Talk:Kaaba

Untitled

Before complaining about any 'offensive' images, please see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Images of Muhammad

"Origin of Kaaba"

It is considered in Brahmins in Sub-continent that Kaaba was built for the devotion of Lord Shiva on the base of the story of Oor, an arabic merchent. He had got it erected for easy recognisation of Zamzam water sorce even from far distance in huge desert and dry mountains and for his devotion of Lord Shiva. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 00jayhind (talk • contribs) 08:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

1. KAAB (Builder of KAABA ca 320 AD) son of 2. LAWWA 3. GHALIB 4. FAHAR 5. MALIK 6. NADHAR (QURAISH) 7. CANAANA 8. KHAZEEMA 9. MADERKA 10. ILYAAS 11. MADHAR 12. NAZAAR 13. MAAD (the Second) 14. ADNAAN (the Second) 15. AUDHDH 16. AWAD (the Second) 17. AL-YASSAA 18. AL-HAMEESAA (the Second) 19. SALAMAAN (the Second) 20. SABET 21. HAMAL 22. MAAD (the First -588 BC) 23. ADNAAN (the First - 600 BC) 24. AWAD (the First0 25. AL-HAMEESAA (the First) 26. SALAMAAN (the First) 27. AUOS (the Second) 28. BIRDH 29. MEHENSAWEEL 30. ABUL AWAAM 31. NASEL 32. HURRAH 33. YELDAAREM 34. BIDHLAN 35. KALEH 36. FAJIM (MAJEM) 37. NAHOOR 38. MAAMI 39. AASQHAA 40. AANAF 41. ABEED 42. ADHDHAA 43. HAIRAAN 44. YASSEEN 45. BARRAA 46. SAJRAA 47. BALKHAA/II 48. ARR-AWAA 49. AANQHA 50. HISSAN 51. IESSA 52. AFSHAAR 53. ABHAAM 54. MAASAR 55. NAJIB 56. ZARAAHA 57. SAMAWA 58. MARRAH 59. AAWAS (the First) 60. AAWAM 61. QAIDAAR 62. ISMAEEL 63. IBRAHEEM (ca 1600 BC) 64. TARIKH also called TERAH 65. NAHOOR 66. SHARROOA 67. ARGHOO 68. QANEH 69. AABER 70. SALEKH 71. ARAFKHASHAD 72. SAM 73. NOOH (NOAH) 74. LAMAK 75. METHUSHELAH 76. AKHNOOA (IDREES) 77. BEYARIDH 78. MEHLAEEL 79. QAINAAN 80. ANOOSH 81. THEETH (SETH) 82. ADAM & EVE might not be the head of human race, may be only of the Semites

According to Jewish (J document, J for Yaweh, CAIN, the tiller and ABEL, the shepherd, were born and after the murder of ABEL, another son THEETH was born.

According to P document (Priestly code) God bade the First Pair to “go forth and multiply” and THEETH was the Firstborn

(There is confusion of S and Th. The pronunciation of TH in Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic is exactly the same as the English Th. However, the difference between TH and Saad is difficult to detect. sz) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.242.33.20 (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"Millions at Masjid al Haram in Mecca"?

The caption under that image showing all the people around the Kaaba. Umm... That's not millions of people. And btw, the antique painting of Mohammed and the stone should STAY on the site. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats because the image does not show all the people. a correct image (should be zoomed out further and) would show the Haram at its state during Hajj or Ramadhan's last 10 days where it it overflowing onto the streets and prayers have to be performed on the streets round the whole masjid and not just round the Kaaba. The statement is correct but the image displayed is incorrect/incomplete. [[User:Cs1kh]] (talk) 09:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

This year (2008) there were 5 million muslims from around the world during Hajj. I know it because i was there too. Regarding the picture of Mohammed, none exists. If anyone claims to have it, then he is a liar. [User Aslam|Aslam] 8:12, 22 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.246.218.178 (talk)

This statement is impossible: "However, the most dramatic times are during the Hajj, when about three million (officially)pilgrims simultaneously gather to circle the building on the same day." This is what the sources the author has quoted say: "About three million Muslims from around the world have gathered in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, for the annual Hajj pilgrimage." Statement by author is not accurate and misleading and should be edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.142.61.242 (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Poll: Consensus check

````It is very simple to understand that making or painting any scatch of any body is prohibitied in islam it is some thing very basic like in chritianity the holy Marry and Commandmends of Allah to Moses in judism. So instead going for polling to keep or not it should not be presented in any way positive or negative. becuase on humanitarian grounds all have equal right to practice the religion as it is and other believers should respect each other. We better rem,ove the image. ALLAH bless us all. Ahmed Mujtaba Khan, Pakistan. Could everyone with an opinion on whether or not the 1315 Muhammad painting[1] should be included at the Kaaba article, please weigh in? I'd like to see one opinion per editor, stating where you currently stand on this issue. Thanks, --Elonka 18:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or replace Replace the painting with a photograph of the Black Stone. We use the painting on other articles, it doesn't have to be on this article, and providing a photo of the Black Stone seems like a reasonable compromise. Alternatively, we could use the show/hide option. --Elonka 18:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Changing my opinion from "Replace" to "Keep or replace". I do not personally find this image offensive, I find it beautiful and respectful, and see it as showing Muhammad in a positive light as a peacemaker. But I do understand that some good faith Muslims are uncomfortable seeing any image of Muhammad, even if a positive one, and feel that it is blasphemous. However, per Wikipedia's policy on No censorship, the general consensus of Wikipedia editors is that images should be included if they are relevant to a particular article, even if some editors might find them objectionable on religious grounds. I support that policy. In regards to this particular image on this particular article though, I have to say that though I do support the use of this image on some other articles at Wikipedia, such as Black Stone and Depictions of Muhammad, that in the specific case of using it at the Kaaba article, I think that the image is of less relevance. We don't have to include it -- there are other images which would probably work better, such as an actual photograph of the Black Stone. This Kaaba article also has clear links to the Black Stone article, where the image is used. We're not trying to hide it, and it's not necessary to include the same image on every single article that it is related to. This is why I would support replacing the image here on the Kaaba article. However, having said that, I also have to state that I believe strongly in another Wikipedia policy, that of Consensus. And the consensus in this poll clearly appears to be that in respect to the Kaaba article, the image should be kept. I still have respect for the editors who disagree, but it is clear that we will never reach a unanimous decision on this one issue. As such, I am willing to change my opinion to at least a partial "keep", to show that I acknowledge the consensus and will support it. Perhaps in the future Consensus can change, but for now, I think it is best if we try to put this one issue to rest, at least for a few months, and move on to other debates. --Elonka 21:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Elonka, how can one "replace" one image with a totally different one? If we need a photograph of the black stone, then add one. However, as I've observed and suggested we fix, the article as it is says almost nothing about the Black Stone, devoting more space (for example) to the story depicted in the 1315 illustration. It is very strange to me that you'd not see fit to move text about the Black Stone, but seek to "replace" this illustration with a photograph from the Black Stone article (where both appear). How can a photograph of the modern (broken) Black Stone better depict the events described in the relevant section of the text?Proabivouac 21:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Its topical, noteable, tasteful and respectful. The issue of censoring one of the most noted images of the black stone based on Mohammed depictions has been hashed, rehashed and decided. I see no reason to backtrack on this issue. I do find that that using the show/hide option IS viable imo, with the default being show. This will allow those who find the the image taboo an easy way hide the image for themselves, without affected everyone else. Dman727 18:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Enough polling already. Keep. There are policies which address this situation quite clearly; these enjoy the overwhelming support of the WP community. Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not is the right place to propose exceptions.Proabivouac 21:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Due to the image's encyclopedic nature and the fact that policies do not allow for its removal based on its potential offensiveness.--Strothra 22:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Elonka, please stop trying to stretch this affair longer and longer and giving it more attention that it deserves. As Proav said, enough polling. Valueable unique image, very relevant, no copyright problems, keep. --Matt57 <sup>(talk•contribs)</sup> 23:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Replace: This image is irrelevant since it is offensive, blasphemous (to majority of its muslim viewers), provides no credible knowledege, is source of more confusion then knowledge and its source is highly questionable. In its place an image of actual black stone is more appropriate in context of the topic. Ghulam muhammad21 05:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Replace or Remove: Plz. remove the picture immediately as it is beyond doubt a highly offensive image, which explains very little about the article "Kaaba." The picture is only of one particular step in the many restorations of the Kaaba. The adamancy of some to retain this picture goes a long way in further aggravating the highly deteriorated relationship between Christianity and Islam. Thanking You, Altruism<sup>To talk</sup> 05:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC).
