Jump to content

Talk:Kaaba/Archive 1

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

2003

This is to the best of my knowledge and needs checking; any scholars of Islam want to take a look at this? The Anome 08:55 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)


Presumably at the antipodal point to the Kaaba, the Qibla is in all directions?

Interesting question. I reckon this point to be in the South Pacific, 230 miles from the nearest land, which is the Pitcairn Islands. -- Heron
My squint at a globe put it about midway between Tahiti and Pitcairn, in French Polynesia. Rummaging on the 'net[1] I found the nearest land to be Tematangi or Bligh Is., 140.62W 21.64S[2] 142.177.18.54 18:57, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like the answer may rest on the Islamic reckoning of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. On the other hand, one might be able to derive the answer by seeing which airlines serve Mecca from that point in the South Pacific. 168... 19:27 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

If someone knows the exact coordinates of Kaaba, maybe they could put that into the article. That would make it possible to compute the qibla from any other location whose coordinates are known.

One reference [3] states 21° 25' 24" N, 39° 49' 24" E, and other less precise references approximate this closely. Does anyone have exact coordinates from a system such as GPS? -- The Anome 07:53, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
Well, I've used those numbers. If somebody has a more accurate update, they can correct it. --Chowbok 04:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Well You can see the Masjid Al Haram from Space, using Google maps [4] Maybe you can figure out the Long and Lat from that? - Abid Hussain [5]

I get 21°25'21.234"N × 39°49'33.996"E. --  Denelson83  15:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Religious groups who used to worship the Kaaba or used it as a focal point for prayer

Zora, you have reverted my edit without a valid justification, if you want to add my text to the other article, feel free, My subject was the Kaaba and apparently, muslim sources say it's been a saint object for pre-islamic arabs and sabeans, the articles speaks about the Kaaba therefore we HAVE to speak about ALL those who worshipped the Kaaba, I don't understand why you want to put only muslims in ths article and exlcude the others.

There are many futile details (f.e : the suppostion that ali was born in the kaaba) that you seem to well integrate into the article, but you remove important information concerning the past history of the Kaaba.

Here was my text:

Before muslims, the Sabeans and Pre-islamic Arabs used to have similar rituals as that of muslims :

Muslim writer Muhammad Shukri al-Alusi in his Bulugh al-'Arab fi Ahwal al-'Arab states that,

"The Sabeans have five prayers similar to the five prayers of the Muslims. Others say they have seven prayers, five of which are comparable to the prayers of the Muslims with regard to time [that is, morning, noon, afternoon, evening and night; the sixth is at midnight and the seventh is at forenoon]. It is their practice to pray over the dead without kneeling down or even bending the knee. They also fast for one lunar month of thirty days; they start their fast at the last watch of the night and continue till the setting of the sun. Some of their sects fast during the month of Ramadan, face Ka'ba when they pray, venerate Mecca, and believe in making the pilgrimage to it. They consider dead bodies, blood and the flesh of pigs as unlawful. They also forbid marriage for the same reasons as do Muslims." (Ibid., pp. 121-122)

Muhammad ibn 'Abdalkarim al-Sharastani in his Al-Milal wa al-Nihil:

"The Arabs during the pre-Islamic period used to practice certain things that were included in the Islamic Sharia. They, for example, did not marry both a mother and her daughter. They considered marrying two sisters simultaneously to be a most heinous crime. They also censured anyone who married his stepmother, and called him dhaizan. They made the major [hajj] and the minor [umra] pilgrimage to the Ka'ba, performed the circumambulation around the Ka'ba [tawaf], ran seven times between Mounts Safa and Marwa [sa'y], threw rocks and washed themselves after intercourse. They also gargled, sniffed water up into their noses, clipped their fingernails, plucked their hair from their armpits, shaved their pubic hair and performed the rite of circumcision. Likewise, they cut off the right hand of a thief. (Ibid., vol. 2 chapter on the opinions of the pre-Islamic Arabs as cited by al-Fadi, p. 122)

User:Toira

Hullo, Toira, please visit the history article, Pre-Islamic Arabia and argue about the history of the Kaaba and the Hajj there. I haven't been linking that article to other articles because it's not finished yet, but when it's in better shape, we can put a notice in this article saying, "For further discussion of pre-Islamic worship at the Kaaba, see Pre-Islamic Arabia. Then people who want a more detailed version can visit the more detailed article.
You can't just march in and insist that your material be placed exactly where you want it. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. We're trying to make a readable, usable resource for people, and not making articles too long and detailed is part of that. When you think that people are going to be saying to themselves, "MEGO", My Eyes Glaze Over, then it's time to put the material in another article. Zora 00:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I did not know that we had to put the new discussion at the bottom... don't see this as "insisinting" since I am not reverting back again and again what you revert, but why should sabeans be included in the were Pre-Islamic Arabia article since they were not arabs at the beginning, and why should Islam have the monoploy of this article, the Kaaba was worshipped by many people not only muslims. User:Toira
The pre-Islamic history of the Kaaba is hotly debated, as is the nature of the Sabaeans. I have read sources that say they were Nabateans, that is, Arabs.
Discussion of the Sabaean veneration of the Kaaba would be on-topic if there were STILL any Sabaeans worshipping there, or even if we knew who they were in the past. But given that the Sabaeans are long gone and no one knows for sure who they were, this is NOT the place to argue it.
Look, go to work on the Pre-Islamic Arabia article and argue the matter there. If you can convince all the other editors (not just me) that the Sabaeans are relevant to the Kaaba, we could add a para here. But not a long quotation! Zora 01:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to add to this as Zora reverted one of my edits too. The text was:

"There is a suggestion that the Kaaba is the site of a Vedic temple or shrine and indeed that much of the current Islamic ritual surrounding the Kaaba is derived from earlier Vedic worship focussing on the Black Stone, the "Shiva lingam" (literally: Shiva's penis, see eg [6])."

Now, like Toira says, the Kabaa has been a site of religious activity since long before Islamic ritual was started. Zora says that as we can't be certain of the details then they shouldn't be reported!! That's ludicrous. However, do note that in my edit I stated "There is a suggestion ..." to inidicate that whilst there are many sources for this information it is not easy to establish its verity. I think such info is extremely interesting and should be included here.
Having said that, Toira does appear to have added more info than was necessary going a little off-topic.
If you want to reduce the information on the Kabaa page then perhaps one line for each people group linked with the Kabaa - then a page for each with their history in relation to the stones / site.

Inside the Kaaba?

As the Kaaba is a building, what is inside it? Does anyone ever go in? If anyone reading knows these things it would be good to see them included in the article. — Trilobite (Talk) 17:39, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Ka'aba is not completely empty. The building is opened twice a year for a ceremony known as "the cleaning of the Ka'aba." This ceremony takes place roughly 15 days before the start of Ramadan and the same period of time before the start of the annual pilgrimage. The inside of the building is clad and floored with marble to about half its hight and covered with a green cloth with gold embroidered verses of the Qu'ran for the rest. On a cross beam there are a number of lamps and there is also a small table for incense burners, otherwise there is nothing else. The marble cladding is perfumed with scented oil, the same used to perfume the black stone. A number of tablets with Qu'ranic inscription are inset in the marble. The keys to the Ka'aba are held by the Sheibani family who have had this honour since the time of the prophet. Members of the family greet visitors to the inside of the Ka'aba on the occasion of the cleaning ceremony. A small number of dignatories and foreign diplomats are invited to participate in the ceremony. Inside the Ka'aba visitors pray in the direction of the outside walls. Normally there is no other occasion when people can enter the building except when the Kiswa or black cloth covering the Ka'aba is changed during the Hajj. The Governor of Mecca leads the team who ritually clean the structure during the ceremony with simple brooms. Source: I have had the honour of participating in this simple but moving ceremony and praying inside the structure.Wildbe 09:13, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

you say "otherwise there is nothing else" - various sources suggest that some writings inside derive from pre-islamic poetry festivals. Presumably Wildbe you read Arabic and recognise which Surah the inscriptions come from ... or no? Also, which inscriptions would be very interesting as they would then, being at an islamic focal point, appear to have a importance above all other islamic writing?! Can you recall? pbhj 19 Feb 2006
Excellent questions. Perhaps any experts reading could also clarify how "50 ft. high by 35 ft long by 40 ft" makes a cube... Do we need to change that to "roughly cuboid"? –Hajor

It's Clearly not a perfect Cube, and inside is just calligrapic artwork from the Qur'an. It's centuries old and priceless. It's Fairly small, and I've always wondered how 300 odd 'idols' could fit in there, but apparently they did. You can go in but it's not advised to do so on hajj, because it's too crowded and dangerous, so if you wanna see it you should go on an Umrah tour.

