Jump to content

Talk:Kaaba/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Pictures of Muhammad (continued)

With respect to this subject let me mention here that pictorial dipictions of Our PROPHET (May Peace be upon HIM) or any other kind of attempt in this regard is total violation of Islamic values. It is an open defiance to the Sacredness of the PROPHET of ISLAM. Picture being relevant is not the issue here. The issue here is the Peronality it is depicting. This issue may be of little interest to many people but for followers of Islam it is very serious.Any picture may be offensive to anyone but this particular picture is depicting a PERSONALITY whose sacredness is beyond any doubt. This picture is offensive to whole of the Muslim Ummah and we all want it removed from this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.29.249.34 (talk • contribs) 05:30, July 4, 2007

No offense, but Islamic values have no place at Wiki as wiki is a medium for knowledge and learning, not religous worship. Therefore Wikipedia policy takes precedence over islamic taboo See WP:CENSOR. Dman727 06:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

We would like to now what knowledge this particular picture provides to non-muslims or for that matter to muslims as well ? Learning to respect each other's religious values is better way to sort out differences. This particular picture is likely to create more confusion then sense. The problem here is that every one seems to judge things according to his/her own perspective with least knowledge of facts. If this issue is being pursued then it is clear that something is seriuosly wrong with this particular picture. Why not just replace it with actual picture of the black stone to close this issue once and for all and stop offensive remarks on each other's way of thinking and religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.29.249.34 (talk • contribs) 04:53, July 5, 2007

We? Who is we? Wikipedia is not oriented towards Islam, nor any other religion. Its about knowledge - see WP:CENSOR I'm sorry that you personally find this offensive, however it would violate many wiki principles to censor the encylopedia to conform to a minority religious viewpoint. For that matter no encyclopedia at all would be possible if it attempt to conform to all religions. I would suggest not viewing the picture so as to avoid being offended. Dman727 05:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

why doesnt anyone realize that by displaying such blasphemeous content, the credibilty of wiki as whole becomes at stake. when this particular picture can very easily be substituted with actual picture of the black stone. i am trying to upload but with their seems to be some error. so if anyone is willing i can e-mail that picture to him and he/she can upload it. please stop mixing up blasphemy with knowledege. This picture provides hardly any knowledge while on the other end it is of offensive nature. so please do realize the importance of this issue and do not behave in narrow minded way. All dipictions of this sort should be avoided at all costs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.29.249.34 (talk • contribs) 12:06, July 9, 2007

The painting isnt blasphemeous, nor offensive, nor even a picture (its a painting). Maybe to a few, but for those you can always try Islamopedia or simply closing your eyes. The painting is relevant, tasteful and extremely relative to the text at hand. Have you read the accompanying text?? What wikipolicy dictates that we must avoid it (at all cost no less)? Remember Islamo-policy has no relevance here, only wikipolicy. Frankly, this sillyness is starting to get quite annoying. Dman727 12:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
How you can decide if it is not blasphemeous and offensive. Are you Muslim? It is extremely offensive and blasphemeous for Muslims. --- A. L. M. 12:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Simple - I used the same process that you used to decide it is. Our religion has NO bearing here. See WP:CENSOR Dman727 13:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
That is different debate and for its answer look at there. However, now you admit that it is (or may be) offensive to Muslims. Hence you will not say it again that "The painting isnt blasphemeous, nor offensive"? At least give us that much for God sake. --- A. L. M. 13:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Dman727 -- are you saying that the offence a picture causes part of the readership has absolutely no bearing on whether it should appear on Wikipedia? If so, I think you may be in the minority on that view. To make a rational decision, one must always weigh the positive against the negative with regards to Wikipedia's goals. If Wikipedia's goal is to inform, then the positive would be the knowledge conveyed by the photo, while the negative would be the alienation of a segment of the population. To be dominated by the latter would be irrational, but to ignore it entirely would be equally irrational. --Doradus 13:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If an article is offensive to a majority of people, is not noteable, and doesnt inform then its certainly reasonable to remove it. In this case, this very old painting is noteable, informs and is tasteful to majority of the worlds population. Is offense 100% irrelevant? Perhaps not. But then I note the article Cleveland_steamer, one I find extremely offensive - probably to a majority of the worlds population, and only slightly noteable, yet the wiki community finds that the article meets wiki standards for inclusion (btw I've never voted on that article). In short "offense" is one of the least concerns. Dman727 13:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's hard not to agree to remove an image that if an image is simultaneously offensive, non-notable, and uninformative. Leaving aside your other points for a moment, what I'd like to figure out is, where is the line drawn? To me it would seem logical that if an image's negative attributes outweigh its pedagogical value, then it should be removed. Can we agree on this as a starting point? --Doradus 17:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh thats easy, the line is community consensus and wiki policy. This is hardly new ground. Rather than trying to reinvent the wheel here, this same exact discussion has been hashed out several times (with the same objectors) on other articles. See Depictions_of_Muhammad, Black_stone, Talk:Muhammad/Mediation, Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy and a few others.Dman727 17:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The consensus is that such images can be included, if they are presented in a respectful way. I would also point out that though there are indeed traditions in the Muslim community which avoid images of Muhammad, that these traditions are directed towards Muslims, not towards non-Muslims. It would be inappropriate for a Muslim to go through the Library of Congress ripping out any page that had an image of Muhammad. It would be equally inappropriate for an orthodox Jew to go through a supermarket destroying anything that was non-kosher. Or for a Christian from the Midwest to go through a California liquor store and berate them for selling alcohol on a Sunday. Let's please keep individualized customs, separate from creating a source of knowledge. The images of Muhammad at Wikipedia are intended to inform -- not to antagonize, not to evangelize. They are intended to educate. Removing them would do a disservice to those who have a genuine good faith desire for knowledge. --Elonka 18:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there a relevant policy? That would be ideal. Thanks for the links. --Doradus 18:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


No one on this page has clearly stated what really does this image convey ? All the discussion on this topic clearly shows something is very wrong about this picture. This picture does not conform with Islamic principles so crediblity of the article and the knowledge it is suppose to provide is questionable. All the More so then this article is less of facts and more of fabricated non-Islamic material as this picture clearly indicates. If such pictures are to inform about PROPHET (SAW) then equally well they are wrong since Islam prohibits such depictions. If such pictures are to inform about Islam then they dont provide the clear picture about Islam as they are strongly prohibited. If such pictures are to inform about Kaaba then it is totally out of place. A picture of black stone is ore relevent here. If this picture is suppose to portray open mindedness then such iressponsible acts have resulted in un-warranted loss to many people of differing faiths. Non-Muslims dont realize this fact that is why they are insisting on keeping this image.

so is wiki a media of knowlegde or ignorance. Result is wiki being used by people who are happy and satisfied with defaming other religions and playing with sentiments of people of other faiths in the name of knowledge. so once again it is stressed that this picture be removed from this article and actual picture of black stone be placed in its place.[Ghulam Muhammad21] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.29.249.34 (talk • contribs) (06:12, July 10, 2007

I understand that English is not the first language of some of the editors here, so let me try to explain: The image is used with respect. It is a picture about something that happened at the Kaaba, so it is right for it to be here. Please do not use Muslim rules here. I understand that some Muslims say that there should be no images of Muhammad. These are rules that some Muslims follow. That is okay. But please understand. The rules about no images of Muhammad are religious rules. The rules apply to Muslims. They do not apply to non-Muslims. Please do not force Muslim rules on non-Muslims. You said that people want to defame other religions, but please, this is not correct. There is no desire here to defame religions. There is only the desire for knowledge. Please respect that Wikipedia is here to provide information -- not to promote religion. Wikipedia does not promote Christianity or Judaism or Islam or any other religion. The desire here is just for knowledge, to make Wikipedia like a very large library. We want a peaceful and respectful location to provide knowledge to the entire world. That is all. Peace. --Elonka 07:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
If you have to add images then do add them we cannot stop you. However please stop saying following. "The image is used with respect.". No they are not. They are disrespect to us and great disrespect. Hence stop saying so at least. Pleasee. Secondly do not say that "I understand that some Muslims say that there should be no images of Muhammad.". Not SOME but very vast majority of Muslims dislike those images. Thanks. -- A. L. M. 10:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This article (and a lot of its supporters) is claiming to present knowledge about the Holiest place of Islam at one end and on the other displaying images of The Highest PERSONALITY of the Islamic World with the pretext of knowledge which is strictly forbidden in the same religion. where has all the sense gone? cant anyone understand this important point. The Islamic rules apply to every thing related to Islam either person or location or article. Dont you see the point here ? This means that non-muslims cannot and should not interfere with core Islamic values and leave them as they are. on the other hand if non-muslims want to contribute some knowledge about Islam then they should be careful enough to exclude what voilates the Islamic values. no one not even muslims are allowed to make such irresponsible acts on pretext of knowledge. you people are talking about censor. what i want here is an actual picture of black stone on the wall of KAABA which will be all the more informative then an image which was made by someone (who Knows) and its legitimacy is highly questionable from knowledge point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.29.249.34 (talk • contribs) 09:43, July 10, 2007

There's a response to this whole issue of image insertion: User:Matt57/Pictures of Muhammad and Wikipedia policies. In short, removing these images is against Wikipedia policy. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
(reply to 124.29.249.34) By "respect", I mean that our intentions are good, to show an image that honors Muhammad in a positive way. If we wanted to be disrespectful, we would show images like these.[1][2] Instead, the consensus of Wikipedia editors is to use positive images of Muhammad that show him in a good light, as a wise man who made peace. I am confused as to how anything could be more respectful than that. --Elonka 16:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no question of being respectful of not. A pictorial depiction is very strong voilation of the values your article is trying to project here. This picture only seems to be informative for those who have blocked their minds to the simple fact that it is wrong, blasphemous and shows very little to one's knowledge. People keep on saying that deleting this image is against the policy of wiki. If that is so then why an actual image of black stone which was substituted yesterday has been promptly removed and this blasphemous picture placed in its place. This clearly shows discrimination on part of wiki as the editing is being made conditional according to the terms of those who control wiki.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghulam muhammad21 (talk • contribs) 05:48, July 11, 2007

The article is not attempting to project Islamic values (nor any other religion). The article is attempting to educate. In fact, if the article DID project Islamic values, it would likely constitute a violation of WP:NPOV. It is respectful, tasteful, encylopedic, it is not blasphemous to most people. While it is true that offends a small minority of vocal people, that is irrelevant to the task of writing an encylopedia and the overwhelming consensus supports its inclusion. If the picture offends you, I suggest that you not view it. 07:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is projecting something very important to Islam and at the same time depicting something more important in a false and blasphemous manner. What education does this particular picture give ? if everyone is so consious of wiki's policy, then why a legitimate edit is being reverted every time it is made i.e an actual picture of black stone is put in place of this offensive picture. why majority of you are in favour of a picture already mentioned and accepted as offensive for many people? why an actual picture of the black stone (which non-muslims dont see or have not seen) should not be placed here when the topic is related to the mounting of stone itself in Holy Kaaba's wall? why is this issue being compared to pictures of private body parts on some article ? Is this the respect people have for other people's faith and religion? what is meant by saying that this picture is presented with respect when making such pictures itself is strongly condemnable?

wiki will be equally educative and useful if this picture is removed or substituted. wiki's content is taken as fairly authentic by almost all of its users. now if this particaular content (regarding some topic) is falefully conveyed and still many people support it as educative then the credibilty of such people's intentions regarding inter-faith harmony become questionable.Education is important but falsehood should not be allowed to creep into it.That is why this matter needs to be sorted out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.29.249.34 (talk • contribs) 11:54, July 11, 2007

Can I clarify something here? Do you believe that there are people who truly do not find the images offensive? Or do you think that everyone adding the images to this article must be doing so to cause controversy and disruption? --Doradus 16:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversy and disruption of what actual facts ? People who have added this blasphemous picture in the first place should have been asked the question. It is they who have placed a controversial image knowing very well its implications and under the pretext that it does not offend them. well it offends those who are related to whole of Islam. It offends those who know that it is not permissible. It offends those who know that its inclusion in this article is more of ignorance then fact. Finally it offends those who know that it is really an act to put down Islam very directly. On the other hand it does not offend those who have very little or no knowledge about this issue, who have no sympahty for followers of other faiths, who give more importance to wrong than right based on their own narrow-mindedness.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.29.249.34 (talk • contribs)

It's not on the pretext that it does not offend them. It's on the basis that it doesn't matter if it offends people. I'm not sure I agree with that argument, but let's at least be clear what the argument is. --Doradus 11:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

I've protected because of the recent reverting over the image. Could someone explain what the issue is, and whether an alternative image could be found that would satisfy all parties? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 12:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue is simple: Muhammad is shown. Some editors feel that the appearance of Muhammad anywhere violates their religion. The trouble is that this image is very notable - it is one of the earliest surviving depictions of Muhammad - and couldn't be more topical - it depicts exactly the legend which is recounted in the text. If this tradition is not topical to the article, or too marginal to be mentioned, that is another discussion which I've not yet seen.Proabivouac 12:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting page, Slim

(Slim, didn't see your edit above.)

