Talk:Mecca/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Inconsistency

We have both Mecca and Makkah scattered through this article. We really need to be consistent. RickK 09:31, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Another inconsistency: Sharif of Mecca page differs from spelling on Sherif Hussein ibn Ali bio page (Sharif of Mecca vs Sherif of Mecca) Nobs 17:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

How is Mecca protected by unauthorized visitors?

How is Mecca protected by non-muslimic visitors? Is the town surrounded by a fence or a wall similiar like West-Berlin between 1961 and 1989?

Answer

No, but there are checkpoints along the way from Jeddah to Mecca, but they really do nothing, they don't check the passports or anything, I have been there, anybody can go in unnoticed.

I have been there many times and lived four years as a residence. It is not easy to enter Makkah without proper documentations like passport. Active checkpoints are all over the city. It takes about forty five minutes from Jeddah(main terminal) to Makkah but sometime takes hours just to clear check points.

"WHO ARE YOU???" Ummat 10:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Ummat.

Keeper/Servant of the Holy Places

Has anyone attempted to write on article on Keeper of the Holy Places? Nobs 20:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to the title Khadim-e-Harmain Shareefain? It would be interesting to have such an article. It is a title last used by the Ottoman Caliph--till relatively recently revived by the House of Saud. (Their preferred translation is "Custodian of..." See: http://www.saudinf.com/main/b7.htm)—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:10, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Merge

Some of this article needs to be merged with Hajj: I am thinking of the section 'millions of people' or suchlike under 'Hajj', and its overlap with disasterous incidents on this page. 81.153.177.193 22:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Recent edit with an ideological load was deleted

Someone inserted a change in the text to indicate his/her belief that the God of the Muslims is not the God of the Christians, etc. As far as I know they all agree that there is only one God, and they are either all right or all wrong. If they are all right then there is only one God and they can only be speaking about the same thing even though they each may have their belief that their way is the only right way. There might be some way of NPOVing things a little, but the change that was in fact made was way out of line. It was a new contributor who did it, and some of his edits have been helpful, so I hope if he tries again he will involve himself in discussion on this talk page rather than starting an edit war. (Maybe he is too "raw" to have even conceived of an edit war. That would be fortunate.) P0M 00:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Spelling in title and within article

I realize that this question has been discussed, but that was back in 2003, and has not really been brought up since. Why do we have a contradiction within the article? Why is the article name "Mecca", while every reference to the city within the article is "Makkah"? This is absurd: Either we say that one or the other spelling is our "official" Wikipedian spelling, and we stick with it both in the title and in the article. It makes absolutely no sense to try to sit on the fence by using both within the same article.

Personally I am strongly in favor of the spelling "Makkah", since this is the American Government's official spelling of the name. That makes the Naming policy poll inapplicable, since the question posed there was whether the common spelling should out-weigh the foreign country's spelling. Nobody there proposed that we not use the official US spelling of the name. I'm not sure when the State Department changed their official policy: their page on Saudi Arabia was last updated Sept 2004, so maybe it was after the poll.

My opinion is irrelevant, however. What matters is that the article needs to be standardized one way or the other. It's ridiculous to spell the city one way in the article title and another way throughout the article. — Asbestos | Talk 1 July 2005 11:32 (UTC)

Since apparently no-one watches this talk page, I'm perfectly happy to be bold and move the page myself, if only to generate some response. However, I'll start by being good and will create a straw poll:

The larger issue here is what to do when the transliteration of a name does not correspond with its commonoly accepted English counterpart. Consider Cairo. No English speaker would speak about his/her amazing trip to "Al-Quahirah." Nor should an English Wikipedia article about the Egyptian capital fall under that heading. Given its widespread use, Mecca strikes me as a similar case. 24.63.125.78 17:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Cairo is how the government of Egypt officially refers to the city in English. I think this article should be moved to Makkah, because that is the English spelling used by the Saudi Arabian government. Also, it is different from the case of Cairo/al-Qaihirah where Cairo is not a simple transliteration of al-Qahirah. Makkah and Mecca, both are direct transliterations of the name and therefore, the official spelling should be used as the main page title. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aslamt (talk • contribs) 00:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Poll: Spelling of Mecca / Makkah

• Please sign with ~~~~ and explain your vote. This is a straw poll, so there is no official deadline, but a decision should be reached a week from now (July 12).

