Talk:Kaaba

Template:Vital article

image

What on earth is this? It is presented as the Black Stone but it doesn't look like a stone (or anything else), it doesn't have a source, and it looks nothing like the drawing at Black Stone. Besides that, even if it is genuine, the poor image quality makes it worse than useless. Zero^talk 09:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It's an image of "Lord Ra Riaz Gohar Shahi" that apparently miraculously appears on the black stone. It seems he's visible on the moon too [1] [2]. Paul B (talk) 11:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I should add that it is the stone, but the photo has been brightened. Here are some other images [3] [4]. Paul B (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. All of this means the image is not appropriate here. I'm deleting it. Zero^talk 02:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The photographs depicting prophet Mohammed from articles found on Wikipedia must be removed.

Removal of Photos depicting Prophet Mohammed (SAS)

There are a few articles on Wikipedia including Kaaba, which show the images of Prophet Mohammed where as such must not be the case. It is strictly forbidden in Islam to do so. It's a wrong doing for which Allah will punish severely. It's very disturbing and hurting to Muslim world. I request Wikipedia to remove these photos immediately. Thank You!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferraribauer (talk • contribs) 12:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

See the section Talk:Kaaba#Image_of_Mohammed above and the archives of the talk page. Paul B (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a religious website and it does not respect the Islamic dogmas. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 09:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

That Image again and Again

This image will always cause a problem. Would it not be better to replace it with one which carries the same meaning but is respectful of Muslim traditions? B/c when i see the rationale and its necessity in the article it does not seem to balance the constant objections it brings to Wikipedia. This thing about Wikipedia not censoring is also not true. Because the image of JFK post-Lee Harvey encounter is censored, dead bodies, porn and sex related items are also censored. Another less controversial image can be used. --Inayity (talk) 13:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

A lot of porn and sex-related stuff is pretty clearly not censored. Removing this does seem to me to be censorship. If we start to edit our articles according to religious beliefs, where do we stop? Do we say if a religion has N number of adherents, we will remove anything that upsets that religion? The same argument being used to remove this image is used to insist that PBUH should be used, or that 'Holy Bible' should be the way to refer to the Bible. As for dead bodies, are you going to argue for the removal of File:Victim of Indians - NARA - 517708.jpg from the articles that use it? We have a lot of images of dead bodies. Dougweller (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yuck didn't see those dead bodies before, certainly did not see any porn images either (I did look). I do not have a problem with your argument, but in this particular case its inclusion is not that critical. And I at times feel it is there just to prove a point. There are other articles where it might be central. I agree the inclusion of PBUH would clearly be a problem. And there is no way we could edit anything according to beliefs. At some stage something offends someone. But at the same time I remember with Gaddafi they wanted to put a picture of his corpse, and that was just political to degrade the man. --Inayity (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a religious website and it does not respect the Islamic dogmas but it will let wrong information reside on it's servers. What good is knowledge if it's not true and blasphemous. Ferraribauer (talk) 07:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

But there is no "wrong information". Paul B (talk) 07:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I think there may be an issue of undue weight. To have this image in a short section about "Muhammad era" gives the impression that Muslims commonly depict their prophet or that this is a typical representation of that event; both are "wrong" so to speak. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 08:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

This a somewhat eccentric argument. This is one of the most famous events in the history of the black stone, so one image hardly gives undue weight to it. The second part of the argument is irrelevant. This is not an article about images in Muslim cultures. Firstly, you can't tell from looking at the image whether or not it was made by a Muslim. Secondly, the extrapolation could be made of any image (e.g. Goya's picture of a man having his genitals cut off creates the impression that the Spanish commonly represent people being mutilated). It's just not a reasonable extrapolation. Paul B (talk) 08:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the Kaaba, not the black stone. So your first point further affirms the undue weight issue. The dating and Arabic-sounding name in the caption gives the impression that it was done by Muslims. Furthermore, its inclusion in a short section about "Muhammad era" (and the only section about "Muhammad") suggests that it is notable or a typical representation; both are not true. The example you gave is a painting that is not part of any article on the English WP. I'm not sure how it can possibly be used as example of due/undue weight. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 09:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hardly. There is currently one image of the black stone, which is a crucial part of the Kaaba, and this is it. The picture also depicts the kaaba itself, behind the figures. These arguments are clearly sophistical. Muhammad's personal significance to the Kaaba can also hardly be underestimated, so by your logic of weight we should have more images of him, and maybe some of Abraham too. The Goya example is a print, not a painting. It is on the Goya page, so your last sentence is both wrong and would be utterly irrelevant even if it were true, since I was making a point about the logic of an argument. There is no rule that images should be either notable or typical, though it is in fact notable and is typical of its era. Paul B (talk) 10:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

