavent images to wiki articles where possible (I did not add this one though). It's always nice to have a image while you're reading an article, it adds context and allows one to be (in this case for example) more involved with a particular myth or story. I don't see why this article should be any exception.

As far as offending, it is perfectly acceptable to put up a picture of a historical person in an unflattering light. For example there is a picture of Franklin Roosevelt in a wheelchair in the main article, when he was alive he tried to hide this fact, and were he alive today would be offended to see it on the page.

The issue that is of importance here is that wikipedia, as a repository of human knowledge, should not concern itself with any religious doctrine when deciding what content is appropriate.

--Ianare (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Move the picture alongside other views

I have moved the picture below Islamic View, since the islamic view refers to early period view, yet the picture is later period and held by a minority of muslims, yet mostly prefered by non-muslims. Faro0485 (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Kissing/touching the stone

Can we have some more infomation regarding kissing the stone or touching it? I've heard non-muslims and anti-hadith muslims say that such is an idolic ritual, in disagreement with muslims. Faro0485 (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

Some anon keeps re-adding the same picture to this article. I have removed it several times for two reasons: 1) it is of a rather poor quailty, with a poorly-placed inset obscuring much of the image (among other factors); and, more importantly, 2) it shows nothing the photo already in the article does not (Wikipedia is, after all, an encyclopaedia, not a photo gallery). I would like to invite said anon to voice his/her(/its?) opinion and to justify its addition; I would like to ask for input from the general community on this matter as well. RavShimon (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and furthermore, it appears that the image may be a copyvio: see [6]. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Also agreed. The article already includes a better depiction of the Stone, both closer and from a better angle. The proposed additional picture is inferior in both presentation and actual detail of the article subject. The attempted insertion of the extra picture is probably in good faith but it adds nothing to a reader's understanding of the article and may not be free-use. On both those bases we're better off without it. Other opinions welcome, of course. Euryalus (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Languages

A relatively new user seems insistent upon the inclusion of a translation of "Black Stone" into Urdu within this article. While this is an English-language article, I feel the Arabic does warrant inclusion, as it is the holy language of Islam. Howver, Urdu has, to my opinion, no place here. If we start adding other languages, then why stop there? Why not French? Why not Finnish? Why not Bulgarian, Korean, Dakota and Yiddish already? And even if one were to argue that Urdu is a major language in the Muslim world, so are many others: Turkish, Aramaic, Indonesian, &c... should we start including them all? Opinions, please. RavShimon (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

مرگ بر دشمنان اسلام ـ

Kslall8765 (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

عربی کے بعد عالم اسلام میں سب سے زیادہ استعمال ہونے والی زبان اردو ہی ھے ـ

Kslall8765 (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

And I thank you for proving my point. This is the English-language Wikipedia; do you expect anyone to understand you? RavShimon (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)