1. Move the article to "Makkah"

1. — Asbestos | Talk 5 July 2005 13:32 (UTC). It's the official US spelling of the name [1]; it's the official UK spelling of the name [2], and the spelling used by the British government's Standards of Education curriculum [3]; it's the official UN spelling of the name [4]; it's the English spelling preferred by Saudi Arabia. Obviously Mecca would redirect, so anyone could still find it.

   The Whitehouse calls it Mecca [5] .. a google search of "mecca" on all .gov sites found 19,000 hits, while a search of Makkah found 425. Stbalbach 5 July 2005 16:12 (UTC)

   None of the sources you gave claim Makkah as the 'official' name, they are merely one-off uses. The CIA World Factbook map shows Mecca. It is also listed as Mecca in the appendix with no mention of Makkah. As for the UK site you provided, see [6] (34 results) compared to [7] (1 result, intended for Muslims). The same goes for the UN site: [8] (222 results) vs [9] (38 results). Even if there was consistency within the US and UK governments and the UN, they have no power to dictate an 'official' spelling anyway. the wub "?/!" 6 July 2005 10:27 (UTC)

2. Dragons flight July 5, 2005 15:42 (UTC) I generally support the position that spellings of proper names should follow the English spelling/transliteration preferred by the people or place being named, while of course maintaining redirects/explainations as appropriate.
3. BlankVerse ∅ 5 July 2005 18:35 (UTC) The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia! The article title should be the most accurate and official name. Just as the Ivory Coast article is located at Côte d'Ivoire, in this case the article should be at the spelling prefered by the Saudi Arabian government.
4. –Hajor 13:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC). Local preferred use. Encyclopedic register. Fondness for lost causes.
5. 69.180.6.146 22:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC) We can always use redirects, and 'Makkah' is more proper as it is used by the governing country. (This previously unbulleted item has been numbered by me for better readability) Zunaid
6. Better yet, move the article to Makkah al-Mukkaramah, the preferred transliteration of the Saudi government, with redirects from "Mecca" and "Makkah". Throughout the article the name "Makkah" should be used. Zunaid 11:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
7. It is the official spelling accepted by various governments. Aslamt 00:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
8. I will move this article to redirect Mecca to Makkah by July 2007 if it is not done by then. "Mecca" is now commercialized and even a clothing brand in the US; "Makkah" is the English word recognized by the majority of the English speaking Muslims. When i saw that this article redirected "Mecca" i got a bad taste in my mouth.. the City is now referred to as Makkah. Further, there is no equivalent for the letters 'e' and 'c' in the Arabic language: the proper transliteration for the Arabic "مكة" is Makkah. That should be the end of the discussion. Servant114 20:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
9. I would prefer it moved to Makkah al-Mukkaramah as that's the name of the place. Why call it anything else? But I don't care for this "I will move this article". Let's have a consensus. On the subject of Google searches on the two terms, the usage is changing and if you limit searches by date you will find Makkah gaining ground steadily. Also remember that any article that says 'Makkah' will probably also say '(Mecca)' after it - so you can't really count that as a 'Mecca' hit. This move to a new name was tried a few years ago (led by me) and got shot down. It's going to happen eventually, but not sure if it's time yet - but let's have a vote by all means.Anjouli 18:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
10. Another point to be taken into consideration is that some Muslims find 'Mecca' offensive. So this is not just about alternative spelling. Anjouli 18:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

2. Change each occurence in the body of the text (except the mention on the first line) to "Mecca"

1. I think it's better to use the common English spelling in this case. I don't believe that there is such a thing as an "official" spelling for a place name. - Nat Krause 5 July 2005 14:18 (UTC)
2. An article title is according to how the subject is most commonly known in the English language. This poll is imformal and doesnt over-ride the Naming policy (see links below). The name used in the article should reflect the article title, obviously. Explain the distinctions in a section of the article. Stbalbach 5 July 2005 16:00 (UTC)
3. Use the English name, not the goverment-speak name. Twenty years of official sanction by political bodies has still not made the name into Makkah in English. -R. S. Shaw 6 July 2005 03:22 (UTC)

