Talk:Black Stone

Jew Hatred in this article

What's with this shit, because its a Muslim article, Jew hatred is going to be acceptable?

The Shi'ite Persians were suspected of being responsible and were the target of curses from other Muslims for centuries afterwards, though explorer Sir Richard Francis Burton doubted that they were the culprits; he attributed the act to "some Jew or Greek, who risked his life to gratify a furious bigotry."[23]

What's this explorer's opinion matter, except to implicate Jews and Greeks for no reason?

There is a million other quotes Muslims would love to see implicating Jews, but this is libel, as much as the accusation of the Persians.

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

I have been observing that wiki editors who are mostly Christian have a bias that all Arab things have to do with semitic traditions. Ancient history of preislamic Arabs clearly shows that Arabs were dealing with India (as Arabs called it Hind), particularly west coast of India as meritime travellers. They were deeply involved with matters in that region of westcoast of India. They had no religion of their own and as they adopted discarded dieties of Persians (dumped at Mecca by Persians as Zoroastrian religion spread) they also adopted many dieties from westcoast of India (Mannat, Allat and Ujja). They had many permanent colonies there and so they adopted many Hindu practices. Circumbulation is one of that. The Black Stone could have been imported from the granite black stone generally used to prepare 'ling' of Mahadeva (means, great God a very true synonym for Allah) an ancient god of Hindus. Ling means symbol and so Shive ling means symbol of Shiva. I suggest this habit of trying to simply rule out various views by misusing provisions of wiki rulebook should be stopped. I am also writing articles on wiki and I feel we must understand that wiki is not a Christian data bank but a world data bank. We cannot be emotional while preparing material for wiki mainstream pages. Suggestions that certain article disturbs emotions of millions people is no argument to remove a part from the article. Pathare Prabhu (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Book of Daniel

In Judaeo-Christian scriptures, the Messiah is Prophesied in the Book of Daniel 2 as a super-natural stone. Given the central role of the Messiah amongst Abrahamic Religions; and the central role of the Black Stone in Islam; is there any connection, between Judaeo-Christianity (Daniel 2, stone of Messiah) & Islam (Black Stone) ? 24.56.197.47 (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know of any connection. This is a question best asked at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Remove the Picture

I personally believe and strongly condemn for the picture which portrays Prophet Mohammed(Peace Be Upon Him). No one deserves right to visualize his physical appearance by way of art,picture,drawing or any other form. I appeal to the concerned authorities to delete the image which portrays Prophet Mohammed(Peace Be Upon Him)with immediate effect. I also request other viewers to support this good cause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.139.97 (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:CENSOR and Talk:Muhammad/images. Gabbe (talk) 06:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

what about hiding the image until click with that text :importScript('User:Anomie/hide-images.js');--Sghaier mohamed (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

You can configure your browser or your account any way you want, to avoid seeing images. Talk:Muhammad/FAQ Q3 gives some guidance. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 July 2013

Please remove image showing Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) ready to fix the stone after picking it up from a sheet of cloth. It badly hurts Muslims' emotion to show pictures of Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) anywhere, so I humbly request the reader of this request to remove it. Gr8usman4u (talk) 09:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

That image comes from an ancient history book by a Muslim author, Rashid-al-Din Hamadani. It's a perfectly acceptable image. Muslims apparently had no problem with it back then.

Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any group, and that is an encyclopedically relevant image for this article. Objection to depictions of Muhammad is not universal among Muslims either. Please also see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, which provides a fuller explanation and also describes how to configure your browser or your Wikipedia account to prevent displaying these images. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Yoni?