  • What's this got to do with Christianity? I doubt most of the commentators here even go to church nevermind have a Christian faith?! Pbhj (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

*Replace: Because of few of wiki's editors personal egos, this issue has been dragged for so long. It deserves all the attention because of its importance to topic it is related to. In fact this sub-topic should be "Re-building / Renovation of Kaaba" with information about all such occurances which are well documented alongwith a picture depicting the evolution of this structure from Prophet Adam (Be Peace on Him) to modern times. There should be general emphasis on re-building rather then detailing any one particular time of history. Picture of black stone should remain where it is in the Black Stone article.--Tiere Rod 05:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• • User:Tiere Rod is an obvious sockpuppet of User:Ghulam muhammad21.[2][3][4]Proabivouac 06:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Notable and historically relevant. --Wasell<sup>(D)</sup> 05:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The image is highly topical and relevant, and Wikipedia is not censored. -- Karl Meier 07:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Replace or Remove: When you do not give much information and offend many then it is time to compromise. In this case picture is not irreplaceable and just has some esthetic sense. Hence why to offend other when you can avoid? Article is not centered around that picture. Right? --- A. L. M. 09:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • ALM, have you actually examined this image?Proabivouac 11:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Replace or Remove: The picture is clearly highly controversial and leads to ascerbic arguments. The picture is not even relevant to the article as such. If any compromise is to be made, then maybe a show/hide option is reasonable. MP (talk) 11:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Mpatel, do you mean to say that the associated text isn't relevant to the article?Proabivouac 11:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If by the associated text you mean A story found in Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah (as reconstructed and translated by Guillaume) shows Muhammad settling a quarrel between Meccan clans as to which clan should set the Black Stone cornerstone in place. His solution was to have all the clan elders raise the cornerstone on a cloak, and then Muhammad set the stone into its final place with his own hands., then I don't see what the problem is - if the text is there, there's no need for a controversial picture. The caption text for the picture can stay with a show/hide option; nothing wrong with that. MP (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You've turned the standard for image inclusion on its head: usually we ask that what is depicted is a part of the text. Here you say that if it is, then the image is no longer needed. Hence any image anywhere is either 1) off-topic (unrelated to text) or 2) unneeded (as text already covers it).Proabivouac 11:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that I said controversial picture; not every picture in WP is controversial. Note that text has priority over any images, unless the images add more meaning understanding etc. to complement the text. MP (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - It is a picture of one of the most significant figures in history doing something that was important than, was important enough for Ibn Ishaq and Rashid al-Din to record it, and remains today a highly significant event in the history of the article's subject. Tom Harrison <sup>Talk</sup> 11:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  This we called original research here. Why to give that reason using original research when you also support picture you know nothing about Image:Maome.jpg. Or do you have any source telling you what it depict? --- A. L. M. 13:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should also have a vote at Isra and Mi'raj, since you removed the picture there as well. We could vote on every article once a month, and then have or not have images that month depending on how the vote went. Or, it might be better to draw in the larger community and determine the wider consensus. Then maybe we could craft a policy reflecting that consensus that would apply to the whole project. Tom Harrison <sup>Talk</sup> 13:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not mind that picture sepcially because it face is veiled. However, I do not know why you have restored it when someone else has removed it? I just wish to support that poor fellow against you. Once again what you know about Image:Maome.jpg, what event it depicting? ---A. L. M. 13:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I at least appreciate your candor. But why are you asking about Maome.jpg? Nobody wants to include it here. Our article on Depictions of Muhammad says it is an "Illustration portraying Muhammad preaching to his early followers." The reference is to the French National Library, but my proficiency with French is limited. What is your point about Maome.jpg? Tom Harrison <sup>Talk</sup> 13:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

p.s. - as with the caption for the 1315 Kaaba image I'd fixed earlier, that article had it wrong: Muhammad is not with his early followers, but in the last years of his life, forbidding intercalation after the conquest of Mecca.Proabivouac 21:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

My point is that you do not need to present that original research about most significant event in Muhammad life that you have presented above few times. You can say that you support including images of Muhammad, even if you do not know anything about them at all. Because you (and others) have been supported including Maome.jpg (and many other such pictures), when you do not know anything about it (Other then that they are in abc library or abc book cover). Hence please be honest at least. --- A. L. M. 13:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A.L.M., do you mean to say I am less than honest? Tom Harrison <sup>Talk</sup> 14:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not know but you are supporting many images which are only notable because they are old and saved by some library. Otherwise, we do not know anything about those images. Anyway, I do not wish to spend any more time here. --- A. L. M. 15:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Tom et al. This is the worst kind of cynical, bad-faith forum-seeking behavior I have seen on WP yet. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, ever so reluctantly, only because there appears to be consensus for it. Personally, I believe it belongs in another article, and it's my firm conviction that these and similar pictures are simply not worth the trouble they inevitably cause. Utterly indiscreet. Sad but true: If we had a few more editors worthy of the name, I would change this vote. As it stands, the point to be made is that we have had this discussion. BYT 03:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

BYT has mentioned before that he did not find the image offensive. --Matt57 <sup>(talk•contribs)</sup> 14:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Tom. Arrow740 08:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - the only reason this discussion exists is because certain groups of people find the image blashpemous. Given that blasphemy isn't part of any WP policy, this is irrelevant. If this were any other image on any other article, there would be no debate. Oli Filth 20:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - no copyright infringement is evident, the image clearly adds to and illustrates the article content thereby improving it as a whole, and opposition based on personal belief is inappropriate in the context of this online collaborative project. Coldmachine<sup>Talk</sup> 22:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Doesnt anyone (who supports this particular image) realize the significance of this issue. OPEN BLASPHEMY IS BEING DONE on the pretext of knowledge. where has all the sense gone. why is this picture being compared with other in-significant pictures. why just two ancient scholars being quoted in its support and a vast majority being negated. EITHER PEOPLE DELIBRATELY WANT TO COMMIT BLASPHEMY AND HURT THE MUSLIMS OR THEY WANT TO SPREAD BAD KNOWLEDGE AND IGNORANCE FURTHER DEFAMING ISLAM. scholars have been consulted. offendees have mentioned all possible rules and regulations regarding such depictions but it is falling on totally deaf ears.124.29.250.2 05:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC) please remove the painting supposedly of Prophet...its blasphemous

Rules and Regulations? The applicable and regulations that apply here are wikipedia rules and regs. Islamic policy simply does not apply to most of the world and certainly not wikipedia. The very presence of wikipedia and indeed the Internet offends the amish..however you do not find them attempting shutdown the Wikipedia. It is impractical and impossible for an encyclopedia to conform to all the worlds religions. Sincerly, I am sympathetic that the picture offends some. There are things in wikipedia that offend me as well such as Cleveland_steamer. However censorship is the enemy of knowledge and wikipedia is about knowledge. I suggest that you do as I do when it comes to articles that offend you - avoid them. Dman727 05:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me correct some misconceptions here. Islam encourages its followers to gain and share knowledge. There is an authentic quote from the Prophet Muhammad, who encouraged Muslims to gain knowledge even by going to China!! Wikipedia is definitely an effort in the right direction, but for some profanities here and there. So is the internet with a wealth of information (and filth). Its for the users to use the Internet constructively and in the right direction. Thanking You, Altruism<sup>To talk</sup> 06:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This image is the depiction of a minor event in the history of the Kaaba. It is nothing but prejudice to say that the image is irreplaceable. The insistence on retaining the image only smacks of gross distrust and misunderstanding of Islam. Thank You. --Altruism<sup>To talk</sup> 06:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia is not censored. Make sure you read this. --Matt57 <sup>(talk•contribs)</sup> 13:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Matt's (familiar) mantra. Altruism, I agree with your points, but I believe the only way to edit for the long term is to attempt to build consensus and acknowledge when it exists. The key is to stick around, particularly on a page like this one, and encourage others with a functioning conscience to do the same. Consensus can change. BYT 13:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You've said yourself before that you dont find the image offensive, yet you agree with Altruism? On top of that you just voted a Keep in this poll. Can you please clarify your Keep above by repeating that you dont find the image offensive? --Matt57 <sup>(talk•contribs)</sup> 14:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Remove: Remove the image. Only the non-Muslims and those who are using Wikipedia against Islam are in favor of keeping the Muhammad image. Muhammad Shoaib 13:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please familiarise yourself with WP:CENSOR. If you have any questions related to this you might find it helpful to contact an administrator. Coldmachine<sup>Talk</sup> 13:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, As much as I respect Elonka I disagree with her this time. I do not believe in censoring wikipedia. I've seen similar debates on censoring other articles and I put my foot down then and I have to put it down now. I know it’s a touchy subject but to be frank wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and this image is of encyclopaedic nature and it must stay.

However, I’m not against some kind of mechanism being put in place where users with strong Muslim beliefs can choose to block images and articles that they’ll find offensive. The problem is I’m no coding expert so I wouldn’t know where this is possible. Englishrose 23:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• It's simple: don't look at wikipedia, voila! Pbhj (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

'Remove: ' The highly offensive image adds very little value to the understanding of Kaaba. Remove it immediately. I am not Muslim but Im tired of blatant anti-Muslim activity on wikipedia 71.132.143.219 00:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

'Remove:' The image is unnecessary and is being used specifically to spite the followers of this religion. It should not be kept just so that people can argue semantics over wikipedia rules when the true objective is essentially a pissing contest of ideologies. Peter Deer 18:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Claiming that other editors are including this image to 'spite' followers of Islam may constitute a personal attack. Try to stay cool please. Coldmachine<sup>Talk</sup> 17:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

'Remove' This image doesn't is not valuable to the understanding of Kaaba. It is is very offensive to the muslim religion.