Attention trolls: The picture of Muhammad does not have consensus. BYT 12:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I thought it was the main image that was being objected to. Could an alternative be found to the image of Muhammad? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 12:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


Perhaps Pro could help us look for one, as the seasoned consensus-builder in residence on this page. BYT 12:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Curb your sarcasm, BYT. As long as the article discusses the story of Muhammad and the Kaaba, an image of the same is on-topic.Proabivouac 12:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
And manifestly lacks consensus. By the way, we have a rule around here that you can't revert a page more than three times in a twenty-four-hour period. BYT 12:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Right, so why not start with anon who reverted seven times? (whereas my last revert was a self-revert after ALM's vexatious report) Do you really expect that anyone will believe that you are only here to ensure that others play by the rules? Anon was blocked for vandalism, BYT; reverting vandalism is upholding the rules, not violating them.Proabivouac 12:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
It's only "vandalism" when you disagree with the content, apparently. Yes, anon should have been blocked. Yes, anon was engaged in discussions on this talk page. Yes, this was a content dispute. Yes, you are still obliged to play by the rules. There were four reverts:
To the point. This image you're so enthusiastic about -- have you won consensus for it on this talk page? BYT 12:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
See this self-revert, BYT.[3]
Anyhow, so what you're saying is, anon can revert an arbitrary number of times (however many he/she can get away with before block) - and who knows what is the regular usename of anon, or if it is even affected - while those which revert him/her are blocked for doing so. I am absolutely certain that you would not hold this stance were this material any kind of slur against your beloved POV. Otherwise, you might want to start with User:DavidYork71, whose socks have often been reverted as of late.Proabivouac 13:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure I asked you whether you had secured consensus for the image you are trying to insert. Is there a reason you don't want to address that question, Pro? BYT 13:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

BYT, mediation showed a very clear consensus to include depictions of Muhammad. Ignoring !votes in blatant contempt of policy only makes it that much clearer. What is your reason for removing them, besides your personal religious sensibilities? There is none.Proabivouac 13:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"Blatant contempt of policy" -- it doesn't sound to me like you're showing much good faith here. And I'm a veteran. I shudder to think what traumas the newbies may be experiencing here. Or is it policy to bite them now?

Two questions: 1) Is it your position that it simply doesn't matter whether there's consensus to include an image at Kaaba? (Not Muhammad, Pro -- Kaaba.) That's not how I understood the principles guiding this encyclopedia.

2) Once again -- and I'm only repeating myself because I can't seem to gauge your response to this -- would you say that the image you are trying to include has attained consensus? How would you describe the editorial reaction to it? BYT 13:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

BYT, spare us the wikilawyering. Everyone knows your reasons by now, and yes, including depictions of Muhammad on Wikipedia has earned very broad consensus, broader (judging from the number of editors) than almost anything else we discuss here. I encourage you to open an RfC for this or any other article.Proabivouac 13:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


  • You can call it wikilawyering if you want.
  • I think the people who know what they're doing around here (and I certainly number you among them) have an obligation to try to find some common ground.
  • If I can accept the necessity for consensus at Zionism, I see no reason why you can't make an effort here.
  • Once again -- do you think it's worthwhile to try to attain consensus for the edits you want to make on this page? BYT 13:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

But doesn't 'common ground' mean 'remove all pictures of the Prophet from any article'? Tom Harrison Talk 13:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

With respect, it certainly doesn't mean that at Muhammad, Tom. BYT 13:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
My impression is that, there, it is only a truce. I have not seen much acknowledgment that there is a consensus to include the pictures. Tom Harrison Talk 13:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
There was disagreement on the type of depictions (e.g. veiled or unveiled) and their placement (lead or not), but a clear consensus that at least some depictions would be included, and overwhelming support for the notion that Muhammad should be treated no differently from any other historical figure - but repeated blanking does just that.Proabivouac 21:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I can only speak for myself. After the Danish cartoons thing, I realized consensus was the only meaningful yardstick here. As a practical matter, whether something, and particularly an image, offends Muslims is now totally beside the point. (See that article, by the way -- there was overwhelming consensus to include patently offensive images, and I've contented myself with improving the text.)
  • It's not a truce, what's happening at Muhammad -- it's a quite purposeful piece of humiliation. But it has to stand if there is consensus, which there is.
  • Were you aware, Tom, that there was a movement there recently to include an image of the Prophet being disemboweled? There was no consensus for that. Every once in a while there's evidence around here of an encyclopedia, as opposed to a live grenade in text form. BYT 13:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok BYT, removing these images is against Wikipedia policy. See User:Matt57/Pictures of Muhammad and Wikipedia policies. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Matt, and for the link to your userpage. If it's all right with you, I'll talk to some of the other Justices on the bench, too. BYT 14:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

BYT, You will not find a policy that states that you have the right to not be offended. Wiki is not censored.--Strothra 16:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. My point has never been that I am (or am not) offended, and I have ventured no such opinion about the image under dispute. (Read my posts, please, if you're interested in taking part in this discussion.) Rather, my point is that that there exists no consensus to place this image in the article. And also that editors who know better should abide by 3RR without attempting to tapdance their way around it. BYT 19:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I was already involved in this discussion before on the Muhammad article. The arguments are based on the same premises except for you claim that no consensus exists which I hardly agree with. Wiki policies and the majority of editors seem to support it except for those few who argue that the images are offensive - that argument, however, is not valid. Your argument is simply a red herring. --Strothra 21:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit surpised at the claim that there is no consensus. This has been raised repeatedly (by the same few folks), and the result is always the same. The images are perfectly fine and only offend a small minority of folks who make it a career to be offended by them here on wiki. Dman727 21:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
That's because consensus does exist. BYT's attempt to assert otherwise does not make it true. Consensus existed on this same issue through recent and lengthy mediation on the Muhammad article. We have already achieved supermajority and consensus (see Wp:consensus#Consensus_vs._supermajority) through mediation in addition to this debate. Really, this issue has been solved already and any further disruptions due to it are bordering on violating WP:POINT particularly through BYT's consistent reversions. --Strothra 21:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • ALM
  • Myself
  • 124.29.249.34
  • Ghulam Muhammad
  • Zora

... are in opposition to the image. Pro and Matt57 appear to support, as does Dman727 and Strothra. SlimVirgin has asked whether a compromise image can be found, but I suspect that does not necessarily mean she supports our view of this. Tom has taken no position, as far as I can see.

If User:Strothra believes I have made "consistent reversions" -- indeed, any reversions at all -- to the article page, perhaps we could see the diffs that would confirm this. For my part, I believe I have made no edits whatsoever on the article related to this dispute.

Either I'm offended without knowing it (and, or course, editing the page without knowing it), or an apology is in order. BYT 17:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, we all know that those individuals are opposed to the image - however, as I stated above, they are opposed due to their "offensive" nature. That issue was resolved in extensive mediation and thus those arguments are invalid. --Strothra 18:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Another editor suggested we try using the show/hide template as a compromise. I've added it here so people can see what it looks like, though I don't know how it will work with Internet Explorer. I've reverted myself in the meantime. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 18:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The show/hide template is far closer to compromise than the all or nothing demands that exist so far. I'm not completely opposed to it. I do have reservations, however, due to its censorship-like quality.

The only reason I can see in support of that edit is the fact that this article, unlike the Muhammad article, is not entirely about the individual. However, I oppose it because it is still a form of censorship. --Strothra 18:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The image is highly topical and Wikipedia's articles is written according to Wikpedia's own policies and not according to the regulations of Sharia. BrandonYusufToropov can continue attacking people that is opposing him here, but fact is that no valid argument for not including the image has been presented here. -- Karl Meier 20:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

BYT, your head count above is inaccurate. 124.29.249.34 and Ghulam Muhammad are one and the same, while you've failed to count Elonka, Euralyus, King Lopez and Matt57, who reverted the blanking just the other day.Proabivouac 19:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I believe I did include Matt (see above). Strothra, did I ever revert this article? Strothra, do people have to have the same motive in order to register opposition to an edit? BYT 20:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Proabivouac and BYT, would you consider agreeing to the hide/show template, shown here, as a compromise? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I want to hear what other editors have to say. BYT 14:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I would support a technical solution, but I don't think that's the right one: one should have to opt in to censorship, not opt out of it every time it arises. It's also easy for readers to miss that there is supposed to be an image there. Ideally, there'd be various filters users could apply to their own preferences, but I'm not certain Wikimedia would support it. Alternately, hide/show would be fine, as long as "show" were the default option: one shouldn't have to go around the article clicking things to make it display correctly.
I also recall from mediation that there was some compelling technical reason why we shouldn't use hide/show, but I can't recall what it was. Perhaps something about the way things appear (or don't appear) when mirrored?Proabivouac 21:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
If show were the default option, there'd be no point in using the template, because readers would see the image before they had time to hide it. The point is make it invisible except to those who seek it out. Not sure about the mirrored site issue. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
True, but someone must already be looking at the images to blank them. This would enable the offended to do so without affecting the article for anyone else.Proabivouac 21:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
We need some reasons with background in policy if we are to make any changes whatsoever. What are the reasons that we should limit the access to this image? That it doesn't suit the taste or religious ideas of a few editors is of course irrelevant to the discussion. -- Karl Meier 21:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Karl, I understand and respect the no-censorship issue. But the other side of it is that these images are sometimes added solely for the purpose of offending. I'm not saying this was done here, but it does sometimes happen. This is quite a depressing situation for the editors who may feel offended, because it's a double insult. We're saying: Not only are we willing to offend you; we're also going to use your feelings as your Achilles' heel and get another dig in whenever we see a chance. Again, I stress that I'm not saying this has happened here. I'm arguing that even the perception of it is distressing. That distress leads to entrenched positions, which leads to more enmity, which leads to more images being posted.
It would be an important gesture of goodwill to agree to a compromise that would break the cycle. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
"But the other side of it is that these images are sometimes added solely for the purpose of offending."
Indeed. Several examples of this may be seen in mediation, where this image of Baphomet was proposed for inclusion, and more recently on Talk:Muhammad, where a famously disturbing work by Dali was displayed prominently on talk an edit-warred to remain despite widespread protest. Such trolling does not merit our indulgence, and should be reverted on sight.
Now see Talk:Black Stone#Moving the image lower on the page, where it was successfully argued that the image including Muhammad did not belong in the lead. Calls for censorship shouldn't be "bravely defied," but ignored.Proabivouac 22:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The hide/show template is rather interesting. For my part I don't know and I need to think about it. I suspect that it won't satisfy the folks who seek out being offended though. After all they don't have to click on "show", but then again they don't need to click on "Kabba" either. Perhaps we could use it for all manner of content disputes. For instance on articles about political figures we could use the hide/show template to cover up criticism so that the opposite political party members won't be offended. All the sexual reproduction articles could use the template to hide the naughty bits. I'm reserving judgement for now, but I'm skeptical on the basis that it won't satisfy the pro-censors folks, and it sets all kinds of bad precendent. Dman727 21:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
SV, I appreciate your effort for a compromise but goodwill actually is following Wikipedia policies. As a user pointed out this is still some form of censorship. Whats next? Having a little "show/hide" for 'PBUH' wherever Muhammad shows up? Please, no. Stick to policies. Thats what this website runs on, and if it didnt, there wouldnt be anything but chaos here. There's no need of a compromise that breaks policies. See my article on my user page why policies would be broken if these images are removed. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree with Matt57. --Strothra 01:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I do as well--SefringleTalk 05:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What's up with the page? It's got a padlock in the top right corner, but no top banner stating that it's protected/locked/whatever, and the reason why. 81.149.182.210 22:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Slimvirgin's creative show/hide option: I agree with Dman727's concerns, but I also have to say that I would be willing to accept it as a possible compromise. I am curious as to what ALM and Ghulam think about it. I'd also like to offer that another compromise might be simply changing the image caption. So instead of "Muhammad lifting the stone into place," it's simply "The Black Stone being lifted into place." --Elonka 07:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
No, this is censorship again. Read my link above. Dont compromise on policies. Wikipedia is not censored. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
If passive language ("being lifted") often sounds unduly evasive, here it would be exactly because we aim to evade. How about "An influential religious leader lifting the stone into place?" At least the sentence would have a proper subject.Proabivouac 19:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think non-censorship should be the default, as it is elsewhere. If we do this here, then where else, and to accommodate who else? I'm not unsympathetic to those who are offended, but religious censorship is so dangerous that for me it is the over-riding concern. We could add a string to the name of each possibly-offensive image to make it easier to configure AdBlock to avoid them, or people could hack their css files and provide them to others. I've mentioned before that people might use AdBlock to avoid seeing images they do not want to see. As I recall, I was shot down immediately for insensitivity, etc. I suspect that letting the individual avoid the image is not the only motive for image removal. Tom Harrison Talk 14:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

My personal feeling is that the proposal Slim has put forward shows a willingness to edit collaboratively that is worth discussing. I think consensus is worth pursuing on content issues. BYT 14:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Is that in reply to me? Tom Harrison Talk 14:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope -- addressed to the page as a whole, back when yours was the most recent comment, located at the bottom of the page. BYT 14:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Tom harrison why cannot you understand a simple thing. That, if the aim is to not seeing pictures then I can stop visiting that page. Problem solved. However, aim is not show it to anyone by default so that my son does not see it and so is other people offended by it. Hence if AdBlock will be blocking it by default and you can see the image ONLY after pressing some button then the problem is solved. However, you are saying that first someone has to see it and get offended. Decide to stay in wikipedia and use AdBlock. In reality, most people decide to leave wikipedia after seeing those stupid pictures and vandalising page few time. Will you tell them all to come back and switch on the AdBlock instead? --- A. L. M. 14:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
ALM, this is not true: In reality, most people decide to leave wikipedia after seeing those stupid pictures. Why dont you read the stuff below and tell me how removing the images does not go against policy? This is an encyclopedia. Its primary job is to inform, not censor or cater to religious sentiments, customs or expectations.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
"In reality, most people decide to leave wikipedia after seeing those stupid pictures and vandalising page few time."
ALM, I'm glad you've finally admitted that blanking depictions of Muhammad is vandalism. That's a significant step.
"That, if the aim is to not seeing pictures then I can stop visiting that page. Problem solved."
Exactly.
"However, aim is not show it to anyone..."Proabivouac 08:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Note: Removing picture is NOT at all vandalism and I have never said it so. You has violated WP:3RR. I take page blanking as vandalism and that what I referred above as vandalism by many when they saw pictures. --- A. L. M. 10:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Been there, done that. I'm not going to yet again rehearse all the arguments from the mediation and the talk pages. I support keeping the image, with no show/hide template. Tom Harrison Talk 14:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Then why you are repeating your AdBlock arguments. It has been replied similarly too before. Why to misguide readers with your argument of AdBlock that Tom wish to compromise but it is us... --- A. L. M. 14:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies

Ok I'm going to reproduce part of my page here again to close this matter. Censoring images in any way is against Wikipedia policies. Any questions? Compromises on Wikipedia policies is not allowed, needless to say. Please stay firm with people who attempt to violate Wikipedia policies. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

How Wikipedia policies/guidelines may apply to issue of Muhammad's pictures

Wikipedia:Profanity

Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.

