Talk:Black Stone

Archives

2004 · 2006 2007

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 (UTC)

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)

This is Against Islamic law

This is against islamic law(Sharea) to take picture or draw sketch of any living thing specially Skectch of Hazrat Muhammad PBUH.So please try to avoid any disgracefull mistake in the future and remove that skecth as early as possible. Regards (Jadoontahir 15:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC))Tahir

Sharea law has no relevance here. Please refer to wiki policies such as wp:censor— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.212.135.66 (talk • contribs)

this is agaist our gr8 religion Islam.. plz remove the Fake Sketch of OUr Prophet Hazrat Muhammad PBUH.it is totally ilegel and unethical.if u want to Expalin any report regarding islam,u want to show any picture regarding our Holy peoples to more explaination can not acceptable to every muslim. In our religion (islam) do not give Permission of particulerly human being pictures. May be you did not know about this particuler law.so please you will remove the Sketch. regards

please remove the fake Sketch of OUr HOLY PROPHET HAZEAT MUHAMMAD PBUH— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.48.186 (talk • contribs)

we being muslims all protest against it n ask you plz remove the pic of our HOLY PROPHET(PBUH) as it is not allowed in islam to make His sketch or pic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.83.169.121 (talk • contribs) 03:23, August 1, 2007 (UTC)

I have great respect for Islam, but the rules for Muslims, are for Muslims to follow. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for all people, not just Muslims. The rules about Muhammad's image do not apply to non-Muslims. I am sorry if you do not like the image, but our rules say that we cannot remove it. --Elonka 08:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Say, User:203.82.48.186, are you the same person as User:Aamir009, as User:Jadoontahir, or both?Proabivouac 10:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Its not about law, its about ethics, every one should avoid the things which hurts other, and this picture hurts the feelings of all muslims. We should show respect to others religion so that others may respect ours. and i have no ids other than aamir009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.30.106.146 (talk • contribs) 12:00, August 1, 2007 (UTC)

REMOVE FAKE SKETCH/ IMAGE OF HOLLY PROPHET MUHAMMAD (SAW) PLEASE do not play with our emotions, and remove fake images of PROPHET MUHAMMAD (SAW) not only from this article but from all articles which contain these images. You are writing about Islam and you posted images which Islam never accepts. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE REMOVE ALL FAKE IMAGES OF OUR PROPHET (SAW). It will be a nice gesture of you if you do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naeem 017 (talk • contribs) 13:01, August 1, 2007 (UTC)

In order to have a voice in discussions on Wikipedia, it is best to show that you work on many articles. I recommend that you help with other articles at Wikipedia. First learn what the rules are here, and then you will be better able to help if you want to change them.  :) --Elonka 19:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:SOCK#Voting and other shows of support: this kind of dishonesty may not violate your personal convictions, but is not allowed on Wikipedia.Proabivouac 20:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Its un-ethical to hurt someone's feelings. Even its against Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Profanity. Also WP:NOT#CENSORED:— Preceding unsigned comment added by Engr.saad (talk • contribs)

Anons, please see: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam/Images_of_Muhammad. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It is NOT a necessary image. That someone drew the Prophet Muhammad placing this stone does not mean that the drawing should be included in the article. The content is redundant and not worth violating Muslim readers' rights not to come across this without warning. I am deleting it, if someone finds some reason why that image is essential to the article then they can undo my edit, but out of courtesy I'd ask that they place a warning so that individuals who do not wish to view this image do not accidentally do so. 69.106.221.147 13:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If it's against Sharia law to "take picture of any living thing" then we're all in deeeeep doodoo here on Wikipedia. ;) But seriously, while we can't do what they ask we can at least be fair. The caption for the picture says that it is a "depiction of Muhammad", but unless the 1315 author had some transcendental line of sight or an unknown source to copy from, that clearly can't be true. It is at best an "illustration inspired by the story". I could hope that is less offensive though I wouldn't bet on it, but at least it's more accurate. Wnt (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The 1315 artwork, or the 2007 version?

The debate about the use of the image appears to have indicated a consensus for inclusion on the grounds that it adds significantly to the article and Wikpedia is not censored.

More recently an adulterated image has been created which photoshops out Muhammad's facial features. This is presumably advanced as a compromise, though it would have been preferable for some discussion it here first.

In my opinion the use of an adulterated image is worse than not including the image at all. The painting is a historic piece, appropriately licensed as public domain on the basis that it is a faithful reproduction of the original. The photoshopped version is not a faithful reproduction (and is therefore not properly licensed). It also limits the historic significance of the image in the article context. The 1315 original is of value as a faithful reproduction because it indicates the longevity of the veneration for the Stone and is a reliable source in itself for the significance of the Stone to early Islam, its direct association with Muhammad and the rebuilding of the Kaaba in Muhammad's lifetime. The photoshopped version is a 2007 work by one or more editors, which cannot of itself attest to any othese points.

I am interested in other's views on the use of the photoshopped image. If there is a consensus in favour of it as a compromise then I am happy to abide by it. If there remains a consensus for the unadulterated historical work, then hopefully this will encourage the various anon editors to stop inserting it.

As always, any other comments welcome. Euryalus 05:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus has always been to not censor anything as wikipedia policies say. Wikipedia is not sensitive to religious demands or customs. You can safely ignore this image modification and keep reverting it when you see it. Obviously these people are not interested in debate and even if they were, well, consensus has been there. We've been over this a long time ago and with a lot of debate. They need to go back and see that debate. Simply, its against wikipedia policies to censor in any way. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep removing it, it is still censorship. At the risk of invoking the slippery slope argument, it would set a dangerous precendent to deface an image for the purpose of bowing to the demands of a vocal minority that wikipedia articles conform to a religious tradition.--AlexCatlin 15:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree, Wikipedia is not censored, it is that simple. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Why would it matter to the religious objection whether it was photoshopped? The original painter couldn't have known what Muhammad looked like anyway! Neither version is accurate, and both express the same idea, don't they? Wnt (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2008 (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)

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 (UTC)

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. --BabaTabla (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)