I believe the picture is irrelevant to the topic in todays society child porn is seen as disgraceful but the defarmation of the prophet or the muslims views has the same weight as something that defimates the religion pls remove the picture or at least remove his face —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.227.74 (talk) 11:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• 'Strong Remove'. This isn't being kept in to improve the article, it's being kept in to prove a point. I realize that there are a lot of people here who are offended by the nature of the image and want it removed because of their own personal philosophies, and while I do not personally approve of making such images, I recognize that this one was at least made respectfully. However, it does not add to the accuracy of the article or make it more informative in any way, and I see no good reason to keep it, and the only reason I see why people want to keep it is to spite the ones who want it removed because of their beliefs. Peter Deer (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

'Remove:' How is the image adding value to the content of the article? Even if few people think, there is no harm in keeping the photo, what is the harm in removing it? How is that changing the knowledge being shared through this article? There is nothing lost in removing the photo, but sure it will save the negativities developed in the muslim population worldwide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adil.zobair (talk • contribs) 17:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

'Remove' Given that Muslims are often already suspicious of movements arising from the Ocident, with such artifacts they can easily see wikipedia as a "conspiracy" against Islam. It is not wikipedia, but the specific image that insults what Muslims hold sacred. Knowledge wants to be free, but it also needs to be respectful. Please remove the image. -- Zawar Qayyum

'Remove' Please remove the image of Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.). It is highly offensive for the muslims and is not acceptable in Islam to portray the visual appearance of the Prophet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.225.94 (talk) 09:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

'Keep' Absolutely don't remove the image of Muhammad! --KpoT (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Remove The image adds nothing to the article.--Supertouch (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Remove The image does not have any historic accuracy. Its a painting in a book published almost six centuries after the Prophet's death and no known drawings of the prophet existed till the 13th century, certainly none during his lifetime or in the immediate centuries. Hence, this is an inaccurate description of the incident to be displayed with authenticity in an article on the Kaaba.NMKuttiady (talk) 05:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Replace with a picture of Ismael and Ibrahim if you can find one of them. They are way more relative to the Ka'aba than Mohammed, given that they actually built it. Umm huraira (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Remove The depection of Muhammed PBUH is hurting the religious feelings of millions of Muslims.User:Umair Kalimi (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umairkalimi (talk • contribs)

I am not a Muslim but have studied Koran and Hadith literature; I did not see anywhere it is given that a picture of prophet is against the religion. Please, let me know where it is said that any probable image of prophet is against the relgion. I have seen that an artist's impression of Mohammad is shown on many old copies of Koran. If this is not proper they would not do it. All those copies were hand writen with pictures of Mohammad shown with Ali. I feel resistance to depicting artists impression of Mohammad is of recent origin and has something to with wahhabi movement. Pathare Prabhu (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Kaaba in Pagan times(Re-Opened)

I've been talking with my history professor here at Colby College (http:/www.colby.edu). I don't have a source right now, but I have confidence that before the advent of Islam, the Kaaba was said to have housed over 300 different gods, of which Allah was only one. Does anyone have a source on this? If not, I will go and get it myself, later.--Zaorish 01:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

365 idols.

He destroyed all the idols in the Kaba, and gave a general amnesty to all his enemies in the town. [5]

http://www.google.se/search?hl=sv&q=365+idols&btnG=Google-s%C3%B6kning&meta=

I don't want to raise any hackles, but I'm curious to know: are there any pre-Islamic sources that mention the Kaaba, since it's supposed to be such an old structure? I don't mean to insinuate that it is not pre-Islamic. I'm just wondering if there's anything like a Xenophon or a Herodotus for the region that mentions something like the Kaaba in the centuries before the advent of Islam.

I've re-opened this thread as the question the author asked remained unanswered. Fr.John Meyendorff in his paper "Byzantine Views of Islam" published by Dumbarton Oafa Papers vol 18 cites a number of Byzantine sources who indicate a pre-Islamic cult that has worshipped the stone.

- John the Damascine wrote of the pre-Islamic cult of the Aphrodite who called the goddess as Habar or Haber. In his works, St John Damascine wrote that the stone symbolized the head of the Goddess.

- Constantine VII wrote the following in De administrando imperio: "They worship the star of Aphrodite, whom they kall Koubar, and during their prayers they shout "Alla oua Kubar", meaning God and Aphrodite. They call God - Alla, they use oua to connect the words, and they call the star Koubar. Thus they say Alla oua Koubar.

- Nikita Byzantine in IX century also wrote of the "idol Houbar" that represented Aphrodite.

- John Meyendorff indicates that while st John Damascine was the earliest of the three who wrote of the stone, the author indicates that this was not a new idea to Byzantine thinkers.

It should be noted that St John Damascene is viewed as anti-islamic polemist by some muslim scholars. Phrek 14:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

None of these are pre-Islamic sources, and "Alla oua Kubar" is obviously a corruption of "Allahu Akbar", which has nothing to to with the Kaaba as such. Paul B 17:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed, early writing of Byzantine thinkers contains errors and assumptions. Meyendorff in particular indicates that this is because communication between Byzantine thinkers and early Muslims was mediated by Arian and other heterodox Christian communities that were not part of The Church, this has probably created a broken telephone effect. However Byzantine polemysts of different times are common in their idea that Kaaba is pagan and that Islam has taken from many pagan concepts. Common idea is that Muhammad has purged all other pagan communities and allowed only the worship of diety of the Moon. This may be found in sources i cited prevously as well as more modern polemic works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phrek (talk • contribs) 16:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There may be some useful information here, at the bible.ca website:[6] --Elonka 04:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Clement of Alexandria mentions that "In ancient times, then, the Scythians used to worship the daggar, the Arabians their sacred stone [...]." This is in ch. 4 of his "Exhortation to the Greeks." It can be found on p. 101 of the Loeb Classic Library Edition. He was writing at the end of the 2nd Century AD. Perhaps this is an important edition to ancient pre-islamic references to the Kaaba. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyBehlen (talk • contribs) 15:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Plz REMOVE the image depicting Prophet Muhammad ( P B U H ), as it is not a true image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.39.128.231 (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Picture

A nice picutre of the mosque, one may put it into the article: http://www.burhaniya.org/_images/_jpg12/athar/kabba.jpg --Englishazadipedia 23:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a very nice picture, but in order to use images on Wikipedia, we need to be sure of licenses. We would need to know:

• Who owns the image
• When it was taken
• What license the owner will allow us to use the image under. For example, GFDL or CC-by-SA 3.0

The owner would also have to be willing to upload the image themselves, or send an email to someone, authorizing use of the picture. If you know who owns the image, I'd be happy to correspond with them to take care of the paperwork. But if this is just a random image on the web, I'm afraid we can't use it.  :/ --Elonka 23:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I kindly request you to remove the Image of our Prophet Mohammad (SWS) immediately. He used to hate to the core reproduction of some ones image in any form. Infact, we have not heard off any such Historic incident being said in any of our Islamic Scriptures. This could harm your brandname if you fail to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hknawaz (talk • contribs) 07:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Image of Mohammed

Why does it show a picture with the image of the prophet Muhammad (PBUH)? It is forbidden in Islam to have any images of the prophet. What is the point of it being placed? It is only causing arguments and anger. There is not positive side to having the photo, only negativity from it. It should be removed immediately as to respect the prophet, Islam and Muslims. Also, no one knows what the prophet Muhammad (PBUH) or any prophet (ie: Jesus (PBUH), Moses (PBUH), Abraham (PBUH), Noah (PBUH, Isaach (PHUH, Ismail (PBUH), etc. etc.) before him looks like, period.67.38.8.95 05:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This has already been debated. Please read the rest of this talk page, and the archives. Oli Filth<sup>(talk)</sup> 11:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyone has given his/her comments very freely. The supporters want this image because they say wiki is not censored. In fact this image has nothing to do with censorship. It is about wrong , inconsistant and fabricated information about a topic. It is about compliance with wiki's policy itself i.e. spreading factual information. Here facts are being hidden, a wrong and totally out of context picture being placed which alongwith many other things angering wiki's readers. so we all request the administrators to seriously consider the issue of removing this particular image from this page.124.29.250.2 10:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This issue has already been discussed. Please read the talk archives. --Strothra 12:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

you are right. this issue has been discussed but without any significant solution acceptable to everyone. That is why wiki's admin is being asked again to have a serious and un-biased look into this matter and find a solution acceptable to everyone.124.29.250.2 05:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the administrators are just going to uphold Wikipedia policy. If, however, you want to change policy, this is possible, as policy is decided by groups of established editors. If you would like to become an established editor, this is free to do, it just takes some time. Simply create an account, engage in some edits around Wikipedia, and show that you are interested in helping with the entire project. Then you will have a stronger voice in policy discussions. But so far it appears that the only thing you are using your account for, is to talk about the Kaaba. To change policy, you have to prove that you are willing to work on multiple articles. If you would like to do this, I am willing to help you. Just let me know.  :) --Elonka 05:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

ok fine. you let me know how to proceed.But you and the administrators have to accept the significance of this issue and give it serious thought.124.29.250.2 07:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC) image of muhmmad

well i understand that at the heading of this page the administrators have made a note talking about the basic policy of their site that it is uncensored .Now if you wish people to respect your policy and adhere to it then i presume you should also respect the basic fundamental principles of any religion that u publish an article about . If the basic principle forbids you from displaying any picture of the Prophet Mohammed ( pbuh) the u should at least respect it.59.94.187.63 19:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)faraz

Islam forbids Muslims from doing so. It does not forbid non-Muslims. Please don't try to impress your beliefs onto others. Oli Filth<sup>(talk)</sup> 19:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Wiki policy does not require adherence to a religion. Wiki policy does forbid censorship however.Dman727 19:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we accept the fact that it offends you. However, your offense is not taken into consideration by Wiki policies. In fact, Wiki comes complete with a disclaimer to that effect. What you are asking us to do is hypocritical - ie to censor Wikipedia so that others will respect our policies of non-censorship. --Strothra 19:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

59.94.187.63 as you have already seen, no use arguing with these people who control wiki. what we all want is to stress the significance of this issue upon the administrators. Then and only then a change in attitude will occur and this offensive picture alongwith others will be removed. Many muslims from all over the world are already contributing wiki's source but it is highly surprising that their concerns and voices are left out on this issue.