Some editors argue that in the light of this guideline:

  • Typical Wikipedia readers do not find pictures of Muhammad offensive
  • Exclusion of such pictures would result in the article being less informative, relevant and accurate.
  • No suitable alternatives are available, as these pictures are historic
  • As the policy states, "Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.". Therefore, the primary mission of Wikipedia and its editors is to improve articles so they are more informative. Being offensive is not Wikipedia's mission.
  • In addition, there are no issues of copyrights as the copyrights for all these pictures have expired so the images can be used freely where relevant.

WP:NOT#CENSORED

This policy states:

  • Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive.
  • Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements.

Printing Images of Muhammad: A minority tradition?

Some users (Itaqallah and ALM) have suggested that since printing of Muhammad's images has not been a common affair, therefore Wikipedia too should not print the images otherwise it will be a violation of WP:UNDUE. Cartoon images of Muhammad have been printed all over the World and this is not likely to change now:

Countries where one or more of the Cartoon images were published in some form

Printing of images is no longer a minority tradition and so UNDUE does not apply. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

very Good points. However, we should only use Cartoon in those pages. Because undue weight does not apply on them only. lets use cartoon on each page. --- A. L. M. 14:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The point is that printing of images of Muhammad is not a minority tradition. This was the only policy that you guys could bring up and its a weak policy anyway, in comparison to "NOT CENSORED" and "Wikipedia:Profanity". --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Where can I find defination of WP:weak policy? Once again thanks for cool arguments. Lets start voting to use cartoon on each page. I am for it. --- A. L. M. 14:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Read below, the present cartoons are not relevant to this page. If you can find a notable cartoon of Muhammad and the Kaaba, feel free to upload it. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Then how undue weight get generalized for pictures because of those cartoons?? See your own arguments above. Do you think they are logical? Come on! --- A. L. M. 14:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by your first sentence? Please rephrase. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you once again for protecting what is obviously a contentious page, Slim

It's clear that there are some conflicting priorities in play here.

Matt, I'm not entirely sure why it was necessary to copy the contents of your userpage onto this talk page, but it seems to me unrelated to the task of formulating consensus on this issue. Why don't you simply share your own thoughts and contribute to the discussion as one editor to another? If we each quote vast chunks of our userpage, this conversation is going to become unwieldy very quickly. BYT 14:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I've pasted the content which relates to the policies. Why dont you respond to my question: How is removing these images not going against Wikipedia policies? There's no such thing as "having a consensus to go against Wikipedia policies". Please let it go. All this started because anons removing the picture repeatedly, something that no one would do under their real username. Respond to the policies issue now. Again, there's not going to be any consensus or compromise that violates Wikipedia policies. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I have replied above. That we should only use cartoon per your cool arguments. Hence lets start using cartoons only. --- A. L. M. 14:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Sure if you want to use one of those cartoons, go ahead but they wouldnt be very relevant to this page, unless someone drew a cartoon of Muhammad near the Kaaba and it received media attention - then we could use that cartoon as well. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Matt, I need some specifics from you. Exactly what policy am I "violating" by not including, say, this image at Jesus, under the heading "Other views," where the article currently discusses New Age takes on Jesus and Bertrand Russell's view of him?
  • You're saying, Matt, that it "violates policy" not to include this contentious, non-consensus image of Muhammad here at Kaaba. Would it "violate" the same "policy" to do the same thing at Jesus? If so, what policy is that?
  • As editors (the very word implies a certain intelligence and judiciousness), we can include contentious images if there is consensus to do so. I see no policy that states that we must include contentious images in the absence of that consensus. BYT 14:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Why are you bringing in Jesus here? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Just answer the question, okay? You're very insistent on "policy" here. Would it or would it not "violate" the same "policy" to include this image at Jesus, under the heading "Other views," where the article currently discusses New Age takes on Jesus and Bertrand Russell's view of him?

I have no idea. Maybe its not a free image. Maybe you didnt try to use that image there and see what other people's arguments were. You're assuming the image cant be included, which is a false assumption. In any case, its not relevant to this issue. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You have no idea. That's surprising to me.

It's entirely relevant by the way. You're claiming, repeatedly and with a certainty that stands in stark contrast to your response above, that it's "against policy" to "censor" a contentious image here.

It seems a fair question, Matt. Because we're all concerned about violations of policy, right? Would failing to include this image at Jesus, under the heading "Other views," constitute a violation of policy, or wouldn't it?

I need some clarity on your position. Is failing to insert an equally contentious, non-consensus image, in an analagous setting, equally "against policy" when it connects to a different audience? BYT 15:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, maybe its because that image is not free and its not relevant to anything there - I dont know. This issue is not relevant to this discussion. If you think that image is relevant and free for the article, go ahead and upload it, ok? Then if people are successful in removing it becuase they find it offensive, let me know. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

With respect, Matt, I think it is quite relevant.

There is a fundamental question at stake here: whether our goal is to edit collaboratively, with a willingness to work with and exchange views with other editors, or whether our goal is to hijack articles regardless of the feedback a proposed course of action elicits on the talk page.

For examples of collaborative editing where others stand in rigid (and continual) opposition to certain topics, see Zionism. The article does not look even close to the way it should, in my view. But that does not excuse me from the responsibility of winning consensus for edits I think are appropriate there. The end result is that I have to reach out to people who disagree with me, accept precedent in the article, and find common ground.

You should try it some time. BYT 15:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You're changing the subject and going long winded. The fundamental issues here are not to violate Wikipedia policies. Removing an image that is considered offensive to some editors is the issue here and this (censorship) is against policies. Policies come first. Reaching a consensus comes second. If a consensus means compromising on a policy, that should obviously not be followed through. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Matt, which policies are you referring to? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 15:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
You can read above, the section I pasted from my page. WP:NOT CENSORED and NOT-profanity. Its all there above. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You're obviously quite certain about them, so you won't mind answering a direct question I hope. Assuming the availability of a publc-domain image that looks like this, would someone who opposed the inclusion of that image at Jesus to illustrate the donnybrook over The Da Vinci Code be in "violation" of the same policies? Why wouldn't that be censorship, in your view? BYT 15:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok - why would anyone oppose the inclusion of that image? If they were offended by it, then yes it would be censorship. Whats your point? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Matt, thank you for outlining which policies you're relying on. Let's look at what they say.
WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored is policy, but it doesn't support your argument that not including this image would violate policy. It simply says that "Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements." That says nothing about our ability not to include such material.
Wikipedia:Profanity is a guideline, not policy, but it also doesn't support your argument. It says: "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not."
It also says: "As in all discussions on Wikipedia, it is vital that all parties practise civility and assume good faith. Words like "pornography" or "censorship" tend to inflame the discussion and should be avoided (emphasis added)."
So the question is: how would removing that image "cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate." SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 15:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The policy NOT CENSORED does support my arguement. It says "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive.". So if you're trying to move an image because its offensive, thats against policy. And be aware that there are perhaps 4 other articles that are using this image, including Muhammad and there are other images of Muhammad all over this website as well. Remove them all as well if they are not "adding any information".
So the question is: how would removing that image "cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate."
Ok so this is going to be your main argument then. Fine. This picture is a picture of Mohammad putting in the Kaaba stone. This event was an actual event recorded in Islamic history, so its obviously relevant and its accurate, as its a painting. I mean, they didnt have digital cameras 1400 years ago, so all we have is paintings for that era. That applies to all painting images in Wikipedia. The image is informative as well as its showing an even that really occured. Its as valid relevant, informative and accurate as the Wikipedia logo you see up there on the top of this page. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Here's what you gotta do SV : stick to polices, otherwise it ends up in a big mess everytime. You should have semi-protected (not full) that page so anons couldnt vandalize the article again. Thats what you should have done. Instead you've roused up this debate again which has taken place and settled many times before (see the talk page of Muhammad). --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with that last sentence of the guideline: both "censorship" and "pornography" are completely legitimate words to use in our discussions; if not, then let us change WP:NOT which uses "censor[ship]" quite conspicuously. Much less useful is the word "blasphemy/blasphemous" which shouldn't apply here at all, as Wikipedia doesn't have a religion against which to blaspheme: this word appeared frequently in the posts which started this most recent discussion. Though others may have learned to avoid this term, it is an honest description of the concept which motivates this discussion.Proabivouac 20:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think removing the image in any way impairs the article. It's not like you won't be able to understand the event without seeing the image. BYT 15:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Lets remove the Wikipedia logo too then. I dont think its going to impair this website, right? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If the article were discussing, say, the invasion of Normandy, and if the reader had to understand the different events taking place on Omaha Beach vs. Utah Beach (or whatever), including a map would be a good thing, and removing it would definitely detract from the article. If the article were France, however, removing the image would not be a problem in my view. This image would definitely belong at an article called Muhammad's role in the rebuilding of the Kaaba, which we could link to from this article. Perhaps you would be willing to work on such an article with me? BYT 16:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to follow those lines, then I could argue that it would infact better belong in Muhammad as found at t-5.67 seconds before inserting the stone in the Kaaba. And no, the article you proposed would probably not have much content and people would ask it to be merged to Kaaba. For once people need to accept that this is an encyclopedia and its job is to inform. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If you were serious about finding common ground with an editor who is working with you in good faith and trying to resolve a difference of opinion, though, you might consider working constructively and considering something other than the zero-sum game you've been proposing here. Working with people who disagree with you can actually improve the encyclopedia. It all depends on what you want from the process, Matt. BYT 16:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