   Do you have any evidence that it is only "government-speak"? My vote above is based on a presumption that this is the English spelling preferred by the Saudi Arabian people themselves. If you can disprove that, I would change my vote. Dragons flight July 6, 2005 17:57 (UTC)

   yeah but, this is the English wikipedia. Most people know it by Mecca, not the native language. This is true with many articles. Confucius, for example, is a fairly unknown name in China. Stbalbach 6 July 2005 23:24 (UTC)

   It's their holy city, not mine. If they routinely refer to it in English as Makkah then out of respect that is how we should refer to it as well. I would be just as likely to support changing Confucius to "Master Kong" if most Chinese actually referred to him that way when speaking in English. Redirects are cheap, and most people may still find it by searching on Mecca, but I believe their preferred transliteration should be honored. As above though, I am willing to consider evidence that this might be more a political stunt than a popular preference, if anyone has such evidence. Dragons flight July 6, 2005 23:48 (UTC)

   Is there really any evidence about the actual preference of Arabian people in general on how to spell Mecca/Makkah in English? Most people in Saudi Arabia probably have no preference at all—they don't speak English. They know how to spell it in Arabic. Incidentally, I've talked to a lot of Chinese people in English and, indeed, most of them have never heard of "Confucius"—usually, they say "Kongzi" even when speaking English. - Nat Krause 7 July 2005 05:02 (UTC)

4. The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to try and change popular usage. Use the English name, which is most common amongst the users of this encyclopedia and the governments of English speaking countries. the wub "?/!" 6 July 2005 10:34 (UTC)
5. Agree with users above. PedanticallySpeaking July 6, 2005 17:29 (UTC)
6. use english -- Chris 73 Talk July 6, 2005 21:41 (UTC)
7. I agree with the comments already made. BrianSmithson 12:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
8. In English it's spelled "Mecca". Maybe it should be spelled "Makkah", but we write articles based on the way things are, not the way they should be. -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
9. "Mecca" is the common English name. Maurreen 13:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
10. Spellings other than Mecca are pratically NEVER seen in English. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:42, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
11. It is the traditional spelling of the city's name. Makkah is only a very recent spelling, unheard of before a short while ago. For the record, I am a Muslim, and I do spell it as Mecca rather than Makkah, it is in the English language as so, I see no reason to change it. --Agari 19:13, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
12. "Mecca" is the correct and common english name, this is enwiki. Klonimus 03:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
13. Wikipedia policy is to use common, not official names. This prompted Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country names) to clarify the same issue for countries, which is however now inactive. Attempts to change the convention are occasionally made, but so far always fail. Rd232 13:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
14. Googlefight results. While official naming conventions and preferred local terms do count for something, an almost ten-to-one difference in actual usage counts for a lot more. Aquillion 06:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
15. Support. In English, it is spelt Mecca. "Makkah" is not English and is an invention of the Saudi government. This is the English wikipedia. 80.255 22:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
16. Support. If there were a spelling that could fix English speakers so that they came nearer to pronouncing the name the way it ought to be pronounced, then maybe I would support that choice. If there is no romanization that improves the pronunciation by English speakers of Arabic words, then there is no advantage I can see to adopting one that almost nobody knows how to use who is not already an Arabic speaker. P0M 01:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
17. Wikipedia follows common English usage. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
18. Support. Wikipedia policy is to use the common name, and in this case, Mecca clearly is more common. When and if Makkah (or other spellings) becomes more common, we might consider changing it, but for now it should be enough to list the alternate/official spellings at the top of the page. Turnstep 15:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
19. Support. For the reasons I described in the previous section. 24.63.125.78 17:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
20. Support this is english wikipedia, so we follow the english usage.--Sefringle^Talk 05:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

3. Leave the title as "Mecca" and each occurence as "Makkah" within the text, as it is now

1. The correct roman spelling of the city is Makkah, and as such it should be referred to as that with the article, however, the most popular name for any article should be kept, and that extends to Mecca. --Irishpunktom\^talk July 5, 2005 15:53 (UTC)

Discussion

• Personally, I don't really care which of the first two is voted on, but know that either moving the article or changing the spelling will cause complaints. The current state, however, is just silly. Note that I believe that the Wikipedia:Naming policy poll does not apply, as most did not know that it was the official US and UK spelling of the name (and many voters appeared to believe that the suggestion was to change names such as "Rome" to "Roma") — Asbestos | Talk 5 July 2005 13:17 (UTC)