"idols" can be trinkets that could be carried in a purse, eg in Ezekiel 7:20 (NIV) "They were proud of their beautiful jewellery and used it to make their detestable idols and vile images. Therefore I will turn these into an unclean thing for them." Pbhj 21:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
The 360 idols were located at the Kaaba, but not inside the 'sanctuary'. They were placed in niches on the inside of the surrounding wall.
The idea that they formed a 'zodiac "machine"' of some sort is too vague for me: What is a zodiac machine?

Qibla

While the first Qibla was Jeusalem, it could not have been in the direction of the Al-Aqsa mosqua, as that did not exists at the time (As we know it). The "farthest Masjid, or place of worship" the Jewish Temple of Soloman, or Temple Mount, and during the night voayge the Hadiths say the Jews mocked him and asked him to descripe what he saw there and he supposedly described it perfectly, and they supposedly converted.

Abraham

From the article: "According to tradition, the Kaaba was built by the prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) and his son Ishmael. However, there is no evidence of this."

Surely there could be a more sensitive way of phrasing this. After all, tradition is evidence of sorts, even if unreliable and not determinative. -- Cimon 01:52, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
I said to myself: given the central place of the Kaaba in muslim practice, this must be in the scripture, not just "according to tradition". So, I googled my way to an online version of the Quran, where I found chapter 22. The Pilgrimage and in it the following verses:
26. Behold! We gave the site, to Abraham, of the (Sacred) House, (saying): "Associate not anything (in worship) with Me; and sanctify My House for those who compass it round, or stand up, or bow, or prostrate themselves (therein in prayer).
27. "And proclaim the Pilgrimage among men: they will come to thee on foot and (mounted) on every kind of camel, lean on account of journeys through deep and distant mountain highways;
28. "That they may witness the benefits (provided) for them, and celebrate the name of Allah, through the Days appointed, over the cattle which He has provided for them (for sacrifice): then eat ye thereof and feed the distressed ones in want.
29. "Then let them complete the rites prescribed for them, perform their vows, and (again) circumambulate the Ancient House."
30. Such (is the Pilgrimage): whoever honours the sacred rites of Allah, for him it is good in the Sight of his Lord. Lawful to you (for food in Pilgrimage) are cattle, except those mentioned to you (as exception): but shun the abomination of idols, and shun the word that is false,-
Clearly verses 26 and 29 can be interpreted as a claim that the Kaaba was built by Abraham. I don't have access to a more modernized translation nor to the original, nor do I read Arabic, so I will have to leave it at that, but to me it seems that the quotation from the article is not just insensitive but wrong. —Miguel 03:44, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)
That Prophets Abraham and Ishmael have built the Kaaba is clearly stated in the Quran in Surat Al-Baqara, Ayas 127-129 [7]. You are right, the wording is insensitive and quite unnecessary indeed, since in most of the articles about religion there can be no material proof except the respective tradition. --Abdousi 06:29, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"since in most of the articles about religion there can be no material proof except the respective tradition" this is of course true in most matters of religion in which there is no physical material evidence. The building is evidence in and of itself and no doubt an independent arabic archaeologist could tell you the period of its construction if they had access. Certainly "no independent evidence of this" or "no evidence outside of tradition for this" would be accurate.

Qibla redirect to kaaba is incorrect

I was looking for Qibla and I was redirected to Kaaba. This is incorrect. Kaaba is current Qibla. Doesn't mean it was qibla for all time qibla should have a small informative article on Qibla with links to 'Aqsa' and 'Kaaba'.

Zain 21:30, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Go on then!

architectural history

If we ignore the legend that Abraham built the Kaaba, Muslim historical tradition says that the first Kaaba in this place was built in the early sixth century by the tribe of Gurhum. Its shape was that of a rectangle, with a semi-circle attached to one of the shorter sides. It was not nearly as high as the modern Kaaba.

The second Kaaba was built in 608 by the people of Mecca, and had the same shape, size and orientation: towards Jerusalem. It was higher than the first, about nine meters. Six pillars supported the roof. It had two doors on opposite sides, and probably some windows. It was destroyed during the failed Umayyad seige of Mecca in 683.

The third Kaaba was built immediately afterwards by az-Zubair. This time, a roughly square portion of the rectangle was built higher than the rest of the building. This part was now as high as the Kaaba of today (about 15 meters). Its roof was supported by three pillars, it still had two doors, and a number of windows. Inside, the square part was connected to the remainder by a wide arch.

The fourth Kaaba is the one we see today. (It has been completely rebuilt several times, but no more major architectural changes were made.) It was built to the order of the Umayyad Khalif Abdelmalek around 692. Abdelmalek set out to build the Kaaba to the prophet Muhammad's own specifications. The semi-cirular part was torn down to a hight of a few feet. The low wall that was left standing can still be seen today. The part between the square and the semi-circle was removed altogether. The arch was bricked up, as were all the windows and the door on the south-west side. The lowest two meters of the other door were also bricked up, so that today one needs a ladder to go through it.

I think this may be a bit too much detail though.

P.S. The last rebuild was in 1627.

Can whoever wrote this sign it or provide a link? I think the secular history of the structure is vitally important to the article and wholly underrepresented at present. Ombligotron 13:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Major revision

I removed some material re idols, as I don't believe that it's academically verifiable. I think it might just be Muslim tradition, though I could be wrong. I removed material about Mecca as a great center of international trade, as that is now believed to be pious exaggeration. If we're not going to give all sides of it, we should just leave it out. That's better done in the article on Mecca, in any case.

I also removed a para about the wonder of the Kaaba that I thought was too pious Muslim POV. I reorganized into sections and added some material that one editor had put into the talk page. It's a big reorg and could probably be improved. Zora 20:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Given that all Muslims have to go, according to their religion, to Mecca, once in their lives, it seems extremely plausible that it would become a great centre of international trade, simply due to the large numbers of wide rangingly foreign people present there. 81.156.176.226 19:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't clear. I'm referring to the pre-Muslim Mecca. Mecca has never been a trade depot SINCE Muhammad. Patricia Crone wrote a book contra the old "Mecca was the most powerful city in Arabia" concept. Zora 01:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


Zora, the whole idea of Banu Ummayad resisting Islam is due to that they feelt their idols being the source of the trade. If you are going to ommit that, you are ommiting a big part of how Muslims see on the Ummayad motivation on why they opposed monotheism. If you feel its non-sens, give it a "muslims belive", dont delet it. I mean, the caravans going to yemen and syria, the non-war month... its all part of the kabaa. --Striver 03:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The article may not include as much detail as you want, but there are enough links to other articles that people can explore if they want more. We can't squeeze all of the history of Islam 600-632 in there! Do you want to suggest some links that should be there and aren't? (Be warned in advance that I don't think the Sunni/Shi'a conflict should be shoehorned into here!)
It was the Quraysh as a whole, not just the Umayyads, who resisted Islam. Zora 03:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


Well, it can just be stated that the Kabaa and its idols is belived by Muslims to be the economical base of the Ummayad. Furthermore, Banu Hashim is also a part of Quraish and they resisted the Ummayad.

--Striver 17:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Striver, not all of the Banu Hashim were originally Muslim, just some of them. Furthermore, there were more branches to the Quraysh genealogy than just Abd Shams (of which the Umayyads were just a sub-clan) and Hashim. There were also Nawfal and al-Muttalib. Zora 23:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Pictures?

Are there any pictures showing the Kaabaa without it's black coverings? Commking July 11 2005

Possibly, but I don't know where one would go to find PUBLIC DOMAIN pictures of that type. Zora 05:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Kaaba as Hindu temple

One editor -- I believe it must be Tuxthepenguin, sometimes editing as an anon -- seems to believe that the Kaaba was a Hindu temple, and periodically edits the Kaaba page to add this belief.