BYT, there's no such thing as finding common grounds that violate policies. As I pointed out to SV, the image is relevant, informative and accurate for this article. Are you honest in treating this image as any other image or are you opposing its inclusion because you find it offensive? I mean, this is a great unique historical image that tells us about an event that actually happened. Why would anyone want to remove an image like this? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's our problem. Removing this image doesn't violate policy -- not in the way that, say, making a fourth reversion in a wtwenty-four hour period violates policy. Removing the image simply doesn't conform to your interpretation of what the policy requires. Not everyone views these matters in the way that you do. That's where the collaboration part comes in. (And no, I don't find the image offensive. If I did, why would I be proposing that we use it elsewhere?) BYT 16:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Matt, you want us to stick to WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored and Wikipedia:Profanity, and that's fine, but we must do it properly. The sentence you quoted from WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored is: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive." This does not mean that editors are not allowed to remove that content. So the policy does not support your argument.
As for your next point, the relevant sentence from Wikipedia:Profanity is: "Words and images that would be considered offensive ... should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate ... (emphasis added).
You argued only that the image is "obviously relevant and its accurate." But that is not the point of that sentence in Wikipedia:Profanity. What it says, again, is an offensive image may be used if and only if the omission of the image would make the ARTICLE less informative or accurate. If it were a photograph, it would make the article more informative, because we could see: "Oh, this really did happen." Or, if it were a contemporaneous image, we could see: "People believed even at that time that it really did happen, so it probably did." But this is a drawing from hundreds of years after the event. It tells us nothing about the event itself, but only what one person hundreds of years later imagined it might have looked like, sort of, assuming it happened. I could have drawn it; you could have drawn it.
So my question again is: "how would removing that image "cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate"? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 16:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin: The full sentence of the policy that you are quoting says: "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." First, the typical Wikipedia reader is not offended by the image, simply because the typical reader of Wikipedia isn't an ultraconservative Muslim. Even BrandonYusufToropov has made it clear that he personally doesn't find it offensive. As for the image, it is as mentioned highly topical, being included in the "at the time of Muhammad" section showing Muhammad interacting with the articles subject. I don't think it would make any sense for us to censor an image simply in order to meet the demands of ultraconservative Muslims. If we are going to meet their demands we will have to delete a whole lot of content from the 'pedia, but fortunately fact is that we don't have to because Wikipedia is not censored. -- Karl Meier 16:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
SV, this is not going to work in the end as you, ALM and BYT want it to, trust me. We can go on and on for this for 2 months and the result in the end is going to be the same. Now, profanity (as Karl pointed out as well) as you're talking about it here and offensive images, are only considered offensive if TYPICAL readers find the image offensive. You're picking parts of the policy for what suits you. The policy says: Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers - do TYPICAL Wikipedia readers find these images offensive? NO. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, that's a fair point, and we can come to that. But first, could you please answer the question I've asked twice now, which is: How would removing that image cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 17:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
That question is only relevant if the image is considered offensive by typical Wikipedia readers. Right? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 17:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, they're two separate points. I'd first like to know whether you can answer the question, given how much you want the image to remain. Can you please say why its omission would make the article less accurate, relevant, or informative? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 17:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
No its not two seperate points. Its being used in the same sentence infact. The question is irrelevant in this case as I said, since typical Wikipedia readers dont find the image offensive. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 18:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
At the very least, it is the oldest and most notable depiction of the Kaaba to be found on this article.Proabivouac 18:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
It was painted hundreds of years later, so it doesn't tell us anything about the Kaaba. It tells us only about the artist. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 18:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
No, 1) it also tells about the famous story, which is depicted pretty much exactly as it is desribed in the records; 2) it confirms that the appearance of the Kaaba has not changed much since 1315, and 3) it is actually the only image on this page which gives any glimpse at all of what the Kaaba looks like when uncovered by the kiswah (among many other things, but those should do for now.) The notion that this is just a random artist's fanciful invention is completely unjustified.Proabivouac 19:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Matt, I'm asking why you feel that removing the image would leave the article less informative, accurate, or relevant. The guideline you say we must follow asks editors not to use the censorship argument. So I am asking what your editorial and intellectual opinion is regarding why that image adds to the article. You must have one, otherwise you wouldn't be arguing that we keep it. So what is it? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 18:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I've explained many times how the image improves the article. Others have given the argument too. Even then, I repeat, the requirement of an image being informative, accurate, or relevant is only valid if the image is offensive to the typical Wikipedia editor. Answer this question: Is this image offensive to you and typical Wikipedia editors? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The article directly discuss what is illustrated by the image, and having both text and an image explaining to the reader what happened is better and more informative than including text only. Of course we can explain everything with words, and we could properly also remove all the images from for example the Pig articles due to ultra conservative Muslims perhaps being offended. However, explaining historical events as it the case with this article, or for example the anatomy of the pig with words only will make our articles less informative and less attractive to the readers, than if we choose to use a wider range of media to communicate relevant information with. -- Karl Meier 18:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
How on Earth could deleting the oldest and most noteable depiction of the event improve the article? Putting aside for a moment the issue of islamic taboo, removing this image only makes the article less informative. The painting does what any photo, painting or drawing does of an event, help the reader and viewer understand the event. For modern events, photos and clips of events illustrate them in words cannot do (i.e. "a picture is worth a thousand words"). For ancient events, paintings and drawings serve the same exact purpose. Frankly I believe that a fundamental debate about whether photos, paintings and drawings serve a purpose in an article is bordering on disengenious. Furthermore, lets be honest, the only compromise acceptable to the professional offendees would be the worldwide destruction of all images of Mohammed. Dman727 18:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
This was stated very frankly above:
"…do not behave in narrow minded way. All dipictions of this sort should be avoided at all costs."[4]Proabivouac 20:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I think striking up an extreme position in either direction is unhelpful: that all such images should be avoided in accordance with some Muslim sentiment, or that they must all stay in accordance with some anti-censorship sentiment. Rather, we need to look at each case separately and decide how much information the image is adding to the article. I hope Matt will answer my question about that. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
SV, no, Wikipedia does not cater to religious customs or beliefs and compromise on its policies and mission of being a source of information. The images are not offensive to typical Wikipedia readers and so your argument is moot. As to why the image is relevant and adds information to this article, others have given very good answers above in addition to my own. Why did you not reply to the issues others raised here? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Matt, I won't ask the question for the fifth time. I'm going to assume by your failure to reply that you don't have an editorial or intellectual argument that omitting the image would make the article less informative. The no-censorship argument is simplistic. We censor Wikipedia every time we include A but not B. We censor ourselves every time we go out in public; every time we're polite to someone we don't like. There is no such thing as no censorship.
Which issues I have not replied to, Matt? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Karl and Dman brought up some arguments which respond to your question. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Please don't keep referring me to previous posts. I don't see anything to respond to. If I've missed something, please tell me here what it is. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok SV, I'll have to spell it out for you then: Karl's response to your question, Dman's response and now Tom's response below and you'll have many more if you like. Let me know if you dont get any of it and I'll rephrase it for you. I had responded to your question too and I can explain more if you need, but first you need to respond to Karl, Tom and Dman. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, re "We censor Wikipedia every time we include A but not B."
The contemporary denotations of "edit" and "censor" are very different, as a quick glance at any dictionary will show.
Re "We censor ourselves every time we go out in public."
The appropriate analogies to Wikipedia aren't interactions with random strangers on the sidewalk, but such public venues as libraries, museums and academic courses. Unless Edinburgh University Library is impolite to hold this original, or Edinburgh University Press impolite to have reprinted it? Certainly, Wikipedia should aim for respectability - and very often doesn't - but from a scholarly perspective, there is nothing at all disreputable about this material, or about making it available to the public.Proabivouac 21:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Break 1

How would removing a picture of the re-dedication of the Kaaba make our article on the Kaaba less informative? Because it would remove an illustration of one of the most significant events in the history of the subject. It would do so because some people find it blasphemous. Including a picture of any other historical figure doing anything else would pass without remark, unless someone said, "Hey, nice picture of Caesar at the Colosseum. That puts us on track to a featured article." Nobody would ask, "Could we remove this picture without impairing the article too much?" Raising the bar for pictures of Muhammad, is religious censorship. The motivation for removing this picture is that it is of Muhammad. Removing it, hiding it by default, fuzzing out the face, making it less prominent; any of these will then become a basis for further demands to compromise. Tom Harrison Talk 21:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a slippery slope argument, Tom, and they're always weak. I take your point about religious censorship, I really do, but this is an article about a religion, and so it's obviously going to be a factor, just as writing about sex will raise the issue of sexual censorship, and writing about snuff movies will raise the issue of whether to show an image from one. Religious censorship isn't different from any other kind. What is happening is that people are saying: "I don't like this image/text because (fill in sexual, religious, intellectual, or other argument). And therefore other people must say: "We want to keep this image/text because it makes the article better in (fill in the ways it makes the article better).
It's the latter I'm waiting to see: the ways in which this image makes this article better. Someone has argued that it's an old image depicting the event. But it's not a very informative image, and it's not contemporaneous. So really it's just like something Tom or I could draw. So: are there any other ways in which this image makes this article better? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Right, if you accept one slippery-slope argument, you'll soon find yourself accepting others. Arguments need to be replied to, not just dismissed. If it were any other article it would be regarded as an improvement, and it clearly is an improvement, as would be any other historical illustration. Tom Harrison Talk 22:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
SV, "it's not contemporaneous." It is indeed contemporaneous with the Kaaba, which existed in 1315, and presumably served as the basis for this illustration. It is not contemporaneous with the depicted events, but then neither is the written record of the same events, not by a longshot. That the illustration is not contemporaneous with the first appearance of the written records is a trivial point, especially as the entire story is most probably mythical anyhow.
"So really it's just like something Tom or I could draw." Perhaps if you are very skillful; I certainly could not reproduce it. But even if I could, it would fail notability; this image is held in the special collections of a prominent university library and certainly does not.
Ask this: Would there be any objection at all to this image were Muhammad and the Black Stone not part of it; i.e. if it illustrated only the kiswah being lifted to reveal the door of the Kaaba? Would it be called uninformative? And yet the presence of Muhammad and the black stone only adds information and context to the image (unless we are upset that he is obscures the right door?)Proabivouac 22:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering if there might actually be a technical solution here. The issue of "offensive pictures" is not unique to this article, it's also applicable to images in other articles, especially about sexual subjects. Perhaps the MediaWiki software could be adapted to include a "filter" option? It could be accessible in Preferences, so any User could tag checkboxes like "Show all images" or "Don't show images that are tagged as sensitive to Religion|graphical sex|etc." Then in certain image tags, we could add an option like "Filter=religion", which would trigger the appropriate preference. If it was triggered, the "show/hide option" would be enabled, and the image wouldn't automatically shown. Instead, the caption would be seen, with a disclaimer like Slimvirgin posted, "This image may be objectionable to some viewers. To see it anyway, please click 'Show'". --Elonka 04:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Elonka read this [5]. I do not wish to censor all religious pictures. I love them. How can one imagine that Jesus is going to appear nacked on the page and hence he should censor without seeing him nacked first? --- A. L. M. 08:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

TOM POV: "Because it would remove an illustration of one of the most significant events in the history of the subject." He wish to have this image based on this POV, good point. I decline that such a minor event could be most significant. I will ask for any reference from TOM to prove this claim of one of most significant event.- --- A. L. M. 08:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The mistake that people here (SlimVirgin and Elonka) are making is giving in and listening to unreasonable demands, all because they want people like ALM and BYT to stop being offended and they see no other way out of it. Look at it rationally and stick to the rules: The job of this website is to inform. Anything that gets in the way of that should be swiftly ignored. I can stay in all year for this dispute, trust me. Elonka, what you're suggesting is probably not going to happen, it will involve the software developers to devote their time for this issue and they're busy with other stuff, you know. They dont care if a handful of articles have this problem. We have about 2 million articles here. Your solution would be justified if it applied to a good number of articles but it doesnt so its probably never going to be implemented. I appreciate your effort of trying to cooperate and find a compromise but I dont see any compromise here, except maybe - like we have in the Bahá'u'lláh article, they warn the reader by saying at the end of the lead:
Please note, a photograph of Bahá'u'lláh can be found at the end of this article.
So for example we could have:
Please note, a painting of Muhammad can be found in this article.
Thats all we can do. SlimVirgin are you there? You disappeared from this debate yesterday. I think you might realize that you probably made a mistake by fully-protecting the article and starting this debate, and not semi-protecting and ignoring these unreasonable demands. Now you've started off this debate again. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok and just to be sure, you all (Elonka and SlimV) are aware that there are many images of Muhammad all over Wikipedia, right? You're talking over here as if this is the only article which has a problem. Just making sure. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
We're not talking about other articles, Matt, just this one at the moment.
There's clearly no consensus to remove this image or to use the show/hide thing, which I see as a great pity, because it would have given both "sides" roughly what they wanted. The best thing to do is to post a warning at the top of the page. This may mean the article won't be read by some of the people who are probably most interested in it, but I don't see what else we can do. Elonka, thanks for your technical suggestions. They're definitely worth passing on to the developers. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Posting the warning is the only practical and acceptable thing to do, as it has been done for the Bahá'u'lláh article. So is this issue considered closed then? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Caption change requested

Appended to the caption is the message, "For more information on this image, please see Depictions of Muhammad." In fact, there is no further information about this image in that article which can't be more easily found by clicking on the image and viewing the Commons description, except for this: "…during the rule of the Sunni Arab Muzaffarid dynasty…" Which, as it happens, is false; accordingly I have removed it. There is no reason to send readers to Depictions of Muhammad looking for information which doesn't exist.Proabivouac 23:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be kept, as a way of reducing the edit wars. The link isn't just to more information about the image, but to more information about the controversy about the image. --Elonka 04:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Pro on this issue. The article doesn't elaborate further on the image nor is it necessarily relevant. --Strothra 04:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The image description page is on the Commons. It is my feeling that if a reader wanted more information about the image, that they should be advised to review the page at Depictions of Muhammad. --Elonka 05:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
No, that is misleading advice: there is no more information about the image to be found on that article. I say this as one who not too long ago followed the link and searched the article several times for the promised information before realizing that there was nothing besides the caption (which I then compared to the commons description and vetted to find the error.) Remember that there are readers involved here; However well intended, it's quite unethical to funnel them to that article in this way, even to reduce edit-warring. At the very least, the link could accurately state, "For information about Muslim attitudes towards Depictions of Muhammad in general…" Promising more information about "this image" is misrepresentation.
Nor am I aware of any controversy surrounding this image in particular. There was a controversy surrounding the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons, and a smaller one about the image on the frieze of the United States Supreme Court building - and there is more information about both of these, and about the controversy, in Depictions of Muhammad - but none surrounding this one. One may as well provide a link to Hijab from an image of Britney Spears.Proabivouac 06:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There is manifestly no consensus to include the image in this article; removing it does not harm the article in any material way (as it would if the article were about the rebuilding of the Kaaba); and (sad but true) there is no willingness to compromise by placing the image in a linked article. Thus the best approach to removing the inaccuracy you have identified -- and the most obvious one, if I may add -- is simply to remove the image and the caption. BYT 13:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Proav here. Also this caption is sort of "weak". If you're trying to tell people that images should not be removed, include that as a hidden text comment, and semi-protect the article if there's a problem, that is it. Just remove that part of the caption. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Funny, I'd long though that the best and most obvious approach to removing an inaccuracy is to remove the inaccuracy.
BYT, would you have any objection to including a 1315 illustration of the Kaaba which does not show Muhammad, but only the kiswah being lifted to reveal the doors and masonry beneath, as they appeared at that time? Would you agree that it would be informative?Proabivouac 19:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Add category