• Youll need to provide evidence of an "official" spelling, if such a thing exists. Stbalbach 5 July 2005 16:16 (UTC)

• I was using the spelling on the US State Department's Saudi Arabia profile as the "official" US spelling, though I agree that generally "official" is defined by dictionaries, if at all, not governments (except in France). In the UK, I was using the spelling in the government's Foreign Office, as well as all the British curriculum material (such as the page cited). I am perfectly prepared to accept that there is no such thing as an "official" spelling, and even that government websites on both sides of the atlantic still use both spellings in their documents (though it's quite possible that there's a cut-off date on "mecca" usage). — Asbestos | Talk 5 July 2005 19:09 (UTC)

• Makkah is rarely used, google searches prove it. Wikipedia reports on what the (english) world does, it doesnt attempt to change what the world does. Stbalbach 6 July 2005 04:23 (UTC)
• Neither of these sources define "official" spellings, see my comments above. the wub "?/!" 6 July 2005 10:30 (UTC)

• The consensus at Wikipedia:Naming policy poll was formed around the position I agree with current wikipedia policy. Geographic articles should be named after what most English speakers would call them, even if that is different than the official English spelling. The official English spelling should still be mentioned in the article. The article therefore seems to reflect that position, and I can't see why you are arguing that the consensus reached at that poll should be set aside. It clearly references using the common usage name rather than the official English name. I don't happen to find the current situation absurdly silly either, since it seems based upon a compromise between the two positions. Hiding 5 July 2005 14:48 (UTC)

  That would be fine, but I felt that there were confusions during the polling process. 1) Under "Affected articles", it reads "(More common English spelling/officially declared by governments of countries where cities are located as official English spelling)", which does not seem to relate to "official US/UK government spelling". 2) Nearly 50 votes were cast before it was noted at the top that the poll did not apply to spellings such as Rome/Roma, London/Londres [10] and one can see clearly from the comments that many people were voting against the idea that we should start changing article titles to, e.g. Londres and Roma. — Asbestos | Talk 5 July 2005 19:09 (UTC)

• Fair enough. I would think that they had an opportunity to change their vote, though. Hiding 5 July 2005 19:54 (UTC)

• Also, is it your position that all names are changed to reflect the official name then, and so disregard the common usage policy? For example Germany to Federal Republic of Germany? Hiding 5 July 2005 20:01 (UTC)

Question: the three changes I've seen since the 1950's regarding Peiping, Peking, and the current Beijing, all were accepted and adopted very rapidly as the standard in English. Can anyone explain how this came about? Nobs01 5 July 2005 20:10 (UTC)

[11] "There are also a lot of vaguely phonetic spellings - such as "Koran" and "Mecca" - that bear little relation to the Arabic spelling but entered popular usage many years ago and are now difficult to eradicate.

"An internet search with Google shows that "Mecca" is used almost six times more often than "Makkah" (the more accurate spelling that Muslims generally prefer). In a similar search "Quran" scores 44%, "Koran" 37%, and "Qur'an" 19%." Lost in translation - Transcribing Arabic into the Roman alphabet is fraught with difficulty. And in an age of electronic text, search engines and databases, the problem is only going to get worse, writes Brian Whitaker. Guardian Unlimited Monday June 10, 2002

Another problem with Google that Brian Whitaker didn't mention is that when searching on "Mecca", you will also find plenty of lower-case meccas ("Las Vegas is a mecca for gamblers"), other cities around the world named Mecca, MECCA as an acronym, and there is even a last name Mecca (see Mecca (disambiguation) for a partial list). My personal preference is that the city should be at Makkah al-Mukarramah to distinguish between the city and the province Makkah. BlankVerse ∅ 6 July 2005 05:28 (UTC)

Results

A straw poll is informal, so never official "closes", but a pretty clear consensus seems to be that we ought to standardize the spelling within the article body to "Mecca". I'll change the article to reflect this now. — Asbestos | Talk 08:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Number of Hajj pilgrims.

Clearly, 'every year about two (three) million gather for the Hajj' is wrong. Only in recent years has this number been reached. As for the current figure, the best source I could find is [12] which quotes the number of Hajj pilgrims as 2.56 million for 2005. In the section, 'millions of pilgrims' on the Hajj page, a claim is made that the number of Hajj pilgrims has reached 4 million ! (Any sources for this ?). --Mpatel 5 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)

Link to pronunciation aids?