Wikipedia tries to be NPOV, and include the arguments from all widespread beliefs, but this belief is so minority as to be imperceptible to those who don't share it. I have NEVER EVER seen it advanced by anyone other than the anon. It is non-notable, and doesn't deserve inclusion. Tux, if you can make thousands of converts and be featured in Time magazine, come back and add the info re your beliefs. Otherwise, please don't try to use the article as a soapbox. Zora 21:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I've heard it stories that it might have been a hindu temple too.--66.114.207.162 18:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

One needs to understand that all ancient religions were derivatives for Indo european religion thus had idol worship and other beliefs commonly found in Hinduism.For more insight visit the link with open mind.http://www.hinduism.co.za/kaabaa.htm

Me too. Zora, you seem to contradict yourself: NPOV means include widespread beliefs [Yes!] but you think you're the last bastion of what is notable [No!]. I don't share this belief, I think it's an interesting possibility. But then I don't share the belief that Abraham built the Kabaa either. Both these possibilities appear to have equal weight (popularity doesn't demonstrate truth), what's more they aren't even mutually exclusive (which shouldn't matter).
If it's a notable belief, then there should be multiple mentions of it on websites and in books. Come back with some links and references and then we can discuss notability again. Zora 17:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

This belief actually is not that widespread, except among hardcore Hindu fanatics (no offense to Hindus in general). I find it in bad taste that people are hijacking articles of other religious series such as Islam and claiming holy places such as the Kaaba as from somewhere else. How would one like it if we put down the old Christian claim that Hinduism was a corruption of Christianity and that Krishna and Yashoda were Jesus and Mary? Please! Kaaba is an Islamic monument and that should be what this article is about. This Vedic temple nonsense is not a major controversy anywhere except among Hindu nationalists who have stretched the truth of Islamic destruction of Hindu temples to include Islamic structures outside of South Asia as well. Afghan Historian 20:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

read this article http://www.dkonline.tk/ it was written by By P.N. Oak (Historian) who is neither a muslim nor a hindu (click on Ka Aba a Hindu temple?) 18 july 2006

That site greets you with "dk online. a complete vedic solution" (in Nagari-styled Roman letters). And as for P. N. Oak, please take a look at this. So much for Oak not being Hindu (or for POV). Being a historian myself and reading that article, I'd say - after a first glance - that it's complete and utter rubbish, if not bland academic forgery. -- Kavaiyan <°)))o>< 18:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, and take a look at this here, too: [8] --Kavaiyan <°)))o>< 00:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Why?

Does anyone know why the Ka'aba was built in the first place? Obviously there will be a difference between secular academic views and religious views, but neither are in the article 81.156.176.226 18:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Kaa'ba built by ... and for ... ?

From what I can gather, Allah (God) ordained a place on Earth to be a focal point of worship; Adam built this place of worship (not sure if it was called the Kaa'ba at this stage). Later, Abraham and Ishmael rebuilt it and Abraham is considered the true founder of the Holy Shrine (according to the Qur'an) - according to the link I've added. I'm not going to put this into the article (yet), as I want to check the details of this and finding other reliable sources --Mpatel 17:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I have heard that the Kaa'ba was built by Pagans that controlled Meccan society before the rise of Islam. The same source also had said that it housed several idols, and when Muhammad returned and took over the city that he destroyed the idols inside. Can anyone verify this, or contradict it?

Controversial section on people born in Kaaba

Regarding the new section that's been dumped here:

  • Firstly, it's not well presented; just a list of names and external links.
  • Some of the the external links appear to be pro-Shia/Sunni websites; nothing wrong with this per se (well, maybe POV issues here), just that some of them appear to be unreliable (no sources given in them). I'm going to remove some of them, if enough people agree on this (I'll wait a week).
  • The whole issue of who was born in the Kaaba seems to be controversial. The section should go a little deeper into this. For example, where did the controversy come from ? Is it just a manifestation of the Sunni/Shia split or something else ? --Mpatel 12:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

This is the result of a Shi'a user, Striver, who was trying to insert the "fact" that Ali was born in the Kaaba into the Ali article. Told that this was folklore, he created an article called "List of people born in the Kaaba". The article was put up for deletion; it was deleted and the material in the article was moved here.

Striver is also fond of "proving" things by citing hadith, and his article consisted mostly of assertions and (da'if) hadith references.

It does seem to be a widespread Shi'a folk belief that Ali was born in the Kaaba, and I think that it could be mentioned in a few sentences in this article. I think the rest of it should be deleted, though that may evoke the wrath of Striver. Zora 13:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I see. In fact, I'm going to leave the links which have reliable sources, but I will delete the rest immediately. --Mpatel 13:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Sources

This issue has to be dealt with: I've deleted a statement regarding some scholars' views that the Qibla was changed as a result of some rift between Muhammed (pbuh) and the Jews as I've never come across this before (it's not well-known, at least) - if there's a reliable reference, for the claim, then please provide it. I did not delete the meteorite issue, as I have a few references (but not with me) which I will include. --Mpatel 17:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I would have to search to find references, but I believe that a number of Western scholars assert a connection between Muhammad's difficulties with the Jews of Medina, and the change of qibla. It's not just kookery. Zora 00:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

added the arabic text.... (about the kaaba in arabic)

i've left the notice at the top in case anyone disagrees with what i've done or how i did it... --GNU4Eva 04:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Striver's removal of "Most Sunni ..."

Striver removed the sentence re Sunni not believing that anyone, Ali or Hakim, was born in the Kaaba. I was going to write an indignant para detailing how wrong he was, but some googling convinced me that he was right! I found several Sunni sites praising Hakim and asserting that he had been born in the Kaaba.

Hakim seems to have been a very influential and wealthy Meccan who didn't convert to Islam until Mecca had submitted to Muhammad. Muhammad was extremely concerned to win him over and treated him with great kindness. Hakim is the purported source of the hadith re "not selling what is not with you", which is the root of a great deal of Islamic commercial law. Hakim's evidence would otherwise be deprecated because he was an opponent of Muhammad and on the surface of it, an opportunistic convert, so he's been given the extra distinction of being born in the Kaaba, which strengthens the hadith. I sense scholarly busybodies at work here. Zora 22:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

"treated him with great kindness" ... I wish I knew what exactly that was a euphamism for!

Better (more instructive) pics ?

I think it would be a good idea to (either replace the second pic, as it seems irrelevant, or) add a pic showing a (distant) shot of the Kabba with all the pilgrims praying (the 'concentric circles' effect). Reason: the universal prayer direction is brought out and this is the main point of the Kaaba and hence should be emphasised. I'm not too familiar with downloading pics on WP, especially copyright issues, so I invite more knowledgable Wikipedians to pursue this. ---Mpatel (talk) 15:22, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to be so slow in replying. I was showing the town to visitors. There's a toolbox on the left side of the screen, with a link to UPLOAD FILE. Click there and follow directions. I've done it a few times and it's worked -- I think. I still haven't figured out to do the Public Domain notice. Get the picture up first and then we'll see. Zora 07:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Not a problem. Ok, I've uploaded 3 pics of the Kaaba - copyright unsure:

The first one is probably adequate for our purposes, the second one is outstanding (but the Kaaba is tiny), the third one is really about the cleaning ceremony. If they are all ok (copyright), then we may as well use the 3rd and either the 1st or 2nd. The page for the second one also contains many other great pics of mosques. ---Mpatel (talk) 17:02, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I like ALL the pics but ... there's a big problem if they aren't public domain. We can't just claim fair use, or ASSUME that the owners of the pics wouldn't mind. Everything in Wikipedia is given away freely, which means that owners of commercial sites can, and do, copy from WP. The owners of the pics might be highly distressed to find THEIR pics on commercial sites, being sold as clip art, whatever. We have to use either material that's pre-1923 or donated by the artists/photographers themselves. Wikipedia has a continual problem with copyviolations (copyvios) due to editors assuming that they can just cut-n-paste anything found on the web, text and pictures. Not so. Zora 21:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Should I remove the pics I've put on this talk page and just give weblinks to them until we've determined for sure if they are ok to use ? ---Mpatel (talk) 09:01, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a good plan. I hope the disappearance will only be temporary. Often, religious sites are happy to have us use their pics. Zora 10:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Kiswah redirected to Black Stone - why ?