Already people have made it clear that if Kaaba topic is to be presented, it should be authentic and well in compliance with the religion to which it is most significant. we are ready to help out but being stopped from editing this page. now an offer from administrators to become a regular contributer to have our voices heard over others. That is fine but what about many others who are already established contributers and find this picture offensive. why have their concerns been hidden or overlooked. 124.29.250.2 06:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Their concerns have not been "hidden or overlooked". Whether a particular image is retained in a particular article is a binary decision; either it's included, or it's not. In such cases (where the image is relevant), the consensus has generally always been that encyclopaedic value has more merit than censoring content to avoid offending the aniconistic sensibilities of a particular religion. Therefore, the decisions have generally always been to include such images. Obviously, this will leave some people who continue to be offended, but they are generally pointed at the Wikipedia content disclaimer. Oli Filth<sup>(talk)</sup> 09:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Brother this picture is an artist impression of an event which happened many years before this picture was made. you will find many other pictures like these but does that make them all authentic. since this picture is attributed to University of edinburgh, they have flatly refused to accept that wiki has taken it from them. you might make 10 such images and claim that each one is authentic as taken from a reputed source but in this case the reputed source is also denying its release to wiki. Therefore this picture has been picked up from somewhere (like many others) and placed here as an open source of spreading ignorance. wiki is neither as reputed nor as authoritative than university of edinburgh or encyclopedia britanica. These two sources are very much controlled and reserved on this issue. why is wiki being so open about it. even editing has been blocked for this article showing discriminatory behaviour on part of administrators.124.29.224.136 04:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're claiming here; are you saying that the use of the image is a breach of copyright, or are you saying that the image isn't authentic? With more proof, either of these may be valid reasons for its removal.

As for the article being protected from anonymous editing, that (I imagine) is simply a reaction to the number of times the article has been vandalised in the past. Oli Filth<sup>(talk)</sup> 10:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The copyright is questionable as already edinburagh university has confirmed (you can go on and confirm yourself by contacting them) that they are not the ones responsible for giving it to you but your site attributes it to their collection. Moreover this image is supposed to be from a collection of persian scripts made during the time of ottoman empire many (hundred) years after this event actually took place making it an artist impression of the event. However the same scripts (Al-Jamah At-Tawarikh) are present in topkapi museum turkey and this particular image is not present in them. so you all can see this picture is both in-authentic and a breach of copyright.124.29.224.136 04:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As has been discussed before, the copyright is in no way questionable as the artwork is far too old (14th century) to have any legal standing copyright protection attributed to it. Further, no one has claimed that this image is an exact likeness of Muhammad or the event that occurred. However, it is of historical importance due to the artwork's antiquity and the rarity of depictions concerning the event and individuals in question. Moreover, just because a museum in Turkey does not include a piece of artwork, does not mean that it is inauthentic. It's laughable to expect the Turks to so publicly place a depiction of Muhammad on display. The government might claim to be secular, but the ulema still carries a great deal of weight among the Turkish Muslim people. --Strothra 04:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear you are openly contradicting the copyright issue. It is neither from university of edinburagh nor from Bibliotheque Nationale that is for sure. what is the real source of this image. someone must have picked it up from somewhere without properly scrutinising the facts regarding this image. we dont even know whether someone from wiki has made it him / her self. None of you has any real proof about its source. why the turkish manuscript was mentioned because it is open for everyone to see. No one from wiki who support having this image seems to go through any trouble to validate its source. This image and all other on "Depictions of Muhammad" page are claimed to be from 2 / 3 persian manuscripts. No one from your side has seen the real manuscript and even if someone did see it nobody is that well versed with persian to accurately translate it. So the likeness of such image (s) is that if it is present in the script (which is again doubtful) it might depict something else and has been wrongly interpreted. 124.29.224.136 (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have contrary evidence that the picture is not from a digital repository at the University of Edinburgh, or the Bibliotheque Nationale? If so, present it. Either way, as Strothra says, the image is well outside the scope of copyright being 14th century. Also, I object to your implication that there are 'sides' to this issue; that borders on what some might consider a personal attack. I'm amazed this whole debate is still ongoing...the same points of view have been rehashed over and over again. With all due respect can't we move on to something productive, such as editing or creating new article content? Coldmachine<sup>Talk</sup> 13:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

i can copy / paste the reply of university of edinburgh administrator regarding this issue. this picture is not outside the scope of copyright as its source is not what is mentioned on wiki. it has not been taken from university of edinburgh.questionable image sources are not included in wiki that is what the policy says all of you know it.

it would be so much better if we move on to editing this article with much better and authentic content.124.29.224.136 (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue with showing Muhammad's (PBUH) picture is not that of Copyright or Authenticity. In fact one must understand that it is Forbidden in Islam to show a person's picture, and call it Muhammad (Authentic or Not). You simply cannot personify him in any picture. This issue is so controversial that big encyclopedias and widely used information sources have restrained from using any picture to depict the events that took place. Therefore, before things come into wider notice, it would be wise to remove the picture. There have been chaos, property loss, processions, strikes etc in the past based on this issue, and I am sure nobody wants them repeated. Therefore, putting all copyright issues, and censorship issues beside, please remove the picture in the name of peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.49.43.19 (talk) 17:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

WOW! The statement above is literally a direct threat of physical violence. Perhaps it is veiled in some semi-peaceful language, but that statement could easily be used as evidence of threatening bodily harm in a Western court of law. I suppose we'll see more of this in the upcoming days... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.150.140.219 (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody here is going to repeat to you what has been said before. Please read this and the archives of this talk page ([7], [8]). Wikipedia is not censored. The copyright issue has also been discussed. No one can claim copyright for this image. Its a historical image. Please read previous discussions on all this. --Matt57 <sup>(talk•contribs)</sup> 14:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if I accept that it is forbidden in Islam, this is not Islamic-Wikipedia. Perhaps YOU cannot personify the Prophet. Threats do not usually sway here, either... be they explicit or talking about 'chaos, property loss... based on this issue." Perhaps if you do not want to see the depiction you should retrain yourself, rather than try and restrain others. Epthorn (talk) 13:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason this issue is being dragged on is because of claims and counter claims by the supporters and those who are against its inclusion. why this discussion is counter productive towards wiki is simply because everyone is being personal, not taking into account the general view. Why Muslims dont want it included is obvious, it does not comply with the principles of their religion, about which this article describes one of the most sacred holy places related to that religion. why Non-Muslims (majority perhaps) want it included is also obvious, in their opinion it depicts a historically important event connected to Holy Kaaba itself. In reality to make this particular article better and wiki's content better and acceptable to most of viewrs, the issue should be authenticity of the content and the references related to that content. In this regard the best to decide are the administrators of wiki. so they are kindly requested to review this matter and decide on best course of action.Any extreme is bad for wiki's image.124.29.224.136 (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Images of our Prophet Muhammad(pbuh)should in no way be made or shown or uploaded whether it resembles him or not, because it is forbidden in Islam by anyone and it greatly hurts the sentiments of Muslims.Any such websites,social networking sites,public domains etc.be it censored or not,or copyrighted or not should refrain from doing so.

1979 events

Missing from this page: The events of 1979 (Sunnite attacks). I believe this should be included here. 91.97.59.113 (talk) 07:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Boston Times

Maybe I'm way off here, but did the Boston Globe independently verify the claim that the Kaaba was a shrine for the Daughters of God (al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat) and Hubal. The Boston Globe reference just stood out as odd, as I believe the given claim has been known to historians. Perhaps the Boston Globe ref. should be substituted for some well-known historical references? Thanks. MP <sup>(talk•contribs)</sup> 21:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

lat, manat and uzza were simply idols used for worship during the pagan times. in this conext boston globe reference needs to be substitiuted.124.29.224.136 (talk) 05:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A large building ?

The first paragraph states that the Kaaba is "a large cuboidal building". In what sense of the english-language word "large", in the context of buildings, can this structure be considered "large" ? Look at the photos ! While in no way diminishing the importance of this building, it is NOT large.Eregli bob (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Was..--139.179.207.248 (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I altered the article to correct the mistaken impression that is has a roughly cubic shape. "The Kaaba is a large masonry structure in the shape of a parallelepiped. Since one edge is about 20% longer than its shortest edge, it cannot be called even "roughly" cubic or "cuboidal". Mumbo-jumbophobe (talk) 09:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You did a great job of editing it. Now it links to nowhere land, as there is no page for parallelepiped. As to geometry, who cares? The name means cube in Arabic, and it is a roughly cuboid shape. Please fix the "redirect" of parallelepiped as it's not helping anyone understand the Ka'aba OR geometry. Umm huraira (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Perhaps it has a "roughly cuboid shape" and perhaps it doesn't. As you say, Who cares? But the article says it is "cube-shaped" and THAT IS A LIE. It may mean "cube" in Arabic, but this is English and IT IS NOT A CUBE. Mumbo-jumbophobe (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Qibla

Hi,

could someone please clarify which direction exactly is referenced by Qibla? I noticed, esp. in southeast asia and Australia, but also in India, that the arrow indicating the direction of prayer simply points eastward (whereas in this case, the shortest path to Mecca would be facing west). So is it a general rule that people are supposed to pray towards the east (rather than towards Mecca itself), or is that just a cultural tradition?