Anent the recent discussion on romanization of Arabic names, wouldn't it be useful to have a link on this and similar articles to an article that gives IPA and other aids to the proper pronunciation of commonly appearing Arabic terms? P0M 16:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Question regarding Islamic law/Mecca

Greetings. I have a question: what happens if a Muslim does not have access to Mecca, and thus cannot make the traditional pilgrimage? Are there any precedents or interpretations in Islamic law regarding such a situation? If so, what is to be done? Thank you very much for your time. Brasswatchman July 31, 2005. 11:07 AM EST.

Actually, let me rephrase the question, since I asked it in another talk section. Please understand that I do not intend any offense. I have been wondering, however - has there been any discussion of how Islam might adapt if Mekkah was destroyed? - --Brasswatchman 05:49, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Utterly destroying a city is harder than you might think. The scorched radioactive Godzilla-torn ruins of Mecca would have just as much religious significance as the intact city does now, and would probably have more emotional significance as a result of the tragedy. Even the glass circle where Mecca once stood would retain that significance. Unless someone unexpectedly invents a bomb capable of blowing up the past or destroying metaphysical religious concepts, Mecca's status as a religious symbol seems safe.

All of this ignores the possibility to Space-Muslims, of course, or some sort of intradimensional Muslims with no way to return; but somehow I feel confident that they would find a way to cope. I wonder, for the intradimensional Muslims--would a pilgrimage to an alternate-dimension Mecca count? Aquillion 11:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

It is the location of the holy sites in and around Makkah, rather than the actual buildings and/or relics that are of significance to Muslims. As an example, the Great Mosque surrounding the Kabbah, has been rebuilt in recent years on a much grander scale. Previously the mosque simply enclosed the Kabbah and adjacent sites (such as the Well of Zamzam and the Station of Abraham). The new building is a multistorey complex which has been extended on one side to enclose completely the low hills of Safa and Marwah, between which pilgrims perform an important rite. The grandeur of the new mosque does not in anyway affect the performance of the pilgrimage. If the entire city was to be obliterated, it would still be the location of the Hajj, although performing the rites might be a bit difficult.

As to Muslims who cannot make the pilgrimage, there are dispensations which have been used in the past. Firstly, the aspiring pilgrim has to satisfy several criteria before going on the pilgrimage (e.g. possession of sufficient wealth, reasonable health, and provisions for the pilgrim's family, in case the pilgrim does not return). For example, if the residents of a remote village were too poor to afford the lengthy and dangerous journey (before jet aircraft and air conditioning), then they could pool their resources and nominate a small party to undertake the Hajj on behalf of the entire village. Thus, all the villagers completed the pilgrimage without actually visiting Makkah.

The question of Space-Muslims has been partially (but wrongly) answered by the film Pitch Black, where a party of Muslims searches for New Mecca. Instead of undertaking an arduous journey, the Space-Muslim could simply ask forgiveness from God, for not being able to perform the Hajj. 213.104.241.134 22.48, 01 October 2005 (UTC)

In fact the Holy Kaba in Makkah has been destroyed more than once. By the Syrian army in Muharram 64 (Hijri date) for example. As for Space Muslims, there was an article in Arab News a few years ago that addressed this. On another planet you pray towards earth (or towards a vertical line pasing through earth if it is far above or below the horizon.) Prince Sultan Salman Abdulaziz Al-Saud has flown on the US Space Shuttle and managed to pray towards Makkah whilst in orbit. There is a precedent for adjusting prayer direction during prayer: Saudi fishermen do it if the boat drifts. (I live about 15 miles from Makkah.) --Anjouli 14:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Two further questions: a) What happens if a space-Muslim is on such a spot that Mecca is directly overhead? Somewhat overhead? b) What happens if a Muslim happens to be at the Antipodes of Mecca (which I think is somewhere in southern French Polynesia or thereabouts)? — Rickyrab | Talk 23:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This is quite a fascinating question that I always wondered about. Because of the distance from Makkah to other cities, Muslims basically stand in straight, parallel lines (called safs) facing Makkah when in salah. It is only at the Grand Mosque that the safs are actually concentric circles facing inwards, towards the Kaaba. I always wondered what would happen if someone were to build a mosque at the antipodes. Would the safs then be concentric circles facing outwards? Where would the imam stand? Zunaid 14:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe that in the highly unlikely event you are standing at the antipode of Makkah, you can face in any direction. Concentric circles facing outward would be correct. Now where the imam stands is an interesting question. To me it would make sense that the imam would stand in front of the outermost concentric circle. joturner 15:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Islam template

