Talk:Kaaba

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)

I totally get the importance of not censoring content, the facts remain however. Muslims find it insulting and the image remains in the public domain either way. An appropriate resolution I would think is to blur the face in the thumbnail only, as is done in other such antiquities, but still allowing the unaltered image to appear in full when clicked on. Even indicating that the image(in its original form) is available in the caption bellow the thumbnail. In this way, in compromise, I feel it would please both sides to this discussion. While still holding to the integrity of Wikipedia's uncensored nature. I see this as being a reasonable compromise considering the fact that said image could be found in any case, with out Wikipedia, so a person desiring to see the image can see it in its entirety if they choose to. At the same time the offending factor of the image would be out of the view of those who do not which to see it. Wikipedia only facilitates the fast and easy viewing of the image, a single click would certainly not hinder anyone in rapid viewing if such is desired. Only my simple opinion, with hope that it may settle this matter.MasterGeta(talk)comment added 01:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like to agree with the above mentioned comment suggesting a compromise on the image of the Prophet. Perhaps the article should start with a warning saying some content could be offensive to some religious denominations. If blurring the article in the thumbnail is not feasible we could try describing, in the image caption, such a warning. AN example of such a statement could be like "viewer discretion is advised, this image may contain offensive content to some religious groups"

It isn't strictly against Wikipedia policy to have such a warning, but it is contrary to practice and content guidelines. Zero^talk 10:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is it haaram to have image or picture of the prophet? How come then that Muslims takes pictures of photos of themselves in marriage or other events? Isnt that haraam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.120.182.123 (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Pre-Islamic use of the Kaaba

References from Ibn Ishaq have been added with secondary source data on pre-Islamic worship of the Kaaba.Cpsoper (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC) An editor has removed several well referenced sections and an illustration, and again. Cpsoper (talk) 15:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC) See footnote 2 p.85 for verification 'the feminine form...' etc. The last edit reverted.Cpsoper (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't remove any illustrations, so you're probably confusing me with another editor? In any case, the part I removed was not well referenced. Actually it misrepresents the source as given because Ibn Ishaq didn't claim that "the Ka'aba was itself previously addressed as a female deity". There is only a note by Guillaume concerning language usage in a single incident. Guillaume's assessment shouldn't be attributed to Ibn Ishaq. As a side note, Guillaume's translation is not considered reliable by some historians, and his knowledge of the Arabic language (or lack thereof) has been criticized. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 21:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, the note above had referred to a previous anonymous editor (see history), not your own. The Arabic is Ibn Ishaq's and that indicates reference to a female deity. I you have a better translation available please allude to it.Cpsoper (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you quote the part where Ibn Ishaq claims that "the Ka'aba was itself previously addressed as a female deity"? Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 19:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

In describing the demolition of the temple, specifically identified as the Ka'ba (sic), Al Walid says, 'O God, do not Thou (f.s.) be afraid'. Rarely in Sirat ar Rasul is the Kaaba so addressed directly, are there any instances where it is addressed as male? Alas I spent time searching through the Cairo book fairs for a copy of the Arabic text in vain.Cpsoper (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I have access to the Cairo edition (al-Saqqa et al), presumably the same text translated by Guillaume per his introduction (p.xli). The Arabic phrase used (p. 195) is "Allahumma lam turaʿ" (tr. "O God, it was not startled".). There is a note at the bottom of the same page explaining that the pronoun refers to the Ka'ba (n.5). Also, a second explanation is given in the body of the text: "Ibn Hisham said: some say 'lam nuzagh'" [tr. "we were not led astray"]. I'm not sure why this second explanation is missing from Guillaume. As you can see, the source does not explicitly mention a "female deity", which seems to be just a far-fetched interpretation. And the fact that there is a different wording of that same incident suggests that we should not give it more weight than necessary. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

That's helpful, I have modified the text to indicate the comment comes from Guillaume's understanding of ibn Ishaq, and given the controversy removed the expression 'deity', although per the first variant text you report it is the female 'god' who is reassured before the demolition. 'Lam tura' is 'do not fear' (f.s.).Cpsoper (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Interior dimensions

The article says "sides measuring 11.03 m (36.2 ft) by 12.86 m (42.2 ft).[11][12] ... The interior walls, measuring 13 m (43 ft) by 9 m (30 ft)" How can there be an interior wall of 13 m when the longest exterior wall is 12.86 m? how thick are the walls? JPLeonard (talk) 06:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

P.S. The technical drawing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaaba#mediaviewer/File:Kaaba-plan.svg has the interior walls at 10.15 by 8.24 m and the outside as 12.04 x 10.18, indicating the walls are almost 1 meter thick. "The sides" measurement noted above may include the sill. JPLeonard (talk) 06:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Architecture

"The Kaaba stands upon a 250 cm (98 in) marble base that projects outwards about 35 cm (14 in)"

These measures are practically impossible!!! The door ('2' on the drawing) is 2.13 meters high from the ground. How could it be possible to have a marble "base" 2.5 meters high???

Should the base be the "gutter" ('4' on the drawing) and in this case probably 25cm x 35cm are the correct measures. Unfortunately 25x35 cm seem too short for the gutter as it can be seen on the picture of Kiswah page. File/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Kaaba_%281910%29-2.jpg The gutter seems larger: at least 50x50cm comparing the man standing next to the wall under the door. And if I calculate the measures of the gutter from data showing on the drawing with dimensions, then it results to be 67.5 cm at one wall or 56 cm at another. (11.53-10.18 /2 ; 13.16-12.04 /2)

However the man is standing on something which could be a base. but it does not seem to be marble, and in this case it is probably 2.5 x 35 cm. The reference for these measures (Wensinck, A. J; Ka`ba. Encyclopaedia of Islam IV p. 317) are not available to me to check, and also I did not find any authentic english www references about the base or the gutter which could clarify the measures. (It is also unknown where the dimension data on the drawing originated. Very likely it is a scanned pilgrimage leaflet page))

Please correct the measures if you find authentic data. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSoos (talk • contribs) 23:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Edition II of EI, article Ka'ba by A.J. Wensinck and J. Jomier, says "The Kaʿba is built of layers of the grey-blue stone produced by the hills surrounding Mecca. It stands on a marble base (shādharwān) 10 inches high, projecting about a foot." I think this might solve the problem: 10 inches is 25cm, not 250cm. What do you think? Zero^talk 01:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for checking the reference. As I thought the correct number is 25cm then. However I think the whole basement information is oblsolete, and would be better removed. The "base" cannot be seen on any pictures, or drawings, and is completely overlayed by the "gutter". Moreover now the whole ground area is covered by marble slabs. File/http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Fz5j1blPfbM/UCYAacG0NEI/AAAAAAAAAgY/4vvZhfqDOgw/s1600/5+Brown+marbles+on+white+slope+adjecnt+to+kaaba+wall+where+first+time+syedna+Gibreal+A.S+guided+practically+how+to+offer+salat+(Prayer)+1.jpg80.98.227.94 (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Lacking history

The history section currently doesn't include even the vaguest of dates for construction, only the reconstruction by muhammed and the non-historic traditional date, is there really no reference to it before muhammed? 92.25.48.49 (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)