{{editprotected}} I wish to add Category:Conversion of non-Muslim places of worship into mosques Chesdovi 13:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed image addition

I would like to include this image in the Location and physicial attributes section.Proabivouac 21:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an excellent image, I wonder why it wasnt added before. Thanks for digging it up! Pretty interesting as well. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm…it was removed last year as "suspicious",[6] but without any corresponding discussion or objections. The original image is here and was created by a Wikipedia editor using photoshop, supposedly from an older original. I would definitely prefer to find the original, and use it if we can. Otherwise, we have no way of verifying that these details are accurate (though I have no reason to doubt it.)Proabivouac 22:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I've written a message to the uploader here, I hope we can find the origin of information for these images. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 11:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected

I've unprotected and added the warning as discussed. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, as you're still providing the adult supervision around here, would you object to the removal of "For more information on this image, please see Depictions of Muhammad" from the caption, per this discussion above? It is as if we were to link Oh, God! to Idolatry in Judaism in order to combat potential misconceptions that the creators were following Jewish teachings: an OR-ish creation of controversy where none (outside of Wikipedia) exists and an inappropriately reader-confrontational use of links.
The warning looks fine, by the way. Very matter-of-fact and unobtrusive.Proabivouac 22:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I would say that with the warning at the top, it's perhaps not so necessary to link to that article in the caption too, though I also think it does no harm to leave it there. If it's to stay in the caption, it might be better to say "For information on why this image might be regarded as offensive, see ..." SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

We already have a warning that mention that we sometimes include images that might be offensive to some. The disclaimer which every page link to make the reader aware that "Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers.". There is no need for this "warning" at the top of the article, as it is redundant, and if we are going to warn readers about everything in our articles that could possibly be seen as offensive, nearly all our articles would be filled with such warnings. One example is that it is not just images of Muhammad that is considered offensive by ultraconservative Muslims. -- Karl Meier 06:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think, in principle at least, that such warnings are appropriate. It's a way to have it both ways. It helps people to choose what they want to see. Censorship is bad, choice is good. Just like movie 'censorship' - cutting/banning is poor form in an open society, on the other hand, people appreciate being informed about what they are about to see (violence, nudity, etc). The warning is so small that IMO any attempt to remove it could be considered a form of trolling. Just my opinion. Merbabu 06:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
You both have good points; I'm still thinking about it.
For now, I'd like to ask, what is the point of linking again to Depictions of Muhammad? Yes, the phrase "depiction of Muhammad" is here, but what value does the link add? The phrase is transparent and doesn't need to be explained, while those for whom the warning is presumably intended will hate that article more than anything which exists here. Indeed, we have already seen one vandal (since blocked) who moved from blanking the image here to blanking that entire page, almost certainly by following one or the other unneccesary link.Proabivouac 08:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Merbabu: We will have to include a lot of warnings then, and I don't see why the warning that we already have should not be sufficient. How many times are we going to warn people against Wikipedia and it's lack of censorship? Politically I largely support the Danish People's party, and I and other people supporting that party most like feel that the criticism that has been raised regarding DPP has been largely unfair and sometimes rather offensive. Can I have a "this article include criticism" on the top of the article, to warn me and others that large agree with the policies of DPP against an article that include content we might very well object to and feel offended by? Or how about a function where I can click and turn the "criticism" section into a "praise" section? -- Karl Meier 08:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Your first sentence refers to a "warning we already have". Which warning? Do you mean the "Please note that this article contains a depiction of Muhammad." which you removed? Is there another warning? It is not clear to me what you are now referring too. As for your reasoning about criticism of political parties and some kind of button, i think you are getting off track and is also unclear - let's keep analogies relevant and reasonable. --Merbabu 08:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
It is the warning that I quote above, which is from the disclaimer that is included on every single page on Wikipedia: "Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers.". -- Karl Meier 08:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, would you agree to include similar warnings on other pages that include content that some readers might object to or find offensive? Would you support me including a similar warning on the Danish People's Party article? -- Karl Meier 08:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
On other articles? Possibly yes - but, i haven't given it much thought yet. In this case here it strikes me as a good faith gesture that supports the no-censorship policy and will possibly assist in preventing the tiring removal/reinsertion of such 'offensive' pics. As for the specific question of political party pages I've already commented on that analogy. Perhaps you can explain its relevance. --Merbabu 08:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it support the no censorship policy to include redundant apologies everywhere for our lack of censorship. Wikipedia is not censured and it is being mentioned on every page that we include images that might be offensive to some readers. That should be enough. Also, as I understand you, your position on this issue is that we should use a different approach on articles regarding Islam (and religion in general?) than we use on articles regarding political parties (and articles regarding politics in general?). If my understanding of your position is correct, then my question is why do you believe that we should use a different approach to articles when editing Islam and religion, then we have when editing articles regarding for example politics and DPP? The policies we are editing these articles according to are the same. -- Karl Meier 10:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I like this warning because it also links to Depictions of Muhammad which shows that there are many other images of Muhammad too so they should not remove it and not be shocked by seeing these images. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 11:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I am puzzled why this discussion is taking place here. There was a centralized discussion on the inclusion of depictions of Muhammad, and the consensus was that such images are appropraite. If some editors believe that a warning should be added to all articles containing images of Muhammad, they should suggest this first on Talk:Muhammad. Beit Or 17:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. -- Karl Meier 22:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
As do I. I requested full protection of the article again. --Strothra 22:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The warning is intended to steer potentially offended editors away from reading further, or if they do, to leave them with the responsibility for having done so. However, I am concerned that it will have the unintended effect of cuing and facilitating vandalism.Proabivouac 22:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac's question

I wanted to respond in depth to Pro's question:

BYT, would you have any objection to including a 1315 illustration of the Kaaba which does not show Muhammad, but only the kiswah being lifted to reveal the doors and masonry beneath, as they appeared at that time? Would you agree that it would be informative?

  • Pro, if consensus existed for it, I'd support putting it in. If, however, there was no consensus, and if it consistently polarized the talk page, if it led to frequent bouts of trauma with people attempting to access the article, and if it basically destabilized the encyclopedia and kept me from real work because it was necessary to take part in perpetually hair-splitting debates like this one, I'd say leave it out. But read on.
  • Now then.
  • Some editors act as though these kinds of judgment calls are unique to articles about Islam.
  • They're not.
  • Some people act as though the word "editor" meant nothing more than "provacateur."
  • It shouldn't.
  • This effort of yours has consensus now, Pro.
  • It is also, let us be frank, a provocation. (BYT's Michael Corleone impression:) You insult my intelligence when you claim otherwise.
  • But the word "editor" itself implies a certain maturity that I had hoped you possessed.
  • The very word "editor" implies a certain judiciousness and a discretion and, here at WP, a presumed willingness to work on behalf of, not in fury against, the average reader.
  • This is not an occasional provocation. It is a systemic provocation.
  • Do you and Matt and Karl and Arrow provoke the "Israel lobby" about their "censorship" of efforts to report on their influence on American foreign policy at Israel, an influence that is now alienating large chunks of the intelligentsia within the US the academic and policy community?
  • No. All of that would be "insensitive."
  • You and Matt and Karl and Arrow and the rest are, let's face it, much more likely to work on pages like this. And then lecture me and a billion other people about the importance of freedom of speech.
  • This is not a question of informativeness. This is a campaign. It wasn't happening three years ago. Now it is.
  • Happy hunting. Looks like there is now consensus to put this latest, incredibly incendiary, incredibly insensitive, image in.
  • Go for it.
  • Please don't say I block consensus or make it up as I go along.
  • Please don't lecture me about freedom of speech.
  • And please do watch that reversion count. You get three within a 24-hour period, even if you don't like what the other person is saying, and even if the other person is clueless about 3RR. BYT 14:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
BrandonYusufToropov: This page is for discussing how the article should be developed. It is not a forum for your bad faith accusations or requests I and a number of other editors should go and "reveal" how the evil Zionists attack defenseless Muslim women and children and how they conspire to control the US government. On the subject however, I am quite surprised to see that you now consider the image which was painted by a Muslim to be "incredibly incendiary, incredibly insensitive". Just two days ago you mentioned that you didn't find it offensive. What happened? -- Karl Meier 16:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, a convenient fiction. If these comics as linked from his user page are any guide, BYT opposes the depiction of any animate creature.Proabivouac 23:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
BYT, so whats your point? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, that was a yes or no question. Interesting though that one would support the censorship of something because it is offensive about one thing, but while supporting the uncensoring of something on a different topic. How convenient. --Strothra 17:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

<BYT here, quoting from my talk page, where Matt asked Karl's question:>

Here you said that the image of Muhammad was not offensive. Then you said the opposite thing, saying the image was "incredibly incendiary, incredibly insensitive". Can you please explain your comments? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


<and I answered:>

Happy to help you out, Matt. Some people might find a given image incendiary, and thus inappropriate for a given article, without finding it personally offensive.
A doctored photo of "Contemporary American Religious Leader X" with blood dripping from his mouth, for instance, might be something I find unpleasant, but the image itself would not personally offend me.
The image would, however, be inappropriate for inclusion at the article Contemporary American Religious Leader X, in my view. Not because it "offends" me as a person, but because it is over-the-top, coarse, and fundamentally insensitive to the realities of the world in which we live, a world in which people view direct attacks on their spiritual figures as attacks on themselves.
There was a time when encyclopedias did not make those kinds of attacks, or even risk the appearance of doing so.
Note, however, that the same image might be quite appropriate in an article such as Political cartoon. It's all about context.
Experienced editors learn to make these kinds of judgment calls. I hope you will eventually come to appreciate their importance. BYT 11:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
It's quite silly to equate this image with a cartoon of Muhammad with blood dripping from his mouth, which in most cases would indeed be inappropriate. However, had a Meccan pagan painted the Kaaba in 631, and shown Muhammad before it in caricature with his mouth dripping with blood, we should be eager to display it despite the problems, because it would be the oldest picture of the Kaaba (and of Muhammad,) and obviously the most notable. This illustration, more than merely respectful, is reverent and devotional, depicting a plainly hagiographic post-mortem tale in which Muhammad is nothing if not wise, trusted and prophetic even before his prophecy, following Abraham in building the Kaaba and setting within it the Black Stone. Your objections are on target, if the target is a straw man. This image you cannot contest at all. It may be the starkest illustration yet of the incompatibility between religious considerations and encyclopedic goals: the contemporaneity of the illustrator and the Kaaba isn't contested, it is obvious that the illustrator had seen the Kaaba up close with his own eyes (or copied it very closely from someone who had,) it shows the Kaaba in intimate detail, it is the oldest illustration we have, the illustration accompanied a famous work by a famous scholar, was very likely produced under his direction, it illustrates a famous story which is recounted in the text and reflects wonderfully upon its human subject. Everything is right. Who can blame you for substituting something else (contemporary polemic caricatures of religious figures) to argue against? Against the image we are supposed to be discussing, there is no good argument.Proabivouac 06:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge

For the record, I am opposed to the idea of merging the articles of Black Stone and Kaaba. The Black Stone is a significant object in its own right, and it is appropriate to have a separate article about it. --Elonka 20:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think its better to have its own article too, because this is something very significant like you said, so I agree.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a section here about the Black Stone, at least? My thinking was that this a very important part of the Kaaba as well as being its own subject. Black Stone isn't so large that it couldn't be that section (and would be smaller once duplicated information was removed.) In principle, there would be a Black Stone article would a very detailed treatment, but the existence of that article in its current state isn't a good reason not to have this general information here.Proabivouac 01:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree there should be something significant on the Black Stone, e.g. a picture of the stone in the Location and Physical attributions section (since thats where its being talked about). I think the article contains enough of a short mention of the stone and the picture should do the needful. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 02:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


The need to compromise

A couple of editors seem to be saying that they must have things their way entirely. The image must stay; the caption link to Depictions of Muhammad must go; the show/hide option is unacceptable; and the warning must go too.