Is it just me or does Template:Islam seem inappropriate here? None of the cities from the old Christianity template or the Judaism one have the templates on them. It just seems rather odd since the city is not just religion, whereas the concepts are. gren グレン 09:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, this article is heavily focused on Mecca's significance to Islam, so in that respect it's not surprising--just glancing at its text, it is basically written as an article about a central part of Islam. The same is not true, I think, for any of the Christian or Jewish cities mentioned... They are important, but not in the way that Mecca is to Islam. Mecca's importance to Islam is so great (and specific to that religion) that it rightfully dominates this page. The template is just a sign of that. Or, to put it another way: Basically everyone who searches for Mecca on Wikipedia is doing so specifically to read about an aspect of Islam. Aquillion 11:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but that is only a facet of Mecca and heavily shows the viewpoint we're coming from... since... most of us are non-Muslim I would presume and the Saudis have interestng laws. I think it should at least be moved down to The importance of Mecca section because... There is life in Mecca outside of Islamic ritual and that information probably isn't as easy to come by as the stuff about Islam is... It's a minor point I suppose but the city doesn't deserve the Islam template, the sections related to Islam do... If if the article had more about Meccan history it would show things about the Quaraysh and wouldn't all be about Islam. I just wanted to bring this up... hopefully the article will flesh out and it will become more apparent that Mecca has more to it than just Islam. gren グレン 12:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Aquillion on this point. The fact that Mecca is the location of the holiest place in Islam is sufficient for the article to have the Islam tag. I appreciate your viewpoint about non-religious aspects of Mecca gren, but whatever else is included in the article will not detract from the fact that Mecca is firmly associated with Islam. It really doesn't matter whether the Christian and Jewish articles have the tag or not (maybe they should have tags too), but I think the case is clear with this article. ---Mpatel (talk) 13:46, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Understandable... and if this article ever has more about its non-Islamic role then it will make more sense to broach this subject. gren グレン 16:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Mecca/Makkah is pretty much dominated by religion. Certainly there are some institutions one would expect in a city of this size, but the restriction on non-Muslims, the annual Hajj pilgrimage, the year-round Umrah pilgrimage, the numerous smaller mosques, the large service industry specifically aimed at pilgrims, and the Umm-al-Qura' Islamic University and hundreds of madrassahs all focus on the religious aspect of the city. To attempt a secular discussion of Mecca/Makkah is similar to a secular discussion of the Vatican City. Certainly there is a bank and a radio station, but the main focus is the religious aspect. 213.104.241.134 23.36, 01 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that the template is not NPOV. Only Muslim's believe that Mecca is a holy city. The city has significance outside of islam. I would be ok with the template in the section of the article that discusses the religious importance of the city. 129.120.4.1 19:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

An atheist or an agnostic would say that there are no holy cities, i.e., that the designation "holy" is a manifestation of the "my invisible friend is more powerful than your invisible friend" syndrome. As a matter of practicality and general interest, it is worth noting that certain cities and certain places are regarded as holy by certain religions. Is the Ise Shrine holy? Not to me, but it is holy to many Japanese. Is Tai Shan holy? Not to me, but it is to many Chinese. Is the campus area of St. Olaf College holy? Not to me, but I believe that elevated area is regarded by holy by the native Americans who live in that part of the world. It would be a a better world if we could all feel responsible and good about treating the holy places of other groups with respect. P0M 17:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, the reason being the fact that Mecca is the birth place of Islam. SO there is no reason in the world that this page should not have Template:Islam. --ObaidR 22:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Section removal

I've removed the section on 'Incidents in Mecca' for the following reason: it doesn't belong here as it's specific about incidents pertaining solely to the Hajj, which is where I've moved (+ renamed section title + corrected some details + given links) the section to. ---Mpatel (talk) 13:50, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Residents in Mekkah?