Forgive my ignorance, but what has the Kiswah got to do with the Black Stone ? As far as I'm aware, the Kiswah is a cloth that's used to cover the Kabah - as stated in the article - but it's relation to the Black Stone seems non-existent (apart from the fact that they are both black, but that means nothing - I think). I await enlightenment... ---Mpatel (talk) 17:16, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

That's a silly redirect. I think that Kiswah deserves its own article. Details of how the cloth is woven and embroidered, then cut up and distributed as relics, would be interesting and useful. Of course, as a seamstress, I'm interested in anything having to do with cloth. Zora 21:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Unify spelling

The article has both the spelling "Kaaba" and "Kabaa". Shouldn't the article just use one spelling? Which is preferred? --Eliasen 23:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I think Kaaba is preferred. The problem is that there are various systems of transliteration from Arabic, no one system is widely-used, and people often just wing it. Zora 02:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I think Ka'aba is preferred as Kaaba rimes with Kahba, which means bitch in some Arabic dialects (North African slang for bitch). The good example is Koran/Qur'an. Cheers -- Svest 23:02, September 12, 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153;

Who built the Kaaba?

According to the article, it is believed that Adam was the one to build the Kaaba. Just at the following line, it says that according to the Koran, the Kaaba was built by Ibrahim and his son Ishmael. This is a very big contradiction as noboby would claim that it was built by Adam except the Muslims! Did I miss something or I am just being a stupid ignorant?! Cheers Svest 22:55, September 12, 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153;

Hi Svest. Actually, it says Adam was the first to build such a place of worship (not necessarily that he was the first to build a cubical structure called the Kaa'ba). It is a matter of definitions: the Kaa'ba is the present structure, whereas Adam built the first place of worship. After this place was built, it was corrupted, destroyed etc. and Ibrahim and his son Ishmael built the big stone building we call the Kaa'ba. Hope this clears up any misconceptions. Cheers. ---Mpatel (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
It makes sense now of course. My question was a bit ironic indeed. I don't know exactly how we can put that in focus to let readers know and not let them be confused. Cheers Mpatel. -- Svest 16:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153;

Kaaba in Pagan times

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. [9]

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.

two doors

This needs to be represented

Quotes:

Reply Three - Hadhrat 'Ali (as) was merely adhering to the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s)
We read in Sahih al Bukhari, Book of Knowledge Volume 1, Book 3, Number 128:
Narrated Aswad:
Ibn Az-Zubair said to me, "Ayesha used to tell you secretly a number of things. What did she tell you about the Ka'ba?" I replied, "She told me that once the Prophet said, 'O 'Ayesha! Had not your people been still close to the pre-Islamic period of ignorance (infidelity)! I would have dismantled the Ka'ba and would have made two doors in it; one for entrance and the other for exit." Later on Ibn Az-Zubair did the same.
Comment
Was it incumbent on Rasulullah (s) to re-design the Ka'aba, Yes or No? If it was not then why did Rasulullah (s) say 'Had not your people been still close to the pre-Islamic period of ignorance (infidelity)! I would have dismantled the Ka'ba and would have made two doors in it'. If it was compulsory then why did Rasulullah (s) fail to carry out this religious duty on account of his fear of the reaction by the newly converted Sahaba?

http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/fadak/en/chap5.php

--Striver 18:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Also:

Imam Nawawi says in his commentary of this Hadeeth, in his Sharh Muslim Volume 1 page 429 Bab Naqs al Kibt wa Bana:
"This Hadeeth proves principles of Ahkam. When two issues conflict with one another, when a problem that carries benefit, conflicts with another, support should be given to that option that has wider support. Rasulullah saw a benefit in reconstructing the Ka'aba. He (s) also feared Fitnah from the new Muslims, who carried the risk of them becoming apostates, which is why he abandoned this beneficial matter and chose not to reconstruct the Ka'aba".

--Striver 18:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

demolish

we also need to include that yaizds army shoot flaming catapult shots against ibn zubair, even though it is haram to kill anything there. and something about future raids stealing the black stone. --Striver 18:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

History of the Kaaba

I think there is a good case for making a list of the various reconstructions and discussing their ground plans. I think the info is on one of the sites in the links. However, discussing the siege of Mecca quite outside the scope of the article.

The history of the Grand Mosque would also be a useful subject. I'm not sure I've looked at the Grand Mosque article.

The siege of Mecca could be discussed under the history of Mecca; I definitely haven't looked at that article. Something should be said about the way that the Saudis razed most of the old buildings and replaced them with highways. Lovers of architecture were appalled. Zora 01:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The siege is relevant, thins the Kaaba was hit with firebolts. That is not supposed to happen, and therefore notable. --Striver 02:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
You might think it's relevant because the siege was mounted by Yazid I, whom the Shi'a hate. Would you be OK with saying that the Kaaba was burned in the course of siege and that it was not clear who was responsible -- without linking to Yazid I? Of course, I'm not saying that I think the siege is relevant, whether Yazid I is mentioned or not. I'm still not sure it is. Zora 03:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Whadever, link it to whadever appropriate place you want, i have other battles on my hands. But the event is notable, and you cant deny it. --Striver 03:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


Lack of current scientific theories

Aren't there a big lack of real archeological and historical theories here? "According to Islamic tradition" and "According to the Qur'an" is just the muslim view point of the History of the Kaaba. But I think that a Wiki article about the subject have to contain some scientific research too - not just religious traditions and beliefs. Isn't it very important that a place like Wiki actually sticks to providing accurate and up-to-date ideas and theories about things like these?

I was also thinking that, which is why I posted this for a different section: 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.

There's a book on pre-Islamic Arabian history, by Hoyland, that might have some info. I just haven't finished reading the book. The problem is that the Hijaz was of little interest to Greek, Roman, or Persian historians, so that there's really not much there. Crone's book on Meccan trade also surveys the history and finds nothing much.
Lack of written history could be supplemented by archaeological work but ... just how far do you think an archaeologist would get with a proposal to excavate the Kaaba and the Grand Mosque? Zora 00:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Born in Kaaba

The section is not accurate as its stands. Any objection to me changing it to this?

Muslim sources claim that an early Muslim was actually born in the Kaaba. There are two versions. One more prominently narrated, regarded as authentic by Sunni and Shia, claims that Ali ibn Abu Talib, Muhammad's son-in-law, was born in the Kaaba. The other claim, regarded as authentic by only Sunnis, states that Hakim ibn Hizam, a rich Meccan convert to Islam was born there.
Shia belive Ali was the only one born there, and the Hakim ibn Hizam narration is only a fabrication in order to inflate honor from Muhammad's household, the Ahl al-Bayt.


--Striver 07:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Extremely strong objection. It's POV and furthermore, you have misused the word "inflate". Zora 07:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, then lets talk about it. Why is it pov? And what better word can we use? Just listing the objections does not help... --Striver 09:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
It's POV because it is arguing that "Ali was born in the Kaaba" is a majority opinion. I do not think that you are going to find many Sunni agreeing to it, regardless of a website here or there. You are also using your repeated ploy, "Sunni and Shi'a agree, so it must be true." First of all, there's the REST of the human race, not to mention the academic historians, who either don't care or regard it as pious fabrication. Second, a handful of credulous late medieval clerics don't speak for all contemporary Sunnis.
The statement in the current version seems entirely adequate to me. It indicates that Shi'a believe that Ali was born in the Kaaba. Trying to CONVINCE readers that Ali was born in the Kaaba is an attempt to use Wikipedia for a soapbox. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine. Zora 10:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Now, to my rebutal:
It does not say that it is a majority oppinion, it only says:
"Muslim sources claim that an early Muslim was actually born in the Kaaba. There are two versions. One more prominently narrated"
And that is factual, the narrations where Ali is born are much more numerous, and also more used in Sunni literature. Nowhere does it state "it is a majority oppinion". It does not touch about the oppion of people, only about the use of the sources. Reagrding the oppion of people, i have no comment or knowledge, and are not talking about it. For example, we have Sunni site Witnespioneer talking about Ali being born theree, and it says he was born there uniqly. Al-Hakim deemed the Ali narration to be authentic, and we also have narration where Ali claims he was born there. Also, there are very few people that even know about the claim that the other guy was born there. That makes the Ali narration more numerous and more popular. How popular is not the issue.
Regarding "Sunni and Shi'a agree, so it must be true", i said no such thing. I just stated a fact. Ill change it to reflect non-Muslim oppinion.
"a handful of credulous late medieval clerics don't speak for all contemporary Sunnis". Yes, in fact they do. Bukhari and Muslim are both older than Hakim, but hold absolute authority about Sunnis belives. The age of the scholars is irrelevant. I gave you one scholar authenticating it. If you claim some other Sunnis scholar deemed the narrations as week, you are welcomed to tell whom that scholar is.