Thanks,Duagloth (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

For the residents of India, southeast asia and Australia it is obligatory to face westward or north-west towards Kaaba for prayers, depending upon where they are. Can you please tell where you learnt that people face eastward in that region? - Zawar

pre-Islamic history of the Ka'ba

I think that more could be added to the pre-Islamic history of the Ka'ba. The hatim is described briefly, but its pre-Islamic significance is not discussed. I propose that the following is added: All of this, unless mentioned otherwise, is from:U Rubin, "The Kacba. Aspects of its ritual functions and position in pre-Islamic and early Islamic times", Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 8 (1986), 97-131. According to the literature of Ibn Jurayj, the structure pre-dating the Ka'ba was a low-walled enclosure called an arish. It is described as such a rudimentary structure that “cattle could burst into” its precincts. This description recalls the animal-centred function of the hima, which, according to the encyclopedia of Islam, was a "forbidden" area reserved by a nomadic lord for his exclusive pasturing rights. When there was rain, water would flood down from higher ground of Safa and Mawra, two hills adjacent to the Ka'ba. A protective wall, called jidar, was located to this side of the Ka'ba, standing between it and the hills. The hijr, meaning "inviolable and sacrosanct," was on the same side, between the ka'ba and the jidar. Muslim tradition upholds that the location of the hijr had been that of Ishmael’s pen for his sheep. An interesting parallel: jidar (gidar) means pen for sheep in ancient Hebrew. Indeed, Uri Rubin asserts that the hijr had a “profound ritual significance which is connected with sacrificial slaughter” and he suggests that animals kept in the hijr were consecrated as belonging to the idols. al hijr was also referred to as al-hatim which has the same sacred connotations. This name reinforces the ritualistic nature of the hijr area. 113 hatim means literally “a crush” or “crowding” and that refers to people crowding for “oaths of supplications.” The place where pre-islamic Arabs practiced the qasama which is a type of oath. 114. The hijr was also connected to the tossing or casting of objects, such as votive gifts: “these traditions apparently reflect a pre-Islamic idea concerning the functions of this area as the dwelling of the noble dead, in honor of whom, votive gifts were laid upon, or buried in, the ground.” 117 gifts also deposited inside the Ka’ba. The Quraysh decided to rebuild the Kaba because of continuing floods and the need for more more protection than just the jidar protective wall. (p99) Became a “permanent roofed structure” and different reports detail the acquisition of wood from a Byzantine merchant. (101) The ka'ba was reconstructed in a square shape because lack of funds prevented them including the semi-circular hijr as well. Paintings were on the inside of the Ka'ba in pre-Islamic times: the images included prophets, angels, trees, images of Jesus and Mary. 102 When Muhammad finally took control of Mecca, he ordered for all of the paintings to be wiped off except for the image of Jesus and Mary which he requested to remain. The architecture of the Ka'ba, according to GRD King, was of a technique that correlates with the Axumite practices of the time: P20 the Ka’ba, built with alternating masonry and wood courses; a technique that shows its contact with other lands especially Ethiopia, “To this extent, the Ka’ba of ca 608 AD was a building deriving in its construction from the mutually interpenetrated milieu of the Red Sea coast]]al lands.”

Any comments? I dont know what the reputation of U rubin's article is, since it was published quite a few years ago. also, he depends mostly on muslim sources -- I could clarify which muslim literary sources he takes each piece of information from.

Sincerely, sara (sswetzoff@gmail.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.21.34 (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I have an objection to the use of non-Arab or even non-regional sources about the history and pre-history of Kaaba. Here I see a bias to use european references. One must note the long history of hostility between Europe and the Islamic world. Consequently, European writers have frequently written unauthentic and decidedly negative accounts of the holy places and eminent personalities of Islam. Plus at least one source cannot be validated to exist and I would ask it to be removed (details below). To rely solely on outsider sources on the history of Kaaba makes about as much sense as getting details on the stone henge from midevial chinese texts.

I cannot locate the reference [18] "Ask the Globe", Boston Globe, April 23, 1999. If this text does not exist on the web or in print, then it should not be referred to since the exact text cannot be verified.

The reference [21] Brother Andrew. Hubal, the moon god of the Kaba. bible.ca. Retrieved on 2007-09-04, which is written in a clearly hostile tone, relies on the text "The Hajj, F. E. Peters, p 3-41, 1994" on its description of the Hubal idol. According to that source, the idol was acquired by the Quraish tribe before it got its place in Kaaba. Therefore, it is unfair to say that the "Kaaba was dedicated to Hubal". This weasel sentence connotes that this association was there right from the start.

Please make the Islamic tradition section consistent with whats written in the article on Masjid_al-Haram. Here it says that Kaaba was first constructed by Ibrahim and his son (peace be upon them). However the Masjid Al Haram article (correctly) describes it to be built by angels, and then by Adam (peace be upon him). Please eliminate any inconsistencies between these 2 articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zawarq (talk • contribs) 10:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

My above comments have not been responded to or acted upon since they were written about 6 months ago. Since this article is classed as very imported, I would request the editors to kindly be more vigilant. Zawar Qayyum —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC).

Basically, the human history is starting with the first man, that mean Islam starting with this man, who laid stone for Kaaba In Mecca. Prophet Ibrahim and son Ismail had rebuild the site of Kaaba. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.61.95 (talk) 06:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Mohamed (PBUH) is the last and final messenger and prophet of Almighty God and Adam is the first man and prophet of Islam and Almighty Allah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.61.95 (talk) 06:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Centre of the Earth,

Is Kabaa the centre of the earth??? as i've read it so many times.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.118.143.90 (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

yes it is......brother.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.98.166.57 (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If the earth is a ball, then how can its center be on the surface?--96.246.244.238 (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not. It is believed to be the starting point of a column of noor from Earth to... heaven maybe.--139.179.207.248 (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Notice how most, if not all, of the extremist comments are anon? I wonder why the extremists are always anon? Some might call that cowardice, but perhaps it is because the extremists get their accounts banned because of doing un-Wiki-like things, such as deleting the images that portray Muhammad. The Kabaa isn't the center of the Earth (by the way, Earth is capitalized when you are speaking of the place). Any center of a sphere would be arbitrary, or placed for mathematical purposes (to determine points therein). Supertheman <sup>(talk)</sup> 19:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

How are theological comments considered to be "extremist"? I agree they're not valid for entry on a Wikipedia article, but these beliefs are not "extreme" by any measure. In fact, there are an infinite number of axes that intersect the center of a sphere so yes, the Ka'aba (and every other point on the face of the Earth) is the center. Problem solved?Umm huraira (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sister,is absolutely right and well it has been scientifically proven also that Ka'bah is at the center of the earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.98.174.110 (talk) 10:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Islamic tradition is that Kaaba is the earliest mosque. That is all. The ideas that it is the centre of the earth, or pre-dates the universe, are just unsustainable rumours. There was a building on the site as early as 2130 BC, but the present building is only some 400 years old.203.184.41.226 (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Ka‘bah - WP:BRD

I am aware that the name of the article is "Kaaba", which is a common English spelling. However, shouldn't we go with the correct spelling, especially given that it employs no special characters? The consensus on other Arabic names is to provide redirects to the correct spelling of the name with the exception of country names etc (Iraq, not al-‘Iraq).

A quick googling shows that "Kaaba" nets about 400,000 English results and "Ka‘bah" nets 110,000, so it's not completely out of the blue. Shouldn't we make an effort to provide correct information? Naahid بنت الغلان <sup>Click to talk</sup> 18:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Preponderance of Google hits should never be our standard. The Ka'bah spelling is pertinent and useful information to one such as myself, who comes to this page for research and basic information. The spelling should at least be included in the summery, and, -if it represents a more accurate phonic for English speakers- throughout the article; if this is done, the alternate spelling should be included in the summery.Mavigogun (talk) 05:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I definitely feel that Wikipedia and the general public would be better served by providing the standard form as Ka‘ba and listing Kaaba as an alternate form only in the introduction. Much like "Moslem", it's an antiquated and highly-inaccurate transcription. I reckon this would also involve a page move. Does anyone object to this? Naahid بنت الغلان <sup>Click to talk</sup> 05:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I use Kaaba throughout Wikipedia. There was a small discussion on this in 2005 (see Kaaba talk Archive 1 - Unify spelling). There should be some kind of consensus for this before any major changes are made. This should be mentioned at WikiProject Islam. MP <sup>(talk•contribs)</sup> 10:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

We should stick with whatever the accepted primary transcription is, IMO. So far as I'm aware, that's Kaaba. Obviously, Ka'bah is the more accurate rendition. ITAQALLAH 17:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Just out of interest, how does one determine which is the more accurate rendition, given that there isn't a one-to-one mapping between Arabic and Latin characters? Oli Filth<sup>(talk|contribs)</sup> 18:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The Library of Congress standard is used by Universities and scholarly writings the world over. ‘ is the ‘ayin. Naahid بنت الغلان <sup>Click to talk</sup> 18:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no one "correct spelling" of any Arabic word using Roman letters. There are several different systems of transliteration and the spellings can be considered correct or incorrect as per each system, but not against Arabic itself.

Is it ironic that you guys are enjoining in the exact same argument the "extremists" have? "Oh you should spell it inshaAllah." "No, you should spell it inshAllah." "No, brother, the correct way is inshallah. Do not abbreviate it or there is no reward." Umm huraira (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Well inside the Kaaba

This is interesting, not sure if it can be incorporated in some way: http://www.inter-islam.org/faith/Majorsigns.html#snake 72.226.64.201 (talk) 14:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That is not interesting, it's POV. And nuts. ناهد/(Nåhed) <sub>speak!</sub> 19:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There's little to no menetion of how others views differ

One article I quoted said: "There is no reference in the Bible to this event nor to Abraham’s being in ancient Mecca.—Genesis 12:8–13:18." Just to show some differing views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Standforder (talk • contribs) 01:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

"Stone of Good Fortune"?

There's a request in Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Social_sciences for an article on the Stone of Good Fortune. Does anyone have any reputable info on this aspect of the Kaaba? All I could find on Google was stuff like this: http://i-cias.com/e.o/kaaba.htm MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Screwups on the Kaaba page -- bad references -- PLEASE FIX THEM!

I noticed us ordinary folks can't fix or edit the Kaaba page, which seems reasonable.
HOWEVER, there are some fixes that need to be made to references on this page!!!

To wit:

• in the section History / Before Islam, in the 9th paragraph which begins "Many accounts..."
  • right there at the beginning is a superscripted reference that says "[which?]"
  • and at the end of that sentence is another superscripted reference that says "[weasel words]"
  • what the hell? those are lousy things to put on such an important religious page... please fix or remove those stupid reference tags
• in the later section Islamic tradition / At the time of Muhammad, in the second paragraph that starts "After this pivotal migration..."
  • in the last sentence of that paragraph it says "Muhammad recited [Qur'an 17:81]", but the words "Qur'an 17:81" in the reference are superscripted which means that reference tag is badly formatted

Please fix these! They look bad! This is a very important page on a very important religious topic for both Muslims and pre-Islamic pagans!