This isn't reasonable. Neither side can have everything it wants. Therefore, please continue discussing which compromise is best. I've protected the article again in the meantime. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The point here though is that any compromise is not rational because it is not what has been done in other articles repeatedly. This same issue has been discussed before and resolved in the only possible way - according to Wiki policy that does not allow censorship. A warning is ridiculous - why don't you try to propose a policy to place a warning at the top of every article that contains something potentially offensive and see how far that flies? Why should this article be any different from all others? If it's offensive then so be it. There is no policy against offensive material, if fact the tendency of Wiki has been in favor of its inclusion - ie the use of certain pornographic images and profanity. As long as it does not violate standards of inclusion that are already established, this discussion is pointless and interrupting progress that we could be making on the article. --Strothra 23:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Despite the inconsistency with WP practice elsewhere, I'm not opposed to a warning in principle. My question is, will it really keep the potentially offended from reading on, or will it only cue them that there is something in the article to vandalize? If the actions of active editors are indicative of what readers will do - I doubt they are, actually, but as this premise of "representation" is the only justification for this debate to begin with - the editors who've expressed the most offense don't avoid these pages at all, but hang around them looking for different ways to blank the images and keep the debate alive long past its rightful shelf life. It seems not anything about the visual appearance of the images themselves (cf. Kryptonite,) but the fact that they are being displayed that is causing the offense; this is plain in BYT and ALM's objections, at least. If so, then this message will cause the very same offense (per BYT, communal humiliation/provocation) to any who read it.
If, on the other hand, the appearance of this warning means that editors who then continue through the article are individually responsible for what they see, for whatever reactions they might have to it, and most importantly for whatever disruptive behavior the might then undertake, then this warning is a small price to pay.
In sum, a compromise that contributes to stability and prevents disruption is worthwhile insofar as it does, but one which unintentionally encourages disruption and/or facilitates vandalism is undesirable. To take another example, were all these articles placed in a Category:Articles with depictions of Muhammad, vandals could simply stroll through the Cat membership. The same might be true of filter tags, depending on how these were technically accomplished.Proabivouac 01:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
How do you compromise on the issue of censorship? Cut the image in half? Photoshop a new head on Mohammed? Wiki policies are in place to address this question. The policy is WP:CENSOR and says that we dont censor based on the objections of being offended. However I'll answer on how you compromise. You compromise by showing only noteable, informative images in a respectful manner.Dman727 01:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
We do have the show/hide option. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Have those desiring the censor of the image expressed ANY support for the show/hide option? I'll support it with a default show if they'll agree to stop trying to censor wiki on the basis of Islamic taboo. So far the only option I've seen from the pro-censor folks is the complete removal of all Mohammed images for anyone and everyone. Naturally there is an option for those afraid of the image..simply change their browser to a different web page.Dman727 02:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The show/hide option is pretty silly. If the default mode is "hide", then this is censorship; if the default mode is "show", then people who are supposed to be offended by this image will see it and get offended, negating the very purpose of the show/hide option. The current applicable disclaimers state plainly that people use Wikipedia at their own risk; if someone has failed to read them before reading the article, then it's not our problem. Beit Or 21:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

BYT, could you say what your view is of having a warning at the top of the page? Is it worth the trouble, will it be helpful, or is it likely only to inflame? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

A supermajority has already made a decision during the debate on the Muhammad page that it is indeed acceptable to include images of Muhammad, with no censorship and no warnings/apologies. The image that we are going to include here is also both highly topical and valuable to the article, and the consensus is to include it and not to censure it. -- Karl Meier 09:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Here's another option for a compromise. There is an altered version of the Muhammad image, where the face has been digitally blanked out. Let's use that image here at the article, and provide a link in the image caption, to the unaltered image. Would that make everyone happy? --Elonka 18:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The short answer is no. As a member of the ArbCom mentioned when responding to a request for arbitration that was filed regarding Muhammad: "Wikipedia is not censored - not even when you really, really want it to be." -- Karl Meier 20:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, blanking the face out would be a perfect example of censorship and violation of WP:NOT. Please also note that adding a warning to the top of the article is blatant violation of commonly accepted guidelines - ie Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. You must realize that people use Wikipedia at their own risk and that Wiki contains objectionable content, but does not provide disclaimers. Seriously, the inclusion of this image, as is, is perfectly in-line with policy. Any form of so called "compromise" here is unacceptable and violates the spirit and word of Wiki policy. --Strothra 20:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles covers this issue perfectly. Any "compromise" in the form of an inclusion of some sort of warning would be a violation of the applicable guidelines. Beit Or 21:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Elonka, no, we dont want to use altered images. You're willing to give in unreasonable demands. Thats wrong. You should understand this: there is no point in a compromise which results in the violation of Wikipedia policies and if you want to read detail on that, read this. Stick to policies and ignore everything else or you'll end up in a messy or chaotic place because then every other rule can be violated too on the basis of a "compromise". We are fine now. This matter should be considered closed and hopefully not reopened like it was here. Further recurrent removals of Mohammed images should be dealt swiftly with semi-protections and warnings and if necessary, blocks. I mean, we're sorry but these are our policies and if anyone doesnt respect them, they need to be blocked. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Matt57, no one should be blocked; that would be unfair, insensitive and wrong. What should happen is that all affected pages should be either semi-protected or fully-protected into the indefinite future, and open-ended mediations should be initiated for all affected pages, which end if and only if and when there is a consensus to remove all depictions. Remember, our goal here isn't just to "create an encyclopedia": it's to prove we're not discriminating against anyone. Not everyone understands this. At the end of the day, readers and content are just not all that important compared to the religious sentiments of editors to this talk page. Keeping this debate alive - even if there is no purpose per se - is the very least we can do to show that we're listening.Proabivouac 09:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC) Sorry, for whatever reason I was thinking there were more than two editors complaining here. My mistake. Support solution proposed by Matt57 above.Proabivouac 09:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, that's the only way this farce can end. --Strothra 10:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Sure, there is nothing to add. Beit Or 18:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

this is retarded. an image of mohammed is not helpful in an encyclopediac article regarding the kaaba, it should be in an article about the images of mohammad instead. i am not muslim but i'm going to delete that image 71.132.143.219 00:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The comment "this is retarded" does not say much about your professionalism. Please review WP:CIVIL. Also, edit-warring is a completely ineffective way of getting your desired changes implemented. Please see WP:DR for advice on more effective means of dispute resolution. --Elonka 00:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
wtf im completely support mohammed pictures elsewhere like in a mohammed article, but wtf kaaba? whoever placed the image there was clearly a troll 71.132.143.219 00:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Views from other scholars on the image issue

As another point of view here... I was attending an academic conference (on games and society) this weekend, and had the opportunity to go to a talk on "Computer games in Islamic culture." Which has nothing directly to do with this particular debate, but I did get the opportunity to meet some Muslims there, and I asked them about our current issue. The people that I talked to were generally Sunni, well-educated, highly-literate, and their views relatively liberal (it was, after all, a gaming conference). For example, despite the ban on "images of living figures," they were okay on taking photographs of family, seeing animated figures in computer games, etc.

They had heard of Wikipedia, had a positive impression of it, and were interested when I brought up the idea of articles about the Kaaba and Black Stone. Through all this, they were nodding and smiling and engaged. Then when I got to the point of mentioning "some 14th century artwork of Muhammad lifting the Black Stone into place," they actually recoiled like a physical blow. One woman laughed nervously, and said that if she were to see such an image, she would feel as though she had just committed blasphemy. I asked her to try and better explain the issue, and she said that part of her prayers are to keep her mind free of any particular image, and just to focus on the indefinable concept of God. But if she sees an image of Muhammad, or any prophet, that it would change the nature of her prayers, and her thoughts would then unwillingly form the image of the painting she had seen, even if she did not wish it. And that since the painting could not possibly be a true image of Muhammad, it would then somehow corrupt her own thoughts. It was startling to me, to see how this highly-educated and very open-minded woman, a trained engineer, suddenly became so distressed.

Her reaction, and those of the other scholars I spoke to, are making me rethink my position on this issue. I did bring up to them the quandary that we have about how we want to provide a source of knowledge, but we also do not want to offend, but neither do we want to censor. None of them had a good answer. Some, as librarians, grudgingly agreed that it's important to keep access to knowledge, and that it's wrong to simply remove books from a library simply because someone may find them offensive. Some had ambivalent feelings about the "show/hide filter" option, saying that even then they would be uncomfortable with knowing that the image was on the page, even if it was hidden from them.

The discussions gave me much more insight into the problem, and my own feeling now is that at a very minimum, we must post a warning on the page, to give a good-faith heads-up to those who are reading a Wikipedia article, that there may be an image further down that they might find as shocking as some of us might find the images on a shock site such as goatse.cx. I personally still believe that it's important that we provide the images here on Wikipedia for those who wish them for scholarship, but we must be responsible in how we provide them. --Elonka 18:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you were correct when you said that this was not relevant. Please restrict your discussion here to being about the article. Personal matters are better expressed via e-mail or editor discussion pages. --Strothra 18:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Alright. And where do we draw the line? Do we put a warning up on Xenu saying that L. Ron Hubbard says that anyone that learns of it before their time will die of pneumonia? Do we put warnings up on pages that criticize religion, on the ground that someone might find it offensive? See Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. To be blunt, it's not our job to protect people from themselves. --Laugh! 20:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Elonka, thank you for your post. It's a very interesting perspective, and what the woman said about prayer certainly makes sense. I wonder whether we could encourage some of our Muslim editors to write an essay about it for Wikipedia that explains their feelings. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 03:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
ALM has done it already here. Either the images stay or they move out, we have to decide one way or the other. We cant keep debating on this forever. This has to be decided once and for all. Or are you saying its okay to debate every time someone removes a picture? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
As it happens, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a grievance theater. Beit Or 18:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Elonka, Thanks those are some interesting insights. I cannot agree though that we should modify the image. Technically I don't see how it would make a difference, after all you'll still be able to see his body and I suspect that it won't satisfy the offendees objections.
In terms of compromise, well compromise is not required with those who would do wrong and by wrong I mean blantant censorship (in this case). If the 9/11 terrorist had came to us and told us they were going destroy two towers, we would not reach a compromise that says they can destroy just one tower simply because its their religious duty. Sometimes wrong is wrong. In this case, Islam is wrong about censorship and its simple as that. For the entire rest of the world to embrace censorship because of a handful of objectors is wrong. Still...I'm sympathetic to the non-radical Muslims who feel offended by the picture, but thats as far as it goes. Free Speech and open knowledge is a blessing and for those who feel otherwise that is their problem to solve or get over, not everyone elses.
I'll support language at the top of the page that indicates a Mohimmed picture is below(but not a "warning"). Also would support a show/hide option with a default show. As I said, the problem with Mohammed pictures lies with offendees, not with the rest of the word. Dman727 03:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Elonka for your understanding. I am always open for compromises. If we can hide those images so that Muslims do not see them and one has to press a button to see them. Furthermore, we put a warning on the button. Then it can be accepted by me. We should give reader option to choose. I have list of people who come and leave wikipeda because of those images. We should solve this problem. --- A. L. M. 08:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but your list includes several transparent sockpuppets and otherwise disruptive editors. If anything, it is evidence that we are not losing anyone valuable, and may not be losing anyone at all.Proabivouac 09:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
When I joined wikipedia, I also reverted few times on OBL. I had recieved WP:3RR warnings and I was also near to leave. My case was just like them. However, then few poeple compromised on the change I wish to introduce. Hence I stay here. Although, I do not edit as much as I should here (because of lack of time), but we could save many people by solving this pictures dispute. May be they have more time then me and they help wikipedia much better. --- A. L. M. 09:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
ALM, you've double listed editors who are sockpuppets of one another.Proabivouac 09:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I have also not added many editors. However, could you change listing of those editors who are socket puppits in one line instead of as sperate editors. Thanks in advance. --- A. L. M. 09:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Whoa, wait a minute: Just the other night, I was wondering whether Matt57's mention of Osama bin Laden in the proposed policy page wasn't just a little off-key…but now you're repeating it. you're saying that these reverts on OBL ([7][8][9][10][11]) are somehow similar ("My case was just like them") to blanking depictions of Muhammad?Proabivouac 10:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not know if I understand you? However, I wish to say that he is alleged to be involved in 9/11 attacks. I successfully able to change the article after some discussion and that make me stay here[12][13]. I strongly believe that if we are able to compromise on image issue we will be able to have few more editors creating new article and improving wikipedia. Hence my case was at that time was like them. They need someone to listen to them, like I needed. --- A. L. M. 10:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
If blatant censorship is going to encourage more editors to join wiki, then I have to question whether we really want those editors to join at all. The last thing we need is more people who want to censor and hide knowledge for the entire rest of the world based on their own particular views. Respectfully, we need less pro-censor editors, not more. Dman727 23:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
You do not know what you get until you get it. I have enriched with meeting (making friends) atheist, Christians and other. I understand my religion and world around me, much better by discussions with them. If you (or anyone else) wish to have one type of people in wikipedia then it will be an extremely bad place to be. It will be colorful when many people from all sides join with different ideas. --- A. L. M. 10:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
wiki is not a discussion group. Its an encyclopedia project and most could care less what an editors religion is. I stand by my suggestion that the last thing that Wiki needs is new editors bent on censorship - at the same time that you suggest that censorship is what would attract them. I'll let you have the last word on this as we've drifted off topic and are now into WP:SOAP. Dman727 14:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad images policy

I've attemped to wrap up this Muhammad images issue once and for all and left a note on the Muhammad page here. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated it for deletion. -- A. L. M.