Does anyone actually live in Mekkah? Or is the city more or less dominated by pilgrims? Thanks. --Brasswatchman 03:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, non-pilgrims do live in Mecca. ---Mpatel (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Large city in its own right. US State Dept says it has a population of 1.6 million. –Hajor 12:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Non plgrims do live in Makkah but for the convenience of pilgrims they live farther from Kabaah(main center of pilgrims).

problematical text

The current version has:

Still remain questionable what kind of 'old testament' that's been used. The old testament the Muslims believe is the real Tauraat.

These two sentences are not good English, and I am not sure what the writer intended to convey. Perhaps the first of these two was intended to mean:

What kind of 'old testament' was used is still in question.

I have no way to guess what the second sentence might be intended to mean. It simply is not a sentence, just a string of words. P0M 08:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I've removed it since it does not really add to the article. If the user wants to say what he means here, then we can add it again if appropriate. The whole issue is in any case better on the Bakkah page or its Talk page.--Anjouli 13:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Non-Muslims and Mecca

This section is very anachronistic. We need to delimit when this started, who started it.. has it been continous, etc. But saying Non-Muslims aren't allowed is problematic since it's obvious they were allowed in 400... and since Muhammad lived there after the creation of Islam with many non-Muslims... well, did he slaughter them? Why is this claim made? etc... it should be expanded, but to remove NPOV it should be made to show the time table for these things. gren グレン 00:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but the points you bring up do not constitute a NPOV dispute, since they do not indicate that the section supports a particular judgmental point of view; they constitute a dispute over the section's factual accuracy, and I am editing the notice accordingly. Daekharel 00:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm restoring the "SectDisputed" tag, and adding a "fact" tag to indicate that we have no sources proving that Mecca still prohibits entry by non-Muslims. That they did it 100 years ago is not relevant to answering the question of whether it's done today. --Mareino 22:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Non-Muslims are still formally prohibited from entering the cities of Mecca and Medina. See answers 2/ and 3/ above and also [13] and [14]. Lonely Planet is the "backpackers bible". I dont know when it started. Brief explanation of the theology at [15] Jameswilson 00:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

As a city

This article gives a good idea about the basic idea of what mecca is. However, it doesn't give enough information as to how this city functions, what its residents do, what the businesses are there..It seems more like this article is merely a footnote of the article for Islam and not actually an article about a thriving city that has lasted how many years. There is not many statistics or demographic information, can someone add to this article? I just think it's completely lacking in most descriptions I'd like to see of a city.

Various small copyedits

I changed a few sentences slightly, either for stylistic reasons, or to make them sound more neutral and less pious. I don't think anyone would consider these major changes. Zora 02:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This should be an article about a CITY, not a religious article

Some anon keeps inserting references to Becca and Paran, trying to prove that Mecca is mentioned in the Torah/Old Testament. This is not the place. Take it to the breakout article.

Also, this is turning into an article about the Hajj and Islam, NOT an article about the city qua city. Needs to be re-focused. Zora 06:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've nominated it for improvment. Hopefully it will be improved. --Sefringle 03:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this article should contain more "city" data, it is just that this city might've not lasted to this day or would've definitely not have been as successful as it is without the status that Islam alone gave it. After all, if we strip the Arabian Peninsula of its oil resources(discovered in the 20th century) and recently-gained strategic location then Mecca is just a city without any particular importance in the middle of the desert and no valuable resource to have preserved it for so many generations. The Mecca we are talking about nowadays is no longer pre-Islamic Mecca, it is an incorporated, inseparable part of Islam, especially because of the many traditions and requirements pertaining to it, and having the status of sheltering the Kaaba and being the prayer direction for all muslims, so while city data is needed, Mecca really is after just a sub-article about Islam.86.122.95.117 15:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Mecca linked to Hajj and Islam

The city means Hajj and Islam to most people around the world, regardless of religious persuasion. The references to these pages are essential and are academically rigorous, not pious - the same is applicable for "Prophet Muhammad" as a form of address. One does not remove the word 'Prince' from 'Prince Charles'. More needs to be done to expand on the history of Makkah and contemporary society in article, and better classification and standardisation of spelling in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.165.213.18 (talk • contribs) 10:13, Jan 17, 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the use of the word prophet in front of Muhammad; after all, we do have Saint Patrick. But you cannot compare "Prophet Muhammad" to "Prince Charles". Whereby "Prince" is a political, factual title, "Prophet" is a title only Muslims give to Muhammad. joturner 12:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree one title cannot be compared with the other. But "Prophet" is not a title only Muslims give to Muhammad. Both Daniel Pipes and Bernard Lewis, American non-Muslim academics of Islam, use the term headlining articles and books. Hence, my emphasised point on academic rigour.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.165.213.18 (talk • contribs) 13:03, Jan 17, 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you completely on that point. This has been (and still is being) debated extensively on the Muhammad talk page and I am in favor of using "Prophet", given precedence and the use in academics. By the way, the preferred way to sign posts is with four tildes, ~~~~; that will automatically sign with your ip/username and the date. joturner 13:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Added more on history of Mecca