If I could, I'd just edit and fix them, but editing is blocked... so please fix this!

Thank you, and
Blessings on the House of Wiki!
76.243.129.217 (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

small link correction needed

The sentence referenced to the Boston Globe , one of the goddesses is linked incorrectly. al-Lat is the sumerian goddess, it should be Allāt who was the pre-islam arabian goddess. Can a registered user pls fix. thanks --78.86.25.78 (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Should now point to Allāt. Euryalus (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Given the other sources we have, why is the Boston Globe's opinion even relevant? --99.245.206.188 (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Eschatology?

I don't understand the relevance of this template. --99.245.206.188 (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Error

The second sentence of the article begins, The building [i.e. the Kaaba] predates Islam.... According to Islam, isn't this wrong ? The only way it can be construed as true is if Islam means the religion established in the Arabian peninsula during and after the time of Muhammad. But this is not true, according to Muslim beliefs. Or perhaps, according to some non-muslims, the belief is that the building does predate "Islam". I think clarification is needed. MP <sup>(talk•contribs)</sup> 23:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I checked the Hadith quoted at citation 11 from its source url and it seems that it has been reproduced erroneously. "Volume 2, Book 26, Number 667:

   Narrated 'Abis bin Rabia:

   'Umar came near the Black Stone and kissed it and said "No doubt, I know that you are a stone and can neither benefit anyone nor harm anyone. Had I not seen Allah's Apostle kissing you I would not have kissed you."

however it says Umrah instead of Umar in the article. please correct it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S8isfi (talk • contribs) 15:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Abu Simbel?

The article says the hatim includes the grave of "Abu Simbel". That appears to be a nonsensical interpolation. Could someone delete it please?

86.137.96.144 (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Error concerning the Kaaba's cleaning

The source given is http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2005-12/29/article08.shtml. The Kaaba is cleaned with Zamzam and Rosewater. NOT Persian Rosewater. This may lead to the misconception that Iran is involved in a tradition that predated Iranian involvement in Islam. —Preceding unsigned contribs) 20:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

did anyone else notice that there was a picture of the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) on this article? Its the picture with him holding the black stone with the quraysh. I hope someone can remove the picture to respect muslims. Ztarztar (talk)ztarztar —Preceding undated comment added 11:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC).

Longstanding WP:CONSENSUS in Wikipedia is that images of Muhammad will not be removed. However, it is possible to set up your preferences so you personally do not have to view them. Rodhullandemu 16:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

30 cm...

Apparently, the Black Stone is 30cm diameter but the picture shows it more that three times bigger than the people... unless the people are really small.

You might be talking about the picture on the article on the Black Stone , I believe. The stone itself is small, but the silver frame around it is big. I don't think there's anything disproportionate.NMKuttiady (talk) 11:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Picture of pilgrim

I have removed the picture prominently showing a smiling pilgrim with a small Ka'bah in the background. This is entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia as the focus is clearly upon the person and not the subject of the article. The picture shows the Ka'bah from the same angle as the first picture thus contributing nothing to the page. DO NOT replace this picture with out at least discussing the issues I have raised—Wikipedia is not a depository for tourist pictures.--Supertouch (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I was mistaken, the picture with the pilgrim shows the Ka'bah from the side containing the door, however, this angle is already included on the page in another picture.--Supertouch (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment from IP

Stop making the page controversial,the picture is fake and not of Ottomon Era at all. It was forbidden to Draw pictures of Muhammad(saw) in the Ottomon era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.33.99 (talk) 02:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This is correct. It was severely punished, even. -andy 77.190.22.162 (talk) 12:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Black Stone

My comment is about the article about the black stone.

I happen to be Muslim, and i happen to trust and respect (those words may be used in the past tense after seeing your reply) Wiki enough that when i wanted to do some research on my own religion, i clicked on Wiki to find out about the black stone and its history in my religion.

As i scroll down the page what do i see but a picture of our prophet (pbuh) who we Muslims hold in extremely high regard.

There is the common sense fact that 98.5% of people looking at the page must be Muslim in the first place, i say this as i am unaware of the name or existence of any jewish relic of some sort or christian relic which can be compared to the stone in order that i would be inclined to search for information on it, therefore i cant suddenly imagine hundreds or thousands of non-Muslim people to suddenly realise that there is a black stone in the Kaaba in Mecca and look it up on Wikipedia.

You are aware of the public problems caused by this type of action and what a stir the subject of pictures of the prophet (pbuh) creates, whilst i do not condone any of the extreme actions taken by some over the matter, i would definitely consider editing/taking the picture down and informing you of what you are doing by leaving it there.

It is very very insulting to Muslims for somebody to draw an image of our prophet (pbuh) you must understand, and ultimately, the picture serves absolutely no purpose in that it adds any value to the description of the stone or the article.

If you are to weigh up its purpose for being there, against the insult that is definitely caused to some people that see it, you would realise that it is clearly not sensible to put such a thing up.

By leaving the picture up you are trying to say 'look at me, i am protecting the idea of free speech which nobody can take away from me and leaving this image on the page serves as a testimony to the fact' when in fact, you are just insulting people for no purpose whatsoever, and saying 'hey look at me, in the guise of, or me thinking that i am, protecting editorial integrity itself and the idea of free speech, i am insulting a vast number of people by placing an image in an article that adds arguably zero value to the article, and is not and never was a critical part of the subject of the article'

Please leave it off the page...

peace and love

I CANT BELIEVE IT, you have done the same thing in the article about the 'Kaaba' (my comments were about seeing the picture in the article about 'The black stone') and placed the picture there too.

Now it is very obvious that you are just putting it up there to insult.

Read this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Images of Muhammad. --Matt57 <sup>(talk•contribs)</sup> 21:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Chandragupta II

The article Chandragupta II claims "Vikramaditya inscription found in the Kaaba in Mecca proving beyond doubt that the Arabian Peninsula formed a part of his Indian Empire", giving page 315 of Sayar-ul-Okul as a reference. To me, the entire para about Vikramaditya's supposed inscription the Kaaba seems to be pesudohistorical junk. There seems to be no reliable source for this -- only fringe theories on unreliable websites. I wanted to delete the entire text straightaway, but thought of consulting someone more knowledgeable about Kaaba. Any inputs? utcursch | talk 15:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Just googled a little bit and realized that it's a theory put forward by infamous pseudohistorian Purushottam Nagesh Oak, which means it's junk. Deleted the entire para from the article. utcursch | talk 15:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I've read he has similar theories on the StoneHenge being a Hindu temple and Christianity being "a mal-pronunciation of the Sanskrit term Chrisn-nity also spelled as Krishna-neeti" and that the Papacy was "a Vedic priesthood" until Constantine the Great killed the Vedic pope to replace him with the head of the hitherto unimportant Christian sect. Can't find those sources now, but just shows the lengths to which pseudohistorical junk can stretch.NMKuttiady (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I cant believe that the editors of wikipedia are ignoring many of the historians and jusdging them on their own, there are lot of different views, no one is asking you to belive those but you can just mention those in wikipedia article. Its the same case with dispute about Kaaba being some Hindu temple, there are many Historians who point that out, many such citations do offend some set of people but since when did wikipedia became a platform of appeasement?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.161.160.10 (talk) 13:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Top of the Babylon Tower Ziggurat

Top of the ziggurat symbolizes Marduk. Marduk is a sun, a moon and a star god. First of all Marduk is sun. Kaaba is top of a ziggurat without a ziggurat on the ground in fact. Thus the people can walk around the sun god Marduk like the planets. Ziggurats and pyramits are same meaning in principle.

• "Shamash (Akkadian Šamaš "Sun") was a native Mesopotamian deity and the sun god in the Akkadian, Assyrian and Babylonian pantheons. Shamash was the god of justice in Babylonia and Assyria, corresponding to Sumerian Utu.

Akkadian šamaš "Sun" is cognate to Hebrew שמש šemeš and Arabic شمس šams."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamash

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_(mythology)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishtar

MARDUK AS TRIPLET:

MARDUK = SUN + MOON + STAR

MARDUK = SHAMASH + SIN + ISHTAR

MARDUK = TAMMUZ + BAAL + ASTARTE

SPADE = CROSS + CRESCENT + PENTAGRAM

http://www.spiritualizm.com/birbilgi/bbpiramitresimler2.html

http://arcanumdeepsecrets.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/the-pillars-of-empire-must-fall/

Baal = Hubal = Ha Baal = The Baal

http://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hubal&oldid=7256190

http://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marduk&oldid=7877613

http://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tart%C4%B1%C5%9Fma:Masonluk&oldid=7388171#Masonlu.C4.9Fun_simgeleri_ile_Marduk.27un_simgeleri

Crescent = Hilal is a symbol of Baal

http://scripturetext.com/isaiah/14-12.htm

"How you have fallen from heaven, O CRESCENT-STAR of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations!

--Piramitdünya (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Sun and heart symbols at the door of Kaaba: [9]

There are two holder at the door. These are formed as a heart symbol. The heart symbols symbolize Ishtar (Astarte). A heart symbol is made from spade of Marduk (bottom) and hip of Ishtar (above)

Spades: [10] [11] [12] [13]

The door of the Kaaba is illustrated with sun symbols. Arabic شمس šams. In Babylonia Shamash (Akkadian Šamaš "Sun"). [14] [15] --Piramitdünya (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal of ornaments by al-Wahhab

In my book A History Of The Middle East, second edition, by Peter Mansfield. Page 41.

This section is about the Ibn Abd al-Wahhab and his warriors.