This dispute can only be solved with a understanding on part of everyone whether Muslims or Non-Muslims.The Muslims have to realize that non-Muslims have to be given an impartial and non-radical insight into an issue of such nature to make them realize the impact of such critical issues on the people who have little or no knowledge about such issues. The non-Muslims have to bear in mind that whatever is contributed of religious importance (related to whatever religion) then it should at least be in accordance with the basic principles, values and practices of that particular religion. This will ensure authenticity of content present on wiki.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.29.249.34 (talk • contribs)

That's absurd, we're supposed to grant censorship to Muslims when we allow pornography on Wiki against the wishes of feminist and religious groups? Why does this one group deserve special treatment? --Strothra 10:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Agree that is absurb unreasonable. There is zero reason why everyone else should be held accountable to Islamic taboo. Dman727 15:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, 124.29.249.34, you have offered us some useful wisdom. And Strothra and Dman, please review WP:CIVIL and try to avoid characterizing other editors' good faith suggestions as "absurd." If you disagree, fine, but disagreeing in a rude way is not going to help us find a middle-ground here. --Elonka 15:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I can see how absurb could be construed to be uncivil. Nonetheless, the suggestion is unreasonable. I will amend my remark according.Dman727 20:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Like I told you before Elonka, there is not going to be a middle ground which violates Wikipedia policies. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Anon, the issue is simple. Wikipedia policies cant be compromised on to reach middle grounds and understandings. Thats not what this site is for. Its not about Muslims or non-muslims, its about rejecting censorship and adhering to policies. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, then "unreasonable." Either way, this whole discussion is a violation of WP:POINT. No compromise can be accomplished without violating existing policies and guidelines, thus certain editors seem to be interrupting the ability to make progress on this article in order to pursue this point. --Strothra 03:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that a reasonable compromise would be to use an image of the Black Stone,[14] instead of the one with Muhammad. --Elonka 18:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
They're completely different, and not substitutes for one another at all. We can use both of them (and we would be already, had my ill-fated merger idea gained any support.) One is a 1) contemporary 2) photograph of 3) the black stone in its setting; the other a 1) medieval 2) illustration of 3) the Quraysh raising the stone before the Kaaba. That anyone would suggest such an equivalence shows how far afield we've drifted from thinking about content.Proabivouac 19:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Where's the old consensus?

Does anyone know the link for the old consensus formed which agreed to have the Muhammad images? I want to close this affair once and for all. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 11:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


Here it is [15]. I also post it here below
page flooding redacted, see link as providedProabivouac 22:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Great. Next time there's a question on the article Muhammad, we'll all know exactly where to look. BYT 12:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This is consensus for a small question. I'm talking about a general consensus for keeping Muhammad images in. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
That small question is answer to this dispute. I do not know why you are declining to close the issue now once for all? -- A. L. M. 14:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Why didnt BYT link to this debate, which came later? The Poll BYT linked has this: Caution: the above summary has been substantially qualified/altered since the poll was opened. and has a link to the next poll which I just linked. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
That's right, Matt57, the description was altered after the signatures were placed. It's meaningless except as an example of how not to conduct a poll.Proabivouac 19:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Consensus can change. Though I appreciate the good-faith nature of the discussions from last year and stretching into February, I see that most of those editors aren't even involved in the discussion anymore, and we have many new voices. Also, please keep in mind that mediation is never binding. It is a way for the participants to try and find an acceptable compromise which they can 'voluntarily choose or not choose to follow. See Wikipedia:Mediation. It's not something that can be decided upon by one group of editors, and then used as a club to beat up anyone else who comes along. --Elonka 15:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
So you think we should keep debating on this issue forever and get into a long discussion every time a Muhammad image is removed? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Elonka, many of the editors involved in discussions back then (including myself) simply grew tired of participating in endlessly repetitive and draining argumentation, and went off to work on other articles. the mediation discussion itself was highly geared towards the situation on the Muhammad article. i haven't observed the discussion on this article at any great length, but the image does appear to be topical. that doesn't mean we cannot employ one of the measures suggested above (such as the warning, which would parallel use of {{spoiler}}). ITAQALLAH 16:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I should add that a warning atop the page is not censorship. It may be unencyclopedic (as are spoiler warnings), it may violate Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles, and it may not help anything (I doubt it will), but it isn't censorship, and it wouldn't make the article any less informative. This is the only proposed compromise of which this is true.Proabivouac 23:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Consensus can certainly change. However in this case I have not seen evidence that this is the case. Rather I see some new faces supporting the original consensus (such as myself), and those opposed to the original consensus repeating their arguments. Consensus can change is certainly something that needs to be taken to heart, however its not meant to be a license for continuously repeating the same debate until the other side gets what it wants either. This is a well worn and well debated topic and frankly, nothing fundamental has changed that indicates a new consensus is on the horizon. Dman727 20:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that the show/hide option is reasonable. It still makes the image available in an uncensored form, but removes it one simple mouse-click away. As for the Depictions of Muhammad page, I don't think that would be a good solution for that page, since the title clearly states that there will be depictions, so the images should be left on the page. But for here at Kaaba, I would support either using SlimVirgin's show/hide solution, or replacing the "Muhammad placing the stone" image with a simple image of the Black Stone itself, and then linking to Depictions of Muhammad via a "See also". --Elonka 22:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Elonka, hiding something in plain brown wrappers behind the counter is of course a form of censorship, even if what is inside is preserved intact. As such, it violates our policies, which expressly forbid censorship. Besides the fact that this solution is supremely unlikely to achieve consensus here, local consensus cannot override core policy.
More to the point - and this is the point of the policy, after all - it makes the article as displayed less informative, just as it would if we adopted a similar solution for controversial text. If we are to facilitate anyone censoring their own displays, that's fine, but when this becomes hindering the displays of others, it's unacceptable. We need to show some respect for the sensibilities of the majority.
Were an image not notable, topical and informative, we wouldn't hide it, but remove it altogether. The fact that we're talking about hiding it concedes that we are no longer concerned with our mission to inform. We need to show some respect for the goals of the academic enterprise in general and of this encyclopedia in particular.
From a scholarly perspective, there is nothing at all disreputable about this historic image, or about others like it which are curated, disseminated and displayed by the very most prestigious libraries and universities.Proabivouac 22:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes the show/hide option is censoring information and its a usability issue. To me this is as bad as not having the image. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have redacted the pasting of a cherry-picked section of the mediation.[16] Otherwise we might be tempted to paste such sections as this and this, and eventually this talk page becomes unusable.Proabivouac 23:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Proav, it looks like the majority consensus was for "human depiction with no veil at the top AND multiple other images". Thats what we've agreed with here too. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Even so, there's only one image containing Muhammad, and there's no reason to have it at the top, where a current photograph is most appropriate. The ones I've seen where Muhammad is veiled are of lesser antiquity, do not depict any particular story and show the Kaaba in much less detail.Proabivouac 02:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry yes what I meant is, most editors agreed to have multiple unveiled images of Muhammad. I agree with you there. The placement is a smaller issue. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

we all know that wiki's primary objective is to provide authentic knowledge. This knowledge should be totally free from baseless facts not in total accordance with the topic about which this knowledge is being provided. secondly the effect of this knowlegde on its consumers is another important aspect which cannot be totally overlooked. what the viewers / consumers want is authenticity. Authenticity can only be gauranteed when contributers of knowledge make only those contributions which comply to basic principles of that particular topic. In this case contributers of this article know that they are providing information about a building which is held in the highest esteem in one of religions.This makes it all the more important that the content of this contribution should at least be in accordance with the basic principles of that particular religion to make this contribution authentic enough. Because viewers take this article as authentic and of importance so providing them the true image of facts should be the prime focus of article contributers / editors. The image in discussion has no authenticity what so ever. The contributer of this image must have seen its source and contributed it without seeing if it is authentic enough in context of the article topic it is suppose to support. why a compromise is not being reached on this issue merely shows the mis understandings between both the suppoters and offendees alike. The supporters are not ready to accept the significance of this issue, its impact and the confusions it is going to create or has already created among its viewers. To them the policies of wiki are more significant and rigid / unadaptable as compared to the basic principles / values of any faith or religion that articles of wiki project. The offendees want that knowlegede related to any faith should be in total accordance with its principles and values.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.29.250.2 (talk • contribs)

I am not certain what you mean by "authentic." Wikipedia does not aim to be an authentic Islamic site, actually; quite the opposite, as that would violate our neutrality policy. There is no requirement that "contributers of knowledge make only those contributions which comply to basic principles of that particular topic." Let us avoid such generalized discussions, as they go nowhere - you have stated that what is purported to be a 1315 illustration of the Kaaba is inauthentic. Here we do have a standard definition of "inauthentic" to work with, and that would be a compelling argument, were it true. Do you have any evidence to that effect? Below the image is a description of its provenance. Is that description inaccurate?Proabivouac 06:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
124 Anon, no, what you said is wrong "content of this contribution should at least be in accordance with the basic principles of that particular religion to make this contribution authentic enough" - Wikipedia doesnt do that. It doesnt "bow" in respect to any article. Its there to provide information on all articles and treat them the same. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

What is gathered from this and above discussion is that at one end wiki's contributers and editiors are not bothered about authenticity of the content and at the other end claim that wiki is a source of knowledge. At one time wiki's policy is to be neutral and on the same time it is depicting something in form of image supported by the claim that shia scholars have no objections in this regard-arent shia scholars muslims? dont they follow islam? if yes then religion is being brought in support of argument by wiki itself to form basis for supporting its content. Now if someone else from Islam religion points out a fact supported by vast majority of Islamic scholars then this point is rejected on the basis of being too much radical and religious in nature. Regarding the source of this image, something that happened almost 700 years before this image or painting was made, is an indicator of in-authenticity in itself. If anyone on wiki reads about this event in detail then they will come to know that this picture is an in-accurate depiction of facts.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.29.250.2 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
That purported "inauthenticity" is your original research. One might as easily observe that the story it depicts is "inauthentic:" both would be inauthentic eyewitness accounts of Muhammad's life, which neither claims to be. Like the story, the image is attributed to a specific source and date; that is the only claim we are making here. Additionally, even were the illustration of the story wildly inaccurate (I can see no contradiction between what is shown and what is alleged to have occurred), the illustration of the Kaaba is verifiably not, and is the oldest and by far most notable image on this article.Proabivouac 06:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

When the issue is so contentious, why not remove the image in question for good, especially when offensive to the majority of the Muslim population and the probable readers of the article. --AltruismTo talk 09:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Because it would deprive our readers of topical information.Proabivouac 09:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If your post is in reply to mine, then: What topical information would this sole picture convey? Absolutely nothing which can't be conveyed by words. --AltruismTo talk 10:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Then I invite you to write here the summary of that image in words, neglecting no detail whatsoever, such that a reader could duplicate the image from your description alone. There is a definition of information, actually.Proabivouac 10:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, this is not something which is most needed, without which the article would be violated. The picture only conveys a minor part of the history of the Kaaba. It was repaired several times, including the recent one by Muhammad ibn Ladin, if 'm not wrong. Most importantly The religion of Islam, whose sub-article this is, explicitly prohibits the depiction of animate forms, the exceptions being for science and research etc. but is even more stringent when in the case of Prophet Muhammad, with absolutely no exceptions whatsoever. --AltruismTo talk 11:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No, this is not a "sub-article" of Islam. This article is about an actual building which existed (and still exists) in history. This building was important before there were any Muslims, and would still be important even if Islam were no longer practiced.Proabivouac 12:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, note that Islamic texts are not completely opposed to the depictions of Muhammad. It depends on who and what you consult. Sunni Muslims are generally against the practice whereas Shiite Muslims are more lax and have created many pieces of art including his likeness. --Strothra 01:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I meant: "Isn't the article a part of Islam or WikiProject Islam?" Please have a look at the top of the page. Its included in that category.

Yes this is basically a black stone, believed to have come from heaven, during Prophet Ibrahim's (Abraham) time. He along with his older son, the Prophet Ishmael, made it a symbol of monotheism, may be under the direction from God. Did you know that there was a pre-Islamic practice of people circumambulating around the Kaaba in the nude!!! A year or two before Prophet Muhammad's death, the Prophet's dear friend and father-in-law Abu Bakr Siddiq announced that the practice was being prohibited. Christians and Jews were still free to worship near the Kaaba!!! This was how liberal the Prophet and his companions were!!! The Kaaba was repaired several times. One of it happened to by the Prophet Muhammad, who before the revelation of the Qur'an to him, was chose as the best person in town (perhaps, all of Arabia) to do that, due to his qualities.

Do note that at least 95% of the Muslims vehemently oppose the depiction of the Prophet Muhammad. There are authentic proofs (Sahih Hadith) quoting the Prophet himself!!! The Prophet explicitly prohibited his depiction, to not make him another object of worship, as was unfortunately done, in the case of some of the earlier prophets. Even the Hashishiyaan (the Assasins) were a Shiite sect!!! Where do we draw the line. Not everyone who calls himself a Shia becomes one. Paintings may have been introduced by some such people. Anyways WP is definitely no place for offensive images, slander etc.