regarding "The statement in the current version seems entirely adequate to me.". It goes like this:'
Some Islamic sources claim that an early Muslim was actually born in the Kaaba. Shia Muslims claim that Ali ibn Abu Talib, Muhammad's son-in-law, was born in the Kaaba, and only Ali. Some Sunni have countered that claim by saying that the child was not Ali, but Hakim ibn Hizam, a rich Meccan convert to Islam. The Shia claim this as an example of history being changed or suppressed in order to detract honor from Muhammad's household, the Ahl al-Bayt.
its is not as accurate, since it claims that sunnis "countered that claim", and that is not the case. Sunnis dont persive the other guy being born there as a "countering", you are welcome to show where they do so. Also, as i have told, Sunnis have stated Ali was born there both in their biograpies and by their scholars. They somehow regard both as authentic.
Also "changed or suppressed" is not accurate either, since they dont deny Ali being born there. That is why i wrote "inflate", like in "the more people born there, the less special it is". I would appreciate a better prose for making the same point.
it is also less informative, since it does not tell wich version is more numerous or popular.
Regarding "Trying to CONVINCE readers that Ali was born in the Kaaba is an attempt to use Wikipedia for a soapbox. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine." Where does the text try to convince anyone of Ali being born there? Could you please show me the pov sentence?


How about this:

Muslim sources claim that an early Muslim was actually born in the Kaaba. There are two narrations.

One claims that Ali, Muhammad's son-in-law, was born in the Kaaba. That narration is more numerous and more popular. It has been regarded authentic by both Sunni and Shia scholars.

The other claim, regarded as authentic by only Sunnis, states that Hakim ibn Hizam, a rich Meccan convert to Islam was born there. Shia belive Ali was the only one born there, and the Hakim narration is only a fabrication in order to trivialize Alis honor.

Non-Muslim are in general sceptical regarding both narrations.


Comments?

--Striver 11:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

No, that is not OK. You cannot make statements about what Sunnis believe or accept. You are not a Sunni. You do not read Sunni books. You cannot represent Sunnis.

I will accept that many Shi'a believe that Ali was born in the Kaaba, however. Not all -- Reza Aslan doesn't mention it, for one thing.

I don't have to SHOW you what is POV about your statements. I don't have to convince you. I don't think that there IS any way of getting through to you. Let's just say that if you try to use the Kaaba article as a Shi'a soapbox, I'll do what it takes to stop you. Zora 13:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Is that it? Your answear is:
1) I may not edit on the sunni view, since i am not Sunni.
2) You do not need to tell me what is objectionable, however you will revert it if i add it.
3) My sourced statements are a "try to use the Kaaba article as a Shi'a soapbox".
Have i understood you correctly? --Striver 11:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

No, you haven't. Hows about this: Let ME start two articles on the two points re Ali on which we are clashing: on the first male Muslim and on the born in the Kaaba belief. I'll pick the titles (after some thought) and set up a framework. Then there's room for all the stuff you want to cite and room for counterarguments. This stuff does NOT belong in the Kaaba article, and it would unbalance the Ali article too. I think this kind of breakout of the most controversial stuff worked OK with the Muhammad article (where we set the Aisha age-at-marriage controversy, the Banu Qurayza controversy, etc., into separate articles) and with the arguments re the Succession to Muhammad. It's two in the morning here and I don't want to do it right now. I'll do it tomorrow. Zora 12:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


Anon

Anon added this:

Many women of Noble families had the privilage to give birth in the Kaaba before Islam, to claim honor from Ishmail the builder of the Kaaba and the Father of the Arabs who lived 2300 years before Muhammad.
I reverted. If sourced, i welcome to include it, but not without source. --Striver 03:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
seems unlikely to be from a printed source given the typo for "privilege" Pbhj 22:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

history

This needs to be added: [10] --Striver 03:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Zora

Zora, quit it with your pov edits. Hizam is just as important to mention as Ali. --Striver 18:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No, not really. The Shi'a make a big deal out of Ali's supposed birth in the Kaaba (prominent part of the Ali mythos) but few Sunni mention Hizam. That could be a da'if hadith. You cite hadith without any weighing and judging, Striver, which Islamic scholars would regard as extremely reckless.
Your version is POV because it tries to conceal the Shi'a nature of this belief. You haven't been able to come up with any source save that one website. You keep insisting that the website is Sunni. Well, it isn't orthodox Twelver Shi'a, but it isn't orthodox Sunni either. Does it say anywhere on the site that it's Sunni? You really need to come up with another Sunni source to support your contention.
Your version is ungrammatical and imprecise. It's misleading. You keep using vague English translations, which obscure exactly when and how reports of this birth emerged. "Reported" suggests eyewitnesses, when in fact the earliest source you cite is Masudi, who wrote 350 years after the supposed event. You are trying to give the impression that this is a widely held Muslim belief, when it is NOT. So far as I can tell, only the Shi'a and that one ambiguous website subscribe to this story of Ali's birth. Zora 18:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


New Kaaba Pic

Hello all, I would like to inform you on the recent update regarding the new Kaaba pic, I put it there. It might be taking up the page abit, so fix it up as you like, and my apologies for any inconvenience or hardship due to the pic.--Maliki 786 01:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Direction of prayer?

"the Kaaba is simply a focal point for prayer, in a similar fashion to the cross for some Christian denominations or the Temple Mount for Jews" - is this true? WRT Christians this would mean that Muslims don't care which way they face when they pray but may occassionally look at a representation of the Kaaba to remind them of who they follow?? Doesn't seem right to me. This disagrees completely with the later statement "Muslims are ordered to face this direction during prayer". Christians can and do face whatever direction they like during prayer - many Christians pray internally throughout their daily coming and goings. I think more proper would be to say that it's simply a religious edict and to contrast this with Christian prayer (don't know about Jewish prayer except that I have no recollection of the Holy Bible mentioning to pray facing any particular object). This is actually quite an important point as it reflects on central points of Christian life in particular concerning the omnipresence of God and the indwelling of his Holy Spirit Pbhj 22:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

As there were no objections here I've rewritten this part to show the similarity with the Jewish geo-focussed prayer and the contrast with Christian prayer which comes about due to the belief in indwelling of the Holy Spirit. There is of course a similar controversy in Judaism concerning which direction to face: flat earth (which projection!), great circle or just East? Pbhj 22:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, Muslims in most parts of North America pray facing East - the direction of Mecca if someone were to look at a flat map of the Earth even though the shortest distance from most points in the US and Canada to Mecca is North. Can someone confirm and/or clarify this in the article?

I have a vague memory of reading somewhere that this IS controversial, with some Muslims arguing for flat map and others for great circle orientations. But I don't have the time to do the research. Could you? Zora`
Not controversial but different directions. I think the shortest distance, so not always east. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I have yet to see a mosque or a person - Sunni or Shia - who prays towards the southeast in Toronto or Ottawa. I have (kind of) reverted the part about praying southeast here and in the Qibla article and included a reference to an ISNA adivsor article discussing the issue, but the anonymous user who has put them before has reverted back the Qibla article already. I leave it up to the moderators to decide because I am too tired to go in a reversion war, especially with an anonymous editor. --Abdousi 19:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think is controversial at all. From North America, the direction of prayer is northeast; I have not heard otherwise (although there was a book in the early 1990s that claimed it was southeast, but it was just plain wrong). joturner 04:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hindu temple again

Someone again linked to his webpage claiming that the Kaaba was a Hindu temple. Anon, no one except you believes that! The theory is not notable.

