Jump to content

Talk:Black Stone

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Qelmasri (talk | contribs) at 01:02, 28 June 2018. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleBlack Stone has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 10, 2012Good article nomineeListed

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.171.38 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 7 September 2014‎

It's an encyclopedically relevant note in the history of the black stone, and the quotation is from a notable explorer, Richard Francis Burton. The statement is clearly presented as a quotation and not in Wikipedia's voice. The fact that some historians might have had a bias does not mean we need to censor the article because it offends you. Wikipedia is not censored for anyone's benefit. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable translation

The translation of "al-Rukn al-aswad" actually means "black corner." Aswad does not translate to corner, but rather, black.

Other locations of the Black Stone.

The Black Stone is also located in Istanbul, Turkey.

Fragments of the Black Stone are located in 3 separate places in Istanbul 1 - the tomb of Suleyman at the Sulemaniye Mosque 2 - the Mihrab of the Blue Mosque (Sultanhamet Camii) 3 - in a small mosque called Sokollu Mehmet Pasha Mosque


http://www.woreczko.pl/meteorites/travels/Stambul_2010/BlackStone-EN.htm


http://kauscience.k12.hi.us/~ted/Blackstone/hajar-al-aswad.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.172.0.205 (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Black stone stolen by Qarmatians

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qarmatians

I do not have access to the book referenced in the article, but it's common knowledge that the Black stone was not stolen by Fatimids, rather Qarmatians. Please correct the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.98.46.233 (talk) 04:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article already says it was stolen by the Qarmatians, so I'm not sure what your point is. Prioryman (talk) 11:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2014

In the section 2. History and tradition please REMOVE the illustration showing Prophets Muhammad placing stone on the kaa'ba. It's prohibited in Islam to make illustrations/drawings of Prophet Muhammad.

Thanks Chjawadm (talk) 12:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. My apologies. Jytdog (talk) 12:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Chjawadm: Furthermore, the prohibition is not universal in Islam. See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ as well as Depictions of Muhammad. That particular image is from an ancient book of history written by a well known Muslim historian, Rashid-al-Din Hamadani, so it seems strange that Muslims would object to it. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not forbidden to represent a prophet in Islam, what is forbidden is to identify the prophet. The reason is that in Islam the prophet is considered solely a messager who denied himself. For this reason any representation of the prophet is at risk of placing any importance to the messager and venerating him rather than the source. This is the reason why at the Kaabah Muhammad considered all the images except for the elderly man and Mary and her child as idolatry. In the relationship between the mother and the child the emphasis is placed on the divine relationship between the mother and the child, the mother denial of herself. This is not idolatry! Because this relationship is intangible. The same goes with the elderly man who is barely recognizable. In fact it is said that it is Muhammed who assumed the elderly man to be Abraham, because there was no identification as such (Abraham having denied himself). Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 03:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

meteorite origin

1. Since the Wabar craters are mentioned, I suggest that somebody uses the wikipedia article about the Wabar craters to tell when that impact occurred.

2. In August 2014 there appeared on the internet statements that Anthony Hampton at Oxford University and a group of geologists have found evidence for a meteorite impact at Mecca. Unfortunately I can't find any verification anywhere on the internet that this is correct. It would be nice if somebody checked. And if correct, please add the information to this article.213.113.116.13 (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The image supposedly portraying the sublime personality of Muhammad PBUH is against Islam, And I, through this comment,want to draw attention of concerned to remove the image,as without this, purpose is being conveyed effectively, there is no need to indulge in such activity which ultimately leads to problems with particular society. Also, Wikipedia is diverse source of information targeting diverse population so there is no such demand of portraying such image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.36.114.167 (talk) 03:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please draw your attention to the discussion above, as well as Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, Depictions of Muhammad, Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Images of Muhammad, Wikipedia is not censored. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 04:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Tanakh" is the more usual transliteration

It's given as "Tenakh" in the article, which is misleading to anyone not familiar with vowel lability. Spelt in the conventional way, the sentence might give rise to questions about why Jewish scripture should bear on whether kissing a Muslim relic is idolatrous. 72.70.24.61 (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Jytdog (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Video Footage of the Black Stone

Please, add this unique video footage of the Black Stone as an 'external video'.

https://scontent-arn2-1.cdninstagram.com/t50.2886-16/13942865_1800701496815783_1434436484_n.mp4

https://www.instagram.com/p/BIqnxeTjCGO/

video by Turki Alharbi | @alharbi_turki9 on Instagram — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.201.242 (talk) 11:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the Yata no Kagami in the See Also section?

What is the proposed similarity?--JaredMithrandir (talk) 11:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, and I also don't know why the Lapis Niger was listed. (Yes, it's a black stone, but the name is the only resemblance.) I've removed the See Also section as unnecessary. Prioryman (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

improvements

User:Prioryman just wanted to say thanks for this steady run of well-sourced improvements. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words! I'm aiming in due course to nominate the article as a featured article candidate, but there's some way to go before it's ready for that, so I'll keep working to improve it. Prioryman (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Black Stone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References to Semitic origin purged of Semitic prophetic response

During a series of edits in May, references to a secondary source and instances illustrating it from the Tanakh were removed with the brief explanation 'this is a bit off topic'[1]. I have restored this material. If reference to the Semitic origins of stone worship are appropriate, so is a brief and sourced reference to the mainline Semitic view of the practice from then till now. Cpsoper (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is problematic in that it uses primary religious sources and not analytical secondary sources. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The secondary source cites many other instances from same origin. What more penetrating analysis of the phenomenon in question can be found? This is a brief, illuminating sample of prophetic reaction. Cpsoper (talk) 09:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black Stone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_Stone&oldid=847822312"