The World Book Encyclopaedia states "Even non-Muslim scholars do not doubt the sincerity of Prophet Muhammad in his mission." "The prophet was promised power, wealth.... by the pagan Meccans for stopping his preaching, but would have none of it." These statements go on to show how simple and humble the Prophet Muhammad was. Little wonder that he wanted people to worship none but God. Thanking You, AltruismTo talk 05:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


wiki itself claims on the "Depictions of MUHAMMAD (Peace Be Upon Him)" page that SOME shiite scholars are lax about images/paintings rest the majority is strictly against it. Here in this regard wiki is supporting its content on the basis of a small minority of a specific religion and on the same time rejecting the view of majority of scholars and followers of that same religion. Also when religion has no room in wiki (as claimed by those who support having this image) then why the opinion of a minority of shiite scholars is being given weight and importance on this issue. moreover the most significant Rebuilding of Kaaba was by PROPHET ABRAHAM (May Peace Be Upon Him)which is authenticated in the Holy Quran itself. This particular picture is related to only one of the many renovations undertaken during different times. so why is this controversial image and contemptuous issue is being given so much importance in this article and much more important re-building being brushed aside.Ghulam muhammad21 05:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Your claim that the picture is included on the basis of " small minority of a specific religion" is simply false. The paiting is included on the basis that is is topical, noteable, historic and a tasteful painting. Furthermore, the majority of the worlds population, and the typical wiki reader is not offended in the slightest. We do not look to Islamic law on when to include wiki content. We look to wiki policy. See WP:CENSOR. Dman727 06:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not topical and being just a one-off case doesn't merit its inclusion here. The Kaaba was repaired several times, one among which happened to be by the Prophet Muhammad. Why does anybody insist on placing this image, but for the sole purpose of hurting sentiments. What is important here is that this is a niche article in Islam, which is highly unlikely to be read by non-Muslims. The minor bone of contention can be dealt with best, by removing it. --AltruismTo talk 08:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

"…which is highly unlikely to be read by non-Muslims."
Where did you get that idea?Proabivouac 08:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Its an idea. OK I'll re-phrase At least 80-90% of the readers (detailed readers) are likely to be Muslim. --AltruismTo talk 08:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sole desire to hurt sentiments? Come on. I could make an equally compelling case that some want to censor it just to hurt sentiments. Neither is true imo. The article is written to inform and educate. I'm sympathetic that you find this very old and yes, topical painting offensive, however it is not practical nor possible to write an encylopedia that adheres to all the worlds religions and individual sensibilitys. On a personal note, there ALOT of things on wiki that I find offensive. For me, when I find something offensive I avoid it..I don't try to destroy it for everyone else. Dman727 08:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
"At least 80-90% of the readers (detailed readers) are likely to be non-Muslim."
Right. It's the English-language Wikipedia, so what else would you expect?
There are no "niche" articles in the sense you'd intended. Articles don't belong to any religious or ideological community, no matter what they're about.Proabivouac 08:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What else do I make of the insistence of some users to include the image, come what may? Yes, the article and Wikipedia's policy's to inform and educate.This topical painting would be offensive (to most of the potential readers). And, at a time when the feeling of compatibility in both the worlds is at its trough, why do we need to hurt their sentiments? I agree Wikipedia may not exactly suit all our sensibilities and tastes. But when something is possible why can't we be a bit flexible instead of deliberately offending religious sentiments? --AltruismTo talk 08:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry! Just corrected my sentence to "80-90% are likely to be Muslim." --AltruismTo talk 08:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Yes, articles here don't belong to anybody or any religion, but most or all articles definitely concern one main topic. It is the "WikiProject Islam" in this case. --AltruismTo talk 08:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


There is lack of understanding among people who are supporting this image. some say it is topical. some cite minority shiite scholars to form basis of having this image. on the other hand the offendees are all of one view that it is prohibited, not very topical as it was one of the routine RENOVATION as compared to RE-BUILDING which actually took place at the time of PROPHET IBRAHIM (May Peace be Upon Him), and offensive to all Muslim viewers. Then what is the sense of having this sub-topic at all. People who say that it is related to Kaaba, well lots of other things are related to Kaaba as well. why choose this particular sub-topic just to offend people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghulam muhammad21 (talk • contribs)

"Then what is the sense of having this sub-topic at all."
Are you saying that the coverage of the episode itself is assigned too much weight in the text?Proabivouac 19:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether we like it or not, we need to have this sub-topic. The coverage of the issue that we are discussing about is scant, only a para, and was only one of the several repair efforts that took place from the time of the Prophet Abraham. --AltruismTo talk 06:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

True this sub-topic is of general relevance but the main point is why a renovation (just one of the several) is being given much weight then the actual re-building done by PROPHET ABRAHAM (May Peace Be Upon Him). Also when the general consenous is that this picture is offensive to the Muslim viewers then why there is so much support for it. While Britanica (which is supposed to be most authoritative) is quite reserved on image issue. Then why is wiki being such vocal and explicit about this issue. About the source of this image, i am looking for the actual book itself to find out the facts. What has already been gathered about this book from different sources is that this image might not even exist. same goes for many other images.124.29.250.2 07:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The image "might not even exist?"Proabivouac 07:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

i happened to meet some learned shiites and when asked about this picture, they were as surprised as we all are on this blasphemous issue. According to them no shiite scholar whether old or new has allowed any leverage on such issues of pictures related to HOLY PROPHET MUHAMMAD (May Peace Be Upon Him and His Family). they also clarified that painting such pictures was a part of pre-Islamic persian culture, and after advent of Islam in persia, such works were strictly forbidden. so here wiki is actually supporting an in-authentic and truly blasphemous work whose reality is not really known whether it is actually depicting the captioned subject or not. it has already been said again and again that the source of this picture is shaddy, the picture itself is offensive and blasphemous, it provides no valuable knowledge but still people are supporting it. when it is said that this picture is un-Islamic, some say shiites support it(when in truth they dont) and support keeping it neglecting the vast majority against it. some say this article is general not related to Islam but related to architectures. If yes then why doesnt wiki paste pictures of tower of pisa on the statue of liberty page. why because wiki's contributers know it is irrelevant and wrong information. Now in this particular case, wiki's contributers are delibrately insisting on providing a blasphemous wrong and shaddy picture which has very little relevance to the actual topic and the issue it is claiming to portray. IS THIS NOT DOUBLE STANDARD ON PART OF WIKI. bringing religion in discussion whenever wiki wants and negating it when someone else mentions it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.29.250.2 (talk • contribs) (05:13, July 23, 2007

The illustration in a folio in the Oriental Manuscript Section of the Edinburgh University Library, Special Collections and Archives, could be a duplicate.

Where does it state that the original version's (date unknown) copyright has expired? The illustration could have been made even in the 21st century! Can you contest this with credible evidence?

Where does it state that this image is a part of the Jami' al-Tavarikh? Please present evidence to that effect? The image is also non-compliant with WP:GFDL. Please refer WP:CP.

This image has copyright problems, at least temporarily until the necessary permissions from the claimed owners are obtained. Thanking You, AltruismTo talk 09:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I am going to nominate it for deletion. --- A. L. M. 12:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Yea, nominate it for deletion now that you cant remove it from the page. From the Commons page, see Amazon has the book from where the image was taken from. The pages are 100-101. Are you going to suggest that the uploader lied etc? You can start challenging all the millions of refs on this website then which refer to a book and page number. Also the same image (warning may burn your eyes.. ayee) is found on this very respectable looking website with the same description. Here's the link to the university which has the archives. Also see another book by Rashid Al Din. Also see these references to the image, which I'll reproduce here:
  • Patricia L. Baker. Islam and the Religious Arts. London: Continuum, 2004. LoCC: N6260 .B345 2004
[Section] Images of Prophets
The Jami al-Tawarikh manuscript (Blair 1995), probably produced in north-west Iran around 1310, and now divided between Edinburgh University Library and Khalil Collection, London, contains some of the earliest, perhaps the earliest, known representations of quranic prophets, including Muhammad. It includes images of the Prophet Jonah being disgorged by the 'whale' and Ibrahim being catapulted in the the fire, while Muhammad is shown with his companions, riding into Battle or replacing the Black Stone in the Ka`ba shrine in Mecca, etc.
Does this satify you now? Also see [17],[18] --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Also see this reference from the University of Haifa to the image. It was drawn by Rashid al-Din (bottom right corner). --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
About ALM's removal, how is this image copyrighted? It was made in 1315. I've written to the same lady asking her this question. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Please ask her. But until then do not add it on the page. --- A. L. M. 15:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I am going to nominate other pictures from that library too. Using her email. --- A. L. M. 15:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
ALM, the only thing you accomplished is a confirmation that the image does come from their collection, so thanks for that. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note asking about it on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Tom Harrison Talk 15:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed this flagged on ANI. No COI in this article since I've never edited it. I have a background in information science and have to dispute the claim made by the university library that it holds copyright on this image. What a bizarre notion. ColdmachineTalk 15:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


This particular blasphemous image and others present on wiki, some of them trace their source to TOPKAPI museam of Turkey. Well one of my friend has been to that place and brought pictures of all HOLY RELICS present there. If anyone wants these photos can be scanned and e-mailed to anyone who wants proof. There are no repeat no depictions of this particular nature presented on wiki and else where. also check out the url guideistanbul.net/holy.htm to see the Holy Relics gallery of Topkapi museam.124.29.250.2 07:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The Original research caption

What caption say currently has no association with the image. If the library say that this image represent that event then we can provide a reference. Otherwise we cannot use an event and ourselves say that image represent same event. It is original research. --- A. L. M. 12:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Whats original research in this caption? Point it out. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 12:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
All of it, unless you present reference from the book that have the image. Or some other book point that image to event. -- A. L. M. 12:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Which part specifically? The image coincides with the description. When are you going to let go of this issue? Also, see above. I've put the reference there. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

what is the real value of Jami al-Tawarikh in history related to Islam. It does not conform with what it claims to present. same is the issue with wiki. Both go hand in glove as far as this issue is concerned. Even britanica is very conservative over this issue. what gives wiki such an authority to be such vocal. 124.29.250.2 05:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The image has been confirmed to be authentic. In addition, please read this. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This particular blasphemous image and others present on wiki, some of them trace their source to TOPKAPI museam of Turkey. Well one of my friend has been to that place and brought pictures of all HOLY RELICS present there. If anyone wants these photos can be scanned and e-mailed to anyone who wants proof. There are no repeat no depictions of this particular nature presented on wiki and else where. also check out the url guideistanbul.net/holy.htm to see the Holy Relics gallery of Topkapi museam.124.29.250.2 07:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

They're not relics.Proabivouac 08:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

by the way where else in topkapi these manuscripts are supposed to be present ? 124.29.250.2 05:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


"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[19] 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 (talk•contribs) 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)— Ghulam muhammad21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • 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, AltruismTo talk 05:09, 24 July 2007 (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)— Tiere Rod (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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 Talk 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 Talk 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 Talk 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 Talk 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 (talk•contribs) 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. ColdmachineTalk 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, AltruismTo talk 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. --AltruismTo talk 06:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia is not censored. Make sure you read this. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 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 (talk•contribs) 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. ColdmachineTalk 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)

'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. ColdmachineTalk 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. [23]

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:[24] --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(talk) 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(talk) 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(talk) 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(talk) 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? ColdmachineTalk 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 ([25], [26]). 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 (talk•contribs) 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.

Muhammad is the correct spelling of the prophet's name due to its gematria (Abjad numerals/hisab al-jummal). - Ben Franklin 75.74.180.52 (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia must remove the image of the Prophet Mohammed immediately. This is a wrong doing and must be stopped. No one in today's world knows how Prophet Mohammed looked like and other Prophets as well. I agree with the statement above which says that this is not censorship but wrong information. REMOVE IT NOW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferraribauer (talk • contribs) 12:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

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 (talk•contribs) 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 (talk) 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 Click to talk 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 Click to talk 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 (talk•contribs) 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(talk|contribs) 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 Click to talk 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) speak! 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)

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)

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 (talk•contribs) 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 (talk•contribs) 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: [27]
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: [28] [29] [30] [31]
The door of the Kaaba is illustrated with sun symbols. Arabic شمس šams. In Babylonia Shamash (Akkadian Šamaš "Sun"). [32] [33] --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.[1] British chronicles of the 18th century referred to the same belief.[2] 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[34], 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.[35]

  • 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".[36]

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[37], "Original God-Part III- Mystery of Original God explained", P. 116[38], "India in Kurdistan" Parameśa Caudhurī, P. 52[39], "Gods, Sages and Kings: Vedic Secrets of Ancient Civilization" David Frawley, P. 282 [40]. 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."[41]. 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[42] cites "when muhammad destroyed the temple, pulled the lingam in the sea back.", Sir George Forrest[43],[44], Godfrey Higgins[45] 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[46], 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,[47],[48]. 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 building". I also added "four-sided Kaaba" to emphasize 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)

Muhammad is the correct spelling of the prophet's name due to its gematria (Abjad numerals/hisab al-jummal)

Muhammad is the correct spelling of the prophet's name due to its gematria (Abjad numerals/hisab al-jummal). - Ben Franklin 75.74.180.52 (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ By Winand M. Callewaert, "Banaras: Visions of a Living Ancient Tradition", p.84
  2. ^ By Götz Hoeppe, "Conversations on the Beach", p. 35
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kaaba/Archive_2&oldid=1257796988"