Isn't it some kind of Yoni worship? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.20.200 (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Nope. That's a fringe Hindu theory. It's nonsense, of course. Prioryman (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Prioryman you are wrong, because no one has checked the blackstone from inside, neither hindus made this theory. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

to remove image of Prophet MUHAMMAD (P.B.U.H) File:Mohammed kaaba 1315.jpg

'In Islam picture of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and other Humans are not allowed. But Wikipedia is showing illustrations with face illustrated and face is veiled or white washed. But still it is offensive to Muslims!

 here is the link to picture 
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Stone
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg 
     

I kiindly request you to remove this picture as soon as possible!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamzajarral9 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2014

Black Stone also known as Sange Aswad which is a corrupted form of the Sanskrit word Sanghey Ashweta--meaning non-white stone Nitin.raj1989 (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

you would need to provide a reliably published source that verifies the claims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Add the detail about black stone?

The Black Stone which is the Shiv Emblem (also known as Sange Aswad which is a corrupted form of the Sanskrit word Sanghey Ashweta--meaning non-white stone) still survives in the Kaba as the central object of Islamic veneration. The Shiv Ling at The Kaba. It was broken in seven places and now is held together by a silver band.The term Kaba itself is a corruption of the Sanskrit word Gabha (Garbha + Graha) which means Sanctum. In addition, in the inscriptions from Hajja and its neighborhood was found a votive vessel dedicated by members of two tribes called Rama and Somia. Rama and Soma are Vedic deities, Rama is of the Solar dynasty and Soma is of the Lunar Dynasty. The moon god was called by various names in pre-Islamic times, one of them was Allah. Allah had 3 children, Al-Lat, Al-Uzza and Manat. Al-Lat and Al-Uzza were both feminine deities. Alla is another name for the Hindu goddess Durga. It is obvious that the goddess Al-Lat was Alla (Durga) and Al-Uzza was Oorja (energy or life force also known as Shakti). Manat was none other than Somnath which is another name for Lord Shiva. One significant point to note that Soma in Sanskrit means Moon and Nath means Lord. Thus the Kaba itself was dedicated to the Moon God Somnath alias Shiv and the word Somnath was corrupted to Manat. The famous Black Stone is none other than the ShivLing of Makkeshwar alias Mecca. Lord Shiva is always shown with a crescent Moon on his head and every Shiva temple is supposed to have a sacred water spring representing the Ganges. The Crescent Moon pinnacle of the Kaba and the Zamzam spring (actually Zamza from Ganga) are irrefutable testaments to the Vedic origins of the Kaba.

Note:Islam came into being about 1372 years ago. It is well known that over 7500 years ago, at the time of the Mahabharat War, Kurus ruled the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitin.raj1989 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

There was discussion about it above. It has been mentioned by number of scholars and academics as well. But, I would like to see how many are interested in reviewing it. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Elsebeth Thomsen is notable?

Elsebeth Thomsen has came up with some strange or never heard theory first of all. 2nd thing, since she has no wiki page, is she even notable? There are probably many others who can be added instead of her, if you want to add. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Pre-Islamic traditions

I have added a referenced comment on Ibn Ishaq's report of the Ka'aba during pre-Islamic times. Cpsoper (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC) I have also added references from secondary and primary sources about views on pre-Islamic veneration of stones.Cpsoper (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Have added two references to the similar appearance of the stone and its cover, with a link to the pages, Tate cites Camphausen, but clearly agrees with him, and Rice gives details of worship practice which can also be verified directly from Ibn Ishaq.Cpsoper (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2014

Pleae remove the picture from history and tradition part. This picture could spark unrest among muslims as a blasphemos act. Jawwadsaif (talk) 06:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done as it clearly says at the top of this page:-

If you are here to talk about removing images of Muhammad from Wikipedia articles, please read this article carefully: Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Images of Muhammad. Wikipedia is not censored.

If you would like to learn how to configure your browser so as not to see images on this article, please see: Wikipedia:How to set your browser to not see images

- Arjayay (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Remove instances of (as) and (swt)

It seems that these are unnecessary after Allah and Adam in the article and only break up the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phasw (talk • contribs) 15:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Ordinarily I would agree, but it would appear that they are part of a quote. As such, we should use them verbatim rather than editing them. Quotes from external sources don't have to (and often won't) conform with Wikipedia's manual of style, but we shouldn't expect them to. Prioryman (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)