They then turned westwards and in 1806 took the Hejaz with the Islamic holy places of Mecca and Medina. They destroyed many of the saints' and tombs and stripped the Kaaba - Islam's holiest shrine, in the Mecca Great Mosque - of its ornaments, which outraged their fierce puritanism

Is this true? What ornaments did they remove?

Velle (talk) 01:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Black Stone

why does the first sentence in the paragraph about the black stone have the word bitch in it? Isn't that out of context?

Image placement in article

Below the heading Black Stone are five images and a video. The first two images relate to the Black Stone, but the amount of text is so small that in a typical browsing window, the second images displays alongside the section headed In the Qur'an even though it has nothing to do with the Qur'an. The next three pictures are historical, relating to the 17th century, 1880, and 1910. The video is 20th or 21st century. These three images and video display alongside sections headed After Abraham and Ishmael and Before Muhammad. It would be better if these images were moved to a different section of the article, perhaps a to-be-written section History (17th century–present. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Al-Roubi Reference

The PDF for "A Reply to Patricia Crone" is fairly easy to find, but I can find no other mention or reference to the alleged author after searching the KAU website, JStor, and Google Scholar, nor can I find many of the mentioned references (some don't even line up, such as the reference to Book 23 VI:47 in Ammianus' Roman History, but I'm going to assume my own illteracy here as I had to get the citation from Crone's book), let alone any other publications.

The only external reference I have found is a student asking for the author's contact information in the KAU facebook group in order to cite the reply (with the subsequent claim that the reference had been removed from wiki because of a lack of notability)

Can anyone more learned in this matter comment?

Barakitty (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Blackstone.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Blackstone.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Blackstone.JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

impossibly long name with no cited source?

this:

a man named "Amr bin Lahyo bin Harath bin Amr ul-Qais bin Thalaba bin Azd bin Khalan bin Babalyun bin Saba", — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.76.50 (talk) 05:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Facing Kaaba is not that hard and part of the ritual of pray

Just to touch a recent edit. It is actually easy, because many pray mats have a compass built in. Every Android and Ipad tablet has a Qibla compass which shows you where to pray. Every mosque built on Earth (big statement). Is built with its "alter" to face the Kaba. Ascertaining The Qibla is an obligatory aspect of Salaat. So it is not an exaggeration to say that all Muslims face the Kaba when they pray.

How about "most Muslims around the world..."? I'd say "All Muslims [X]" is always an exaggeration, unless [X] is "are Muslim". --Allen (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The key variable is Muslims who pray, face the Kaaba. I dont think it is most, it would be all. I am unaware of any Muslim who prays and faces the North Pole, or any random place. --Inayity (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

We cannot verify this thus we can't say it. That's the way Wikipedia works. Please read WP:VERIFY. Dougweller (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, but it can be written in a way that is accurate, To say Most suggest that some dont-- which is also invalid. It might be better to say are expected to. I dont know. On a side note the film Pitch Black shows Muslims on that alien planet where facing Kaaba was impossible. So they faced in a circle. (i just thought I would bring that up for no good reason other than to share).Kaaba, and many books will confirm this --Inayity (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

"Are expected to" is fine. Thanks for the suggestion. It's better than 'most'. Dougweller (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to resurrect this, I am sure that at times Muslims that prayed did not know for sure where the Kaaba was relative to their current location, so they had to use their best guess. Tablets and GPS are relatively new, and not everyone has access to them. There are also the cases of, say, a ship wrecked sailor, who would have neither of those, and would make their best guess . Also, to be fair, facing Kaaba is *infinitely* harder than the Christian practice of *not* facing a special direction, but that's due to a divide by zero issue :-) 134.161.227.70 (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Demolition?

According to Wikipedia, since 1985 95% of historic buildings in Mecca have been destroyed. To quote: "Wahhabism, is hostile to any reverence given to historical or religious places of significance for fear that it may give rise to idolatry". Is it also intended to demolish the Kaaba?203.184.41.226 (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

When was the present structure actually built?

The article has a shocking lack of definite, prominent information on which the actually extant black structure was built. Near as I can tell, based on a single sentence, the answer is 1629. You'd think that information would be a lot more prominent in the article (maybe in the infobox or something). --Cyde Weys 15:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree -- I came here to find the *actual* history of this object, and this article claims it was build my fictional characters from the Christian/Judeo/Islamic mythology. Claiming Abraham built it is like claiming Santa built it.... 134.161.227.70 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

According to Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire, p. 354 (Google Books, search "1630"): "In 1630, however, a freak flood inundated the Great Mosque and caused great structural damage to the Kaaba. This required the direct intervention of sultan Murad IV... who sent workmen from Egypt to carefully restore the mosque". According to German Wikipedia (through Google Translate, accessed on 2013-10-24): "After 1630, the Kaaba was badly damaged in a flood, that they threatened to collapse, prompting the Ottoman Sultan Murad IV in the same year a new building. [5] The present building dates from this period.". According to a blog in French (same remark): "In the year 1630, the northwest wall of the Kaba was damaged by a great flood. Sultan Muraad ordered its demolition and rebuilt according to the model of Quraysh and using the original stones. Since no one has changed its model drastically. Only minor renovations have taken place. This is the Kaba that exists today." --Alekol (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Not a comparative religion page

Islam has 1.5 billion people why is the lead about Islam referencing a Jewish site? In the body, with other ref to other religions then fair-is fair. But It looks very suspect reading about an Islamic Holy cite special to 1.5 billion people and needs to be "made sense of" by comparing it to another faith. It would make more sense to compare to Christianity. Why is it there in the first place? And if this was a Jewish page I would argue Judaism does not need Islam in its lead to justify or explain Judaism. I have had their attitude across wikipedia since i have been here. African traditional religions do not need Islam and Christianity in there first line to be valid. You can also see i deleted it from there also. I have no problem with it in the body, but not the first line of the lead. --Inayity (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Standardised spelling.

Time to open this old chestnut again, I think we should stick to a standardised spelling of Kaaba in this article. There seem to be about four variations used including Kaaba (the article title), Caaba, Ka'ba and Ka'aba. I think we should stick to a singular spelling, namely 'Kaaba' as it is the article title and the most common variant currently in use in the article. I believe exceptions should be made for when the alternate spellings are used within quotes as would be standard practice with quotes elsewhere on Wikipedia. If there are no serious objections I will make this change.IrishStephen (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

As it has been more than two days with no objections I will make the change to a standardised spelling that I mentioned above. IrishStephen (talk) 03:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you IrishStephen for the standardization. Unfortunately, most of the Arabic names doesn't have a standard transliteration in English. So as you suggest, if a word doesn't have a standard transliteration in English then we should use Wikipedia article name on that subject, if exist. For example if the article name is Kaaba, then all words refer to there should be Kaaba in the Article. Not Qaaba, Qabah, Kabah, Kaabah etc.. I also want to add, similarly, Wikipedia transliterates the city where Kaaba is in as Mecca. So we should stick on this name. If anybody believe that "i.e. Mecca" is a wrong transliteration then they should discuss that issue on that page before making a change here. Thank you.Yakamoz51 (talk) 10:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

الكعبة‎ is al-k-ain-bah. The ain is the problem. Really no way to show it in English script. PiCo (talk) 05:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Last revert

Kindly explain, how it's "self-published" and that it holds no credibility while other same kind of sources have, remembering that this is not the fan site, every kind of reliable information is allowed. Capitals00 (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

"Reliable" being the key there. iUniverse is a pay-to-publish shop with no editorial oversight. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Which one you found in 'iUniverse'. Capitals00 (talk) 05:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

"India Once Ruled the Americas." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Link? Capitals00 (talk) 06:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a source that you added to the article. I'm not going to give you the link to your own citation, you've wasted my patience with you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Then how i would know about the basis of your assumption? Capitals00 (talk) 06:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

google: India Once Ruled the Americas! --> First link: http://www.amazon.com/India-Once-Ruled-Americas-Matlock/dp/0595134688 -> Publisher: iUniverse (December 4, 2000) -> google: iuniverse -> First link ( and numerous ads ) :iUniverse - Self Publishing Company | Book Publishers -- they are a self described self-publisher. A few links down: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IUniverse Took me longer to write this up than it did to figure out that this is not a reliable source. 134.161.227.70 (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

This would be fine?:- "Perceived identity of a muslim saint and a hindu deity parallels the notion, that Allah resembles Lord Shiva, arguments supporting this identity include the resemblance of the Kaaba to a shiva Lingam. British chronicles of the 18th century referred to the same belief. Capitals00 (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

No. As I said on Talk:Conversion of non-Muslim places of worship into mosques, your "source" states, "The perceived identity of a muslim saint and a hindu diety parallels the notion, widespread in coastal central Kerala, that allah resembles Lord Shiva in being the supreme deity and that, prior to becoming a centre of muslim faith, the Kaaba in Mecca(saudi arabia) had been a bana(arrow) lingam, and therefore, it's sorrounding mosque a shiva temple.". Which clearly indicates that this is a notion widespread in coastal central Kerala, not a fact. Also, either write out the quote completely or do not use a quote at all. What you just did was Wikipedia:Cherry-picking. Your continued insistance on this "source" to push this POV is Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

:Sure, anytime soon. Capitals00 (talk) 09:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear, regarding the last revert, what else was needed? Capitals00 (talk) 07:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Both of the sources are added this time. Capitals00 (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You have violated wikipedia's policy against plagiarism and you have not gained consensus to place these notions and beliefs as fact on this article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Referring to your previous suggestion[16], we agreed to write out the quote completely or do not use a quote at all, then how come you haven't shared your new ambiguous view in these 3 days? Capitals00 (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me Capitals00, this info is too trivial, i.e. it is not an improvement of the article. Jingiby (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Now i also doubt that if you are using multiple accounts, considering your another revert made without any discussion and anonymously.Capitals00 (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

@ Capitals00, are you intently "playing stupid"?