I also removed a mass of material that seemed to be a mixture of badly referenced Muslim piety and some anti-Islamic material about Islamic imperialism. Zora 19:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Revert to MPatel

The Hindu temple guy struck again. Someone removed the geographic coordinates, for some reason, and someone added some bogus "info" re exactly what was in the Kaaba before it became a Muslim shrine. Zora 18:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw a number of dodgy edits a couple of days ago, but didn't have the energy to change them back at the time. Thanks for reverting. Oh, that reminds me, I better mention this specific type of recurring vandalism for Wikiproject Islam contributors here MP (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
The coordinates were not removed! I put them in a coordinate template. If you look... you can see that they are actually more prominent on the page. Do you even know how computers work?--Dr who1975 22:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I see that now. Yes, I know how computers work. I've put mine together from parts myself. No need to sneer -- this is a group project and sneering doesn't help us cooperate. Zora 22:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I assure you my face was sneer free when I wrote it. Thank you for replying.--Dr who1975 23:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Academic views of history of Kaaba

I think there used to be a lot more material on the topic, which may have been deleted because it was non-Islamic. (There was a period when I wasn't monitoring this article, having taken a wiki-break.) Hoyland's book on pre-Islamic Arabia is a great source and I'll try to make the time to check it and add some references. Zora 00:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The merge tag

A merge tag seems to have crept into the article. I don't think the article should be merged with Masjid al-Haram, as the Kaaba is a sufficiently important and iconic feature of Islam that it deserves an article of it's own. MP (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Squabbles over Temple Mount, Jewry, etc.

Itaqallah, Jewry sounds old-fashioned and faintly anti-Semitic. Please don't use it. It was in wide use once, but I don't see it in contemporary works. It is also a fact that many contemporary Jews have a strong emotional attachment to the Temple Mount and the Wailing Wall. Surely you know of the people who come to insert written prayers between the stones and pray before the wall. It's unfortunate that Muslims also have a strong emotional attachment to the Temple Mount but ... that's an inflammatory subject best left for other venues. Surely we can come up with some form of words that doesn't judge between the contending parties. Zora 01:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

yes, of course these sites are still revered, i don't think that's up for debate. this is, however, not what i think EoI is referring to, i think it is talking about how Muslims consider it as 'bayt Allah' and use it as the literal centre of their community dealings and rituals, serving the same purpose as the actual temple (of which only today the remnants remain) did for "ancient Jewry". this is also the impression i recieved from the article on the temple. this is why EoI says "Jewry", meaning Jewish peoples, and not Judaism, and is why the EoI says 'Muslim community' as it is drawing a comparison between the Muslim community's use of the Kaaba and ancient Jewish peoples' use of the temple. if Jewry is regarded as offensive we can quite easily use another term. ITAQALLAH 01:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
here is the quote again for convenience: "For the Muslim community the Ka`ba holds a place analogous to that of the temple in Jerusalem for ancient Jewry". i really think that the EoI is comparing ancient Jews' usage of the temple when it was intact to the Muslim community's usage of the Kaaba. ITAQALLAH 01:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
No problem, it's covered in Judaism as in when a temple exists and to the Jewish prayers in existance which talk about its use like that. Amoruso 01:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
the distinction is that the EoI is seemingly talking about its historical usage by ancient Jews (and this is why it says 'ancient Jewry' i.e. ancient Jewish civilisation), not about the religiously commanded usage in Jewish texts . and this is the comparison that i think the EoI is trying to draw (i.e. not the temple's status in Judaism or prescriptions according to Jewish texts, but how Jews historically used it in ancient times), which is why it would be incorrect in my opinion to imply the EoI is talking about judaism here. ITAQALLAH 01:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you that this was true when the temple existed, but perhaps you can agree with me that this is a concept in Judaism whether or not the temple exists or not... you see ? So imagine if this was a fictional story still this feature in Islam will be similar to the story ? See ? So if the temple will be built again it will have exactly the SAME purpose it did, it's a concept on how the temple is used. Amoruso 01:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
yes, however the comparison drawn up by the EoI is this:
Muslim community -relationship- Kaaba ≈ ancient Jewish community -relationship- Temple
if you change 'ancient Jewish community' to 'Judaism', the comparison is invalid and not logically sound. so it is not incorrect to use the term 'ancient Jewish peoples/civilisations' here and it in fact would be more appropriate in the light of trying to represent the point EoI is making. that is not to say what you are saying is incorrect, just that what i have suggested is more appropriate in representing the point EoI attempts to establish. ITAQALLAH 01:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Well I guess we disagree... I think it's the same thing to convey what he says but making it more accurate and also not saying that the temple actually existed btw - it's how Jews view the temple as it was and how it will be again if it's erected again even not on the temple mount itself but someplace else. I don't think it's confusing or less appropriate, but... Amoruso 02:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
i will wait for Zora's response, but i am currently considering changing the phrase to mean practice of the Jews from antiquity, which is what i believe the EoI is forwarding. ITAQALLAH 16:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
At any case, I would prefer if the words "Jewry" [11] and "Ancient" are avoided. btw, I can't see how it's analogous since Muslims have mosques, and at the time the temple stood there were no synagogues (although some were later excavated dated to the later stages of the second temple). Amoruso 01:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
well that link demonstrates my point exactly: EoI is referring to ancient collective Jewish civilisation, and so 'Jewry' here is precise and accurate, which is why EoI used it. the comparison is this: Kaaba is used by the Muslims today in the same way as the temple was used by the Jews of antiquity. i will accept a substitute for the word 'Jewry', but something indicating its archaic significance should be retained. ITAQALLAH 01:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
But like Zora says below, effectively if the Temple ever is built again anywhere it will have the same purpose of sacrifices and joint community. So if you mention it in the past it implies Jews no longer believe in such a habit which is not true - they wait for it to happen, so the concept is the same and conveyed. Amoruso 02:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
in the interests of dispute resolution i have forwaded a proposal. although i don't think it totally encapsulates the precision of the point made, it still contains a degree of validity. ITAQALLAH 02:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd say IMO good work cheers. Amoruso 02:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That's why the best term is Judaism ITAQALLAH because this is the same meaning. Jews still regard the temple in their prayers as exactly this purpose. See the main prayer of Amidah said by Jews 3 times a day where it also asks God to restore the Temple services and sacrificial services. So using the common word "Judaism" is best. It's ambigiuous as well as accurate. You correctly replaced "Temple Mount" with "temple in Jerusalem " so there can be no confusion. Amoruso 01:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't wait for me, guys -- I've got some freelance work that has to be finished today. I would just observe that before cheap air travel, going to Mecca on the hajj was a rare and perilous venture. The Kaaba was just an idea to most Muslims. Similarly, the Temple is just an idea to contemporary Jews. I'm not sure that it makes sense to focus, as the EoI article does, on the actual physical existence of a cult center. The IDEA of a cult center is the same in both cases. Will be back later, as soon as I finish another box of manuscript. Zora 21:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The analogy is completely unnecessary and I don't like it either, it reeks of something to prove and a reminder that while Islam evangelises and grows the Jewish temple is no more. Perhaps it isn't offensive but since it is contentious and I am not the only one who thinks it has pointless connotations I am deleting the line. -- Jez, 24 February 2007