But the Goya image is not being used in a general article or a section about Spanish art. If it were, then it would be subject to undue weight and it would be reasonable to ask whether its theme/style is representative of Spanish art, or not. I'm just asking this same questions with regards to this image, which I find both uncommon and untypical to represent the "Muhammad era". As a side point, an actual photograph of the black stone in the "Pre-Islamic" section would be more informative (since the black stone belonged to the pre-Islamic and pre-Muhammad era). Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 13:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand your argument. Are you seriously saying that the black stone is irrelevant to the "Muhammad era"? You seem to be suggesting that this being stated as being from a Persian work " gives the impression that it was done by Muslims". The problem with the caption is that it doesn't make it clear that it was done by a Muslim. So you are asking us to remove the image because it was done by a Muslim? It's obviously notable although as Paul says that's not actually relevant. Being uncommon or even unique doesn't make it in any way WP:UNDUE. Dougweller (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the black stone is not relevant. I'm just saying that a photo of the black stone would be more encyclopedic/informative than this image. My concerns about this image is as follows: First, plenty of sources suggest that the settings and Kaaba shown is from the Ilkhanate era, thus I don't see how it is informative in a section about Kaaba in the "Muhammad era". Second, its history and authorship is full of controversies: Rashid al-Din was accused of a fake conversion to Islam, was known for being clueless on Islam, and was buried as a Jewish man -- see his EI2 article. I'm not sure why we're "advertising" this controversial work/man in an irrelevant article. Third, adding this image to a small section would make one think that it was made by a Muslim or that it represents a Muslim tradition of depicting the "Muhammad era" (i.e., a majority view), which is not true or disputed (per my 2nd point). Fourth, it also gives more weight than necessary to one event in a small section (an image is worth a 1000 words :) ). Finally, being uncommon or rare makes it a minority view, which is directly related to WP:UNDUE. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 18:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The utter irrelevance of this paragraph is remarkable. I respect editors who say that we should not have images of Muhammad because it is, in their view, improper for religious reasons. These are honest assertions about the reason for wanting the image removed, but your arguments are just unintelligible. We are not advertising any controversial work or person, any more than we are "advertising" the various artists, patrons, art galleries etc who depicted Moses in the many pictures in that article. Muhammad's "endorsement" of the black stone and of its use in the Kaaba is just about one of the most significant events there is in the history of the building. If Muhammad had said "get rid of it", it would be as lost and forgotten as the statue of Hubal. The event depicted is just about as important and as central to the history of the building and its significance as it is possible to get. And an image being rare does not make it a "minority view" because images are not opinions. There are many people, events, objects etc in history of which only a single image actually exists. That would not justify the bizarre argument that the only existing portrait of someone should be excluded from their article because it is rare. p.s. Rashid al-Din wasn't "buried as a Jewish man". He was buried as a Muslim. Paul B (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

A major assertion on your part is thinking that the event depicted was an "endorsement", even though it happened years before the first revelation. The fact that you're making these wrong or minority view assumptions is exactly why this event shouldn't be given this much weight. Also, contrary to your "images are not opinions", plenty of sources place the work of Rashid al-Din within a Buddhist context and suggest that his depictions have the additional purpose of expressing sectarian views. This clearly makes them subject to WP:DUE, as their purpose was promoting certain ideologies and opinions (including which events should be considered significant). See Elverskog, Johan (2010). Buddhism and Islam on the Silk Road. University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 167. ISBN 9780812242379.. And this is not an issue of "existing portrait of someone should be excluded from their article", as you incompetently claimed, this is about a short section in the Kaaba article. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 00:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, WP:DUE explicitly make note of images: "This applies not only to article text, but to images, ...". Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 20:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The Kaaba was built by Prophet Adam and later rebuilt by Prophet Abraham

The Kaaba was FIRST built by Prophet Adam and later rebuilt by Prophet Abraham. If Wiki could correct this error, please - would be great.

References:

http://www.al-islam.org/story-of-the-holy-kaaba-and-its-people-shabbar/kaaba-house-allah http://thefaithinislam.freeservers.com/catalog.html http://www.missionislam.com/knowledge/kaaba.htm http://www.everymuslim.co.za/index.php/articles-menu/hajj-umrah-menu/34-cat-makkah-and-its-virtues/515-the-kaaba-history-and-re-construction http://www.islamforamal.com/Home/additonal-information/construction-of-kaaba http://www.vanguardngr.com/2011/10/the-story-of-kaaba-2/

on and on and on

True, but only according to some traditions. In any case, I've tried to add something to the article and found out that the page can only be edited by "admins". Never seen that level of protection before. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 19:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 March 2014

115.111.218.42 (talk) 10:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC) Kaaba is the Hindu place Kaaba is no as kabbalinshwara shiva temple was build my 530 AD. According to the Chinese Pilgrim Xuanzang, who visited his kingdom in 636,the first historical poetic work in Sanskrit language, The Priyadarsika appears to be the earliest of Harsha's plays. It and the Ratnavali deal with the amorous adventures of the king Vatsa, his queen Vasavadatta, and newcomers to the royal harem. Both plays borrow from the earlier works of Bhasa and Kalidasa (especially the latter's Malavikagnimitra) and are based ultimately on material in the collection Brhatkatha. These plays lack thematic novelty but sustain interest through brisk dialogue. Both are frequently cited by later writers on dramatic theory and technique.

Harsha's Nagananda is his most important play. It is, in fact, a singular creation in Sanskrit drama. This five-act drama draws again on the Brhatkatha for the substance of its first three acts. In them, the hero, Jimutavahana, Prince of the Vidyadharas, meets and marries the Siddha princess Malayavati. To that point, the romance of the fairy prince and princess is quite conventional.

The mood of the play changes sharply in the fourth act. Jimutavahana discovers mounds of skeletons which evidence the daily sacrifice of serpents to the celestial bird Garuda. The hero resolves to offer his own body so that the serpents may be spared (a type of resolution very familiar in Buddhist literature). At the drama's conclusion it is the non-Buddhist goddess Gauri, however, who restores the bodhisattva, Jimutavahana, to life. In this attractive and moving drama, Harsha combined Buddhist and "Hindu" themes adroitly and uniquely, and through it one sees clearly his artistic and political genius,Harsha died in the year 647.Muslim are starting entering to India Kaaba and other place link road Afghanistan is also the Hindu place in this way they start ruling india