• Götz Hoeppe's book, "Conversations on the Beach", states, "the notion, widespread in central Kerala..."
  

Winand M. Callewaert's book, "Banaras: Visions of a Living Ancient Tradition", states, "British chronicles of the 18th century refer to a Hindu belief that the black stone in the Kaaba, Mecca, was in fact a lingam carried off by the Muslims."
Neither of these two "sources" are stating this information as fact, but as notions or beliefs.[17]

• You need a better understanding of English. "parallels the notion is the operative phrase in that sentence. Thus it is NOT a fact but a "notion widespread in coastal central Kerala".[18]
  

Apparently my stating this information is not fact and should not be presented on wikipedia as fact, hasn't sank in. Therefore, this "information" should not be added into any wikipedia article. As for your sockpuppet allegation, put up or shut up! --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Whether it's a fact or a notion, it is backed by the approved sources, none of your personal choices can effect the form of the information, remembering that you agreed once to submit such info, and right after a while you don't even discuss the information and edits. Thus you must backup your thought, instead of cutting off the whole sourced extent. Capitals00 (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The cited quote states it is an opinion, not a fact. while you are attempting to use the quote to imply it is some sort of historical fact. The issue is not really the *quote*, but how you choose to portray the quote. 134.161.227.70 (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The sources are credible enough for adding into this page, as per it was agreed, whether here or at resolution board. Look around the so called "opinion", you will find a few million of other sources.Capitals00 (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Found some more, "Institute for Rewriting Indian History", 1981, P. 36[19], "Original God-Part III- Mystery of Original God explained", P. 116[20], "India in Kurdistan" Parameśa Caudhurī, P. 52[21], "Gods, Sages and Kings: Vedic Secrets of Ancient Civilization" David Frawley, P. 282 [22]. Capitals00 (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I wonder when these all 3 editors will talk at the same time once again.Capitals00 (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You are edit warring (besides attacking other editors). And you don't understand what a reliable source is. The "Institute for rewriting Indian history" was P. N. Oak's creation - clearly someone called a crank and a mythohistorian isn't a reliable source by our criteria. The 'original God' books are likewise crank stuff. Parameśa Caudhurī believes that "Kashmir in India was the ancestral land of Jesus Christ and that India was the origin of Christianity."[23]. And Frawley isn't accepted by academics for history. Dougweller (talk) 05:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I can agree about the "institute for rewriting indian history", but point behind quoting others was, that it's actually a widespread notion/belief, it's not just limited with the 2 sources, like other editor is trying to put. We shall not discuss about the off topic mythologies here, and stay on the subject. I will try getting a consensus about other 3 books. Capitals00 (talk) 05:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Capitals00’s sole purpose in pushing this strange belief into the article, I will say, is to distort the article and create misunderstanding. Your nagging insistence on including this misleading notion, despite community objection, cannot be seen to be rooted in good faith. It seems you have other intention other than improving the article.

You are expected to refrain from this.--AsceticRosé 16:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

@ User:AsceticRose My intention is to add the information that is actually popular and sourced. It seems obvious that you would be opposing these sourced information, despite they are backed by reputed sources. About the "community", well, i see that they have no backup to there point but only personal likeness, they are unable to discuss. Not to mention that whenever i refer to the approved sources, they have no opinion about it.

Here thing is far different, there are many sources which would describe the theory more than just a 'belief' or 'notion', having some of these, like Adolf Bastian[24] cites "when muhammad destroyed the temple, pulled the lingam in the sea back.", Sir George Forrest[25],[26], Godfrey Higgins[27] have also presented such theories as facts, as well as others, thus any allegation like "misleading notion" can be simply refuted. So my suggestion is that we can talk about how to add such information because i find no real reason to oppose them. Capitals00 (talk) 07:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

These are all marginal, archaic or fringe sources. Higgens (who is very fringe) is, in any case, just saying that "fertility" imagery existed in many ancient cults and that the Shiva lingam is version of it in Hinduism. No-one, outside of ther Oak-Frawley-Knapp nexus believes that specifically Hindu, or Vedic believers were ever to be found in Arabia - because there is is no evidence to support such a view. At most there are general similarities typical of "pagan" cults, including those that have been absorbed into Hinduism. Paul B (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

That statement still suggests Adolf Bastian, Sir George Forrest to be credible since they were traveler, they directly suggest the point as fact, and this is some obvious information, i never even mentioned 'knapp', and there are many who suggest the same, now if one day it will be denied that afghanistan if had any temples but there will be sources that they had them. Capitals00 (talk) 05:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Sir George Forrest claimed in his book "it was the chief symbol of Kaaba" which is completely a false claim. There are well-documented historical records, we clearly know the history of Kaaba. Forrest's claim is biased in the sense that he didn't elaborate anything and did just claim this. On the other hand, historians have researched, gathered information, and presented details of the history of Kaaba. Again, his book name is "Cities of India". Strange to see how one thing is being used for another.

Adolf Bastian doesn't even say anything as far as I can see on your provided source.

Godfrey Higgins also did not say anything about the perceived relation between that very symbol and Kaaba (God forbid), as far as Google book shows. So, your position remains doubtful, and to say frankly, completely unacceptable.

We have history and biography books that specifically deal with the history of Kaaba. At no point do they claim that point you have brought. If we accept your alleged point, then we have to rewrite the history.

One should be able to distinguish between sources and reliable sources. That's important. Thousands of sources are present. We can only accept the reliable sources.

There are many more things we can discuss to refute that alleged notion – even pages after pages. But I don't see any merit for that. Having said this, I'll make my final comment on this issue. Leaving aside the true, mainstream, and well-founded history of Kaaba, you cannot get consensus on your point, at least from my side.--AsceticRosé 05:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

You haven't read properly, Adolf Bastian adds in the given book, in Page. No. 394 that "..twelve symbols of Mahadeo, and when Mahammud destroyed the temple, pulled the lingam in the sea back", there's long description in few pages of the book.

Godfrey Higgins wrote at Page. No.645 "that "black stone was in the kaaba, at mecca, long before the time muhammad" and he "not only preserved it, but he caused it to be built into the corner of the sacred kaaba". Thus there's no denial if each of them are reliable source or any of them are only presenting it as just a 'belief', but actually as the 'fact'. Plus it's not our duty to making opinion whether Sir George Forrest has wrote wrong or correct, because it's the choice of a reader, as long as claimed information is sourced.
There is also a book by Robert Needham Cust[28], in which he recognizes the argument in which Guru Nanak had defeated the mullahs of mecca in debate that "kaaba has been a Lingam, of the Shiva", and Cust adds himself that "there is no doubt that it is a remnant of the pre-mahometan worship of arabia". So somewhere, whether in "pre-islamic arabia" or "Coloured stones".Capitals00 (talk) 09:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The sentence from Adolf Bastian is a footnote. It reads in full "Somnath gilt für eines der vom Himmel herab gekommenen Dwadusjotieling oder zwölf symbole der mahadeo und als Mahmud den Tempel zerstorte zog sich der lingam in's meer zuruck. Multan's bild zeigte buddhistische Gleiderstellung (nach Abu Jschak)". I confess that my German is not good enough to adequately translate this (even with software aids), but it does not appear to have anything to do with the Kaaba. The best I can get is, "Somnath is one of the degenerate Dwadusjotieling [Dwadash jyotirling?] from heaven, or twelve symbols of Mahadeo, and as Mahmoud destroyed the temple, took back the lingam into the sea. Multan's picture showed Buddhist Gleiderposition [?] (to Abu Jschak)" It's a footnote explaining a reference to one of the several destructions of the Somnath temple in Gujarat. The "Mahmud" named is not the prophet. No one has ever doubted that the Black Stone was "a remnant of the pre-mahometan worship of arabia". The rest of your post is bordering on gibberish, frankly. Do you think Guru Nanak had any expertise on thre history of the Kaaba? Paul B (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Mentioned below. Capitals00 (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment All I have to say is that this is really lame and I have no idea why we are even discussing this. This is an article on a structure that is an Islamic holy site. Why there should be edit-warring over adding a dubious out-of-context paragraph on some other religious beliefs in some remote part of India, on this article, seems to be beyond understanding. Mar4d (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• You have clearly read nothing, we are no where here talking about india, it's over days now, no one is edit warring either. Capitals00 (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

@Paul Barlow. I think the page of Adolf Bastian has to do with black stone but the different story, which is related to somnath incident. There's one i know, from Yoel Natan, that made me to think about this one, source is his book "Moon-o-theism, Volume II of II", Page no.149, Read the page, he is asserting the whole story and himself cites a few sources, i am sure he can't be regarded as unreliable, because his same book has been taken as source in different pages of wikipedia,[29],[30]. But Godfrey Higgins, and George Forrest have cleared the whole story that i quote in there books. Cust had actually called the shivlingam as the 'remnant of the pre-mahometan worship', and that's what the point is. Well, Guru Nanak had actually debated about it, i can't tell about the expertise, but then i don't see any level of 'Edward Gibbon', 'G. E. von Grunebaum', 'ghulam sarwar', 'Nonnosus', and some others who have been mentioned in this page either, if we do the same justice with there sources. Capitals00 (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Now at RSN

Taking something to WP:RSN should always be mentioned on the article's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 08:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

"Cuboid-like" / "four-sided Kaaba" emphasizes 4 Corners pointing to 4 Cardinal directions

The Kaaba because of its recessed roof is NOT a true cuboid, therefore, I changed its description to "cuboid-like" structure. I also added "four-sided Kaaba" to emphasize how the importance of how its 4 corners are aligned with the 4 Cardinal points. - Ben Franklin 75.74.180.52 (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

"One GOD (Allah)"

Allah is the Arabic name for the One GOD, so I added "One GOD" (Allah)" - Benjamin Franklin 75.74.180.52 (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)