Pictures of Muhammad

We have the usual suspects adding a picture of Muhammad to the Kaaba article. This is an article about the Kaaba, not Muhammad. There's no point other than insult to adding a picture that annoys a certain section of our readers. It's like adding penis pictures to articles just to be provocative. I'm not a Muslim and if I were an artist, I'd feel completely free to picture Muhammad. However, I wouldn't take my picture down to the nearest mosque and parade back and forth on the sidewalk in an attempt to be offensive. Please, don't troll. Zora 21:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Usual suspects dont troll? Maybe youll read WP:NPA meaning no personal attacks. Article is about Kaaba SO maybe you should look at the pic and see that Kaaba is in it also black stone. Muhammad is mentioned seven times here so if youre sure its NOT about Muhammad maybe take out all those mentions?Opiner 22:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Zora your edits are pretty good BUT one thing I notice: first youre saying this article about Kaaba not Muhammad THEN youre increased the number of Muhammad mentions from seven to thirteen! Probably you didnt really mean that or changed your mind. SO Im putting back the pic.Opiner 07:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Zora, the picture is relevant to the Kaaba. If you say the picture is insulting to Muslims, no Muhammad pictures should also stay in the Muhammad page. When THAT matter has been decided to let the pictures stay in, why are you saying that the pictures should not stay here? Here's the thing: The "offensiveness" of legitimate Islam-related pictures is of no consequence in Wikipedia. This rule also applies to THIS article. I'm here now and I will make these picture stay in, if I have to go to Dispute resolution, I will do this. The picture is of Kaaba and is relevant to the article. --Matt57 17:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
you may wish to consult Talk:Muhammad/Mediation regarding the pictures issue. the matter, contrary to your claims, has not been decided over there. gren, for instance, argues eloquently against the inclusion of such pics there (cf. Talk:Muhammad#Image:Maome.jpg). we do not include pictures for the sake of including them. the picture you want included is not relevant, as the event apparently depicted is not discussed in the article, and neither is the Kaaba prominent in the picture. even then, as Zora argues, there is no pressing need to include it. ITAQALLAH 17:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Thats disappointing. I'm amazed that Wikipedia administrators have even allowed this debate to exist. Ofcourse the pictures are important. The fact that they offend a certain group of people is irrelevant. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it is to include information, not exclude it.--Matt57 05:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The image it obviously relevant to the article and apart from a few bad faith accusations and something that boarders personal attacks, I haven't seen any valid arguments for not including it. Because of that I made the decision to restore the image. -- Karl Meier 14:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not do that. Who are you to evaluate arguments and generalizing ALL of them as personal attack? --- ALM 14:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any genuine, valid arguments for not including the image. Perhaps you could tell me, what are the arguments for not including the image, which I believe is both appropriate and relevant to the article, and provide the readers with additional (and again relevant) information. -- Karl Meier 18:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm against censorship and want pictures when they're necessary to the article. There's an article on Depiction of Muhammad that covers this material, and pictures are relevant and necessary there. However, the pictures you guys want to add HERE aren't necessary. We don't gratuitously offend people by adding offensive material when it's not necessary. We may think that they're silly for objecting, but ethics calls for kindness even to silly people. Zora 19:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The image is depicting a historical scene, that is relevant to the history of the articles subject which is the Kabba. That makes it relevant and worth including. Any discussion about it allegedly being offensive to some conservative Islamic groups is entirely irrelevant, because we are supposed to settle these issues according to Wikipedia's policies. An image created directly with the purpose of attacking Muhammad might be inappropriate in most articles, but that is obviously not the case here. The image was created by a Muslim, it provides the readers with additional information and there is no excuse not to include it. -- Karl Meier 21:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The fact that the picture generates so much controversy in a fairly high profile article is enough for it to be not included in the article. That's why I deleted it. MP (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I am sure that we will have to delete a lot of things if we have to be "uncontroversial" in the eyes of everyone around here. However, fact is that it is not our purpose to be uncontroversial, but to inform the readers. We are supposed to make decisions according to policy, and according to what serves our articles best. -- Karl Meier 23:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Karl, exactly what information does the picture convey? Zora 00:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

What information does any picture convey for that matter? Lets get rid of the Wikipedia logo as well, since it can all be explained in words. This stuff cant be resolved until a brave admin with commonsense makes the right decision.--Matt57 17:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
To answer your question, the Wikipedia logo conveys no information. It is pure decoration. What is your point? --Doradus 16:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Some pictures in articles are just decoration -- those are the ones that can be removed if they're offensive. Some are necessary, but we should be able to explain why. For instance, Haji Ali Dargah has three pictures of the building -- one of which shows the whole facility, one of which shows the gate, and one of which shows the inside. All three are necessary to understand the location and architectural style of the building. The article wouldn't be as informative without them.
The picture of Muhammad that people keep trying to insert is not a photograph of an actual event, it is a picture of a probably mythical event that was produced much later. It doesn't give information about Muhammad, since it's a complete fantasy; it doesn't give information about the Kaaba, which is already well-shown by actual photographs. If it demonstrates anything, it's Islamic art. It belongs in the Depictions of Muhammad article, or in an Islamic art article, but contributes nothing here. Therefore there's no NEED to include it. If Muslims didn't mind having it here, it might be a nice decoration, but since they do mind, kindness trumps decoration. Zora 18:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
This picture is NOT just a decoration and the event was NOT mythical. There's enough detail on the internet for this event. There are no Muslims who dont beleive that it didnt happen. Its even mentioned on Wikipedia itself and the reference given for the statement is given on the USC MSA website [12]. As for the image not giving any information, I asked you: What information does the Wikipedia logo provide that cannot be given in words? What if the logo was offensive to me? Does it mean we should take it down? Yes, the image illustrates the important event of Mohammed placing the stone in the Kaaba. Since you care so much about Muslims, why dont you ask them if they think this event is an important event and whether they believe it really happened or not? If they say Yes to both those questions, then you can be sure that this is an important event and it actually happened. The fact that Muslims mind the presense of the image should be of no consequence at ALL. The only deciding factor should be- whether the image is relevant, and it is. This is an article on the Kaaba and Mohammed placing the black stone on it so it IS relevant. As I said, this isnt going to be resolved until a sane brave admin takes a decision. If we keep acting Dhimmi and scared of offending people, we're not going to get anywhere. --Matt57 23:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain why the following external links with a non-muslim viewpoint of the Kaaba should not be included in the section?

Are these not relevant links? --Matt57 17:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

PN Oak's theory has been covered above. there is no academic support for it, nor is it proven that anyone other than he believes it. per WP:NPOV, we are not required to give extreme minority views any coverage at all, and that includes in our external links. i see no argument as to why the first link merits inclusion. ITAQALLAH 17:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
A user saying "Being a historian myself and reading that article, I'd say - after a first glance - that it's complete and utter rubbish, if not bland academic forgery" - is not proper rebuttal of the link. I can say the opposite and would that mean a defense? --Matt57 17:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
see negative proof. you are the one who must establish that PN Oak's theory is entertained by even some reputed academics. ITAQALLAH 18:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Negative proof is not relevant here. All you need to do to take the link out is to tell me why it doesnt follow WP:EL. Can you disprove that? Dont forget to apply the same rules to the other external links sitting in the article right now. Please continue the discussion below with Zora. --Matt57 05:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
negative proof is relevant, you are arguing that it is false to assume non-notability when there is no evidence for it, whereas it is totally accurate and required. you are the one who must establish its notability with evidences; it is not "assumed notable until disproven". WP:NPOV also has sway over the distribution of external links, extreme minority opinions are not given any space at all, and that includes in external links. ITAQALLAH 14:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

<r>I'll repeat Negative proof is NOT relevant here. Only WP:EL is. The author is not non-notable. He has his own article on WP. How is the link of an "extreme minority" nature? If you can prove that, does WP:EL say that minority extreme links should not be included? WP:EL does not say that I am required to give proof for why the link satisfied WP:EL. It is you who must prove that the link is not suitable, using only WP:EL. Thats the only criteria for an EL. There are many internet sources claiming that that Vikramaditya inscription is hanging inside the Kaaba, and currently the article does not include much detail on this or its non-Muslim origins. I will include this somehow in the article with good references. Sorry, if you disagree with some content in WP, that doesnt mean it shouldnt be included. The Kaaba has a Pagan origin. Even Mohammed by self-admission destroyed the idols there himself, 360 of them, so the Pagan non-Muslim origins of the Kaaba must be highlighted and mentioned in more detail in this article. Do you agree?--Matt57 15:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

negative proof is seemingly not relevant to you, because it demonstrates that your line of reasoning is flawed. we are not talking about the author, we are talking about his theory. furthermore, Oak is not relevant nor an authority on any Islam-related matter. the opinion is non notable, and thus of an extreme minority, because its notability has not been proven. you must prove that it is notable by showing that academics give this view some sort of credence. unless you are ignoring my comments, you would know that WP:NPOV has sway over all parts of the article, including the external links. please see the undue weight clause of WP:EL, which is given in more detail on WP:NPOV here. re: the laughable search result provided above which only asserts the viewpoint's non-notability, see Zora's comment below. ITAQALLAH 15:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
a small note about this pseudo-search result. a lot of the links are not related to the Kaaba at all, or are from blogs/forums/non-scholarly websites. you will need to try harder.. ITAQALLAH 16:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

P. N. Oak (Purushottam Nagesh Oak) is an Indian Hindutvadi "historian". His article is a battleground, because some Indian editors believe his theories, but I know of no reputable historian who would give them the time of day. IMHO, his theories could be considered an Indian analogue of Creationism in the US -- strong support from those with the same religious/political background and universal disdain from everyone else, including academia.

As for the mb-soft link -- when I looked over the article, it was basically a pious Muslim account that had been given a home at the Christian site. I gather that the point of that site is to expose Christians to the beliefs of other religions. Since we already had a number of Muslim versions, I didn't think it was necessary to have another one, especially as it came in a confusing context.

I actually did a fair bit of googling looking for online academic resources on the Kaaba, but didn't find anything. If anyone else can find such resources, please do. Zora 20:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

So what if the article is a battleground? Who says so? I'll say that pro-Islamic links for the Kaaba sitting there right now are also battlegrounds because some editors dont agree with it. So what? Does that mean the link must be taken out? The only criteria for inclusion for an external link is if it contains good information and it qualifies for WP:EL. If you can use this policy page to disqualify this page, we can debate on that. Otherwise please dont mention anything else.--Matt57 05:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Oak is not considered to be a reputable historian by anyone other than extreme Hindu fundies. The link would only be valuable if his "theory" were discussed in the article. Are you going to add the link to the articles on Stonehenge and the Vatican, which Oak also claims were originally Hindu? Oh and he thinks that Christianity was also originally Hindu. Are you going to add Oak links to the Jesus page? Paul B 16:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure only if he makes good arguements with references to support it, it might be a good link as an alternate viewpoint. In the Kaaba article, he highlights the correct: "The name of King Vikramaditya Chandragupta is also inscripted on one of the doors of the Kaaba." (from Black Stone. Anyway, I was looking for somoene to point out significant _actual_ errors in Oak's article, using 'real' historical facts. --Matt57 17:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know Oak is the only person who makes this claim. The fact that some Oakite briefly added it to the Black Stone article hardly counts as reliable. Is there a reliable source? What errors do you want? The only "support" for Oakism lies in the fact that what we call "Hinduism" today asises for a long process of synthesis between Indo-European myths and pre-existing or localised cultic practices in India. It's the synthesis combuined with internal intellectual developments that makes "Hinduism". Since these cults are related to IE religions and pre-IE fertility cults elsewhere in the world, there are bound to be similaries to what in the Abrahamic tradition is labelled "paganism". From that fact a Hindu extremist can conclude that all so-called Pagan cultures were really forms of Hinduism. Paul B 11:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

how to add citation

I'm not sure how you enter you enter citations, but here's one source for the tradition I added about the black stone being white when it fell to earth: http://www.saudicities.com/mmosque.htm --Gilabrand 09:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You can add citation by <ref> Your reference </ref>. But please note that wikipedia can use peer-reviewed scholarly sources per WP:RS. Your source doesn't seem to be scholarly enough. For example, who is its author? what are his credentials and why is the author qualified to talk about Islam? Why those information are authentic?
We usually use books peer-reviewed and published by academic scholars.--Aminz 09:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

qualified source

First of all, this particular source is cited on another Wikipedia page about the black stone. If it's good enough for that page, why not for this one? As far as I can see, it is not some esoteric tradition. An exhibit at the Islamic Museum in Jerusalem mentions it, and I'm sure they didn't make it up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gilabrand (talk • contribs) 09:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Speculation

Some of the descriptions of the inside of the Kaaba seem speculative, like "The most reliable approximations for the structural dimensions" and "The building is believed to be otherwise empty". I imagine this is because admission to the Kabaa is strictly controlled, but I can't find any indication of this in the article. Can someone clarify this? Also, can we cite these "approximations" and "beliefs"? --Doradus 13:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Silly deletion

All of Islam is based on "traditions" so I really don't understand why the tradition of the stone having been white and turning to black is any different. It is one of many "traditions" and not at all an esoteric one. Certainly, it is not POV. Here's a link to a website where it is quoted from an encyclopedia. There is also a big inscription with this "tradition" in the Islamic Museum in Jerusalem. http://kaaba.oto-usa.org/name.html--Gilabrand 10:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Then restore the claim with a cite. I removed it not based upon any prejudice I have towards it, but because it was contested and uncited.Proabivouac 10:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Repeatedly added inappropriate text is also a copyright violation

The text that has reappeared here repeatedly of late (Made of dark rough stones laid in a very simple manner...), most recently added by Sohraab, is obviously non-encyclopedic commentary. However, it also appears to be a copyright violation from http://www.al-islam.org/hajj/shariati/11.htm which is "copyright Ahlul Bayt Digital Islamic Library Project 2000 - 2007." --Kbh3rdtalk 16:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Article had become garbled

I hadn't looked closely at this article for a while and what I found horrified me. The history section had been inexpertly rewritten from a pious Muslim viewpoint. Much belief had been written as fact, POV words such as "martyrdom" used, and real history had been excised or confused. I just spent a few hours rewriting the article. I still haven't looked through the links, which have probably filled up with proselytizing material.

I took out the religion garbage links thanks for mentioning them.Opiner 08:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

As for the pre-Islamic history of the Kaaba -- many Muslims believe that the first Kaaba was built by Adam. However, there's nothing in the Qur'an about this. It's a later belief. I don't think that it should be slipped into the narrative as if it had exactly the same status, for all Muslims, as the Qur'an.

I took out the picture, again. I hope that I won't be accused of vandalism for doing so. It's a content dispute, not vandalism. As can be seen from my rewrite, I'm not a Muslim and I have no problem with offending Muslim sensibilities when it's necessary to present an academic as well as a devout version of history. I just don't see the point of unnecessary offense. Let's be kind to one another. (Or the Bill and Ted version -- Let's be excellent to each other! :)) Zora 19:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Its vandalism if youre an anonymous or sock puppet account only for removing pics. You dont look like that to me
If Im wearing the cap for the Yankees baseball and youre now saying hey Im from Boston I dont like your hat. Whose unkind me for still wearing my hat or your for getting upset? I agree we should be kind to one another and get along and I think accepting other people their religions AND their freedoms its part of it. Were really nice to you EXCEPT when you say or do something we dont like then were not nice and then its all your fault isnt working for me.Opiner 07:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Opiner, I'm not a Muslim. I don't think it's nice, or necessary, to have that picture there. It conveys no information whatsoever. You seem determined to insert it just to show Muslims that they can't censor you. You're disrupting WP to make a point. Please stop. Zora 08:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Zora PLEASE stop the assuming of bad faith. Including the on topic pic ISNT disrupting just normal Wikipedia with pics. Whats disrupting is edit war to remove the pics. To make a point.
Earlier you say your reason: article isnt about Muhammad but only Kaaba. I asked so youre going to remove these mentions to Muhammad? BUT your last edits bring mentions from seven to thirteen almost double! Just between you and me was that reason just something youre saying for a reason to remove the pic?Opiner 08:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Opiner, I have spent a lot of time restoring pics of the infamous cartoons to the article about them; I started the article on depictions of Muhammad; I helped manage an earlier compromise re pictures on the Muhammad page that had one picture, small, with his face veiled; I spent a lot of time arguing FOR a picture of a woman in a sleeveless shirt looking at a beautifully calligraphed page of the Qur'an. I have spent I don't know how much time on PBUH patrol, removing Muslim honorifics and hagiography from various articles. I don't know why you accuse me of having some hidden Muslim motives in removing the picture. The guideline I'm trying to follow that is that we should have pictures, even when they're offensive to some people, if they're necessary info. If they're just decoration, to break up large blocks of text, then respect for the feelings of others takes precedence over decoration. A reproduction of the Danish cartoons is absolutely necessary if one is to understand the controversy, therefore we have the picture. Even if Muslims don't like it. We have pictures of penises on the penis page, even if some people don't like it. But I see no need to decorate this article with an Ottoman minature when we already have good pictures of the Kaaba. If we don't decorate pages with penis pictures, because we know that they are offensive to some people, then we don't decorate pages with pictures of Muhammad. I'm not offended by penises and I'm not offended by pictures of Muhammad, but I'm willing to change my behavior in minor ways to please people whom I may not particularly like, but who are PEOPLE. If you follow any religion, I'm sure that one of its tenets must be avoiding giving pain unnecessarily, even to people you don't like. That's all that's involved here. Zora 05:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kaaba/Archive_1&oldid=1190108449"