I added sections on the history of Mecca and the contemporary city. We need many more pictures. I was having a hard time finding public domain pictures, though I found some stunning aerial views of modern Mecca that would be just lovely if they were only free.

We need much more information on the contemporary city. Guidebook stuff. Also -- I'm going to remove the Islam template. There are enough links to Islam and Islamic history in the article that no one needs the template! Zora 14:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Good accurate work. The Islam template is now obselete and is covered subtly throughout the article. [[User:212.183.136.195 21:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)]]

Anon trying to censor mention of Wahhabi policies re "urban renewal"

The anon removed the sentence re traditionalist Muslims and replaced it with "a minority of Muslims". I don't think it's a minority. I've run across the sentiment in too many places, from Sufis to Progressives like Ziauddin Sardar. Should I start adding quotes? Please don't try to censor WP. Zora 22:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

There is hardly ever any hard evidence in cases like this. I suppose if the subject comes up again you might ask for citations to the presence of the sentiment among non-traditionalists. P0M 06:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

when were non-muslims preventing from entering mecca?

It's not clear. It would take a lot of trawling through historical sources to figure that out. Zora 07:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Non-Muslims and Mecca

I've heard about this prohibition many times but try as i might i wasn't able to find an answer to the obvious next question:what exactly is the penalty if a non-muslim is caught in Mecca(or in Medina for that matter) and do we have any precedents?Padem 05:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There are any number of travel accounts from the 18th and 19th centuries that record hostile reception of Western travelers -- anywhere in Arabia outside port cities and especially in the Hijaz. Some travelers were killed by mobs or angry Muslims acting alone. Others were rescued by the authorities (who wanted no trouble with Western governments) from hostile mobs. Dunno about the penalty today. I would imagine that any non-Muslim who pretended his/her way into Mecca and was then discovered would be expelled from the country, but that's just a guess. Zora 07:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

In current Saudi Arabia, the strip of Hijaz, where both holly cities of Makkah and Medina are. And in Islamic law that holly land is only for Muslims so non-Muslims are not allowed to enter that area. Muslims can go other masques of Muslims but its only one place where they are not allowed because before Islam that area was house of idles and sun worshipers. So to prevent this are from these people Islam give these special instructions. farazilu 01:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Grossly inaccurate. Jeddah, which is in the Hijaz, has a 7,000 Chrisitian Brits alone living there (ref British Foreign Office) plus lots of other Europeans. Only inner Makkah and Medina are restricted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.109.73.59 (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

What image should appear first?

The Map or the image of Kaaba. Zora argues that one would like to see the Map first. Well if you'd see the articles about Major cities on Wikipedia like for example London, Paris etc the first thing you would see is a famous landmark of that city. Like for example the article on Paris features an image of the Eiffel Tower (instead of its map, and even though there is an article about it). So I am reverting the changes made by Zora. --ObaidR 22:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to put the picture of the Kaaba first, that's OK -- but don't remove the map! That's hard, useful information! If you want to put the map later, fine, but don't remove it! Zora 22:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

How about addressing the copyright status of the map. Right now, it is tagged with an obsolete copyright tag. I attempted to find a replacement but couldn't determine which one is appropriate. joturner 01:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I have updated the liscensing for the image. It is released into the public domain by the Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection at UT-Austin. Pepsidrinka 02:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Good. I don't think the map should go first but it's good that both images will stay in the article. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Good then --ObaidR 19:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The map should not be the first picture for the reasons ObaidR mentioned. Most city articles don't even have maps. joturner 03:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Why the revert on History of Mecca

I don't see why a user felt he had to revert the page. The fact remains that I have added possible pre-Islamic references to Mecca, reference which are both Roman and Greek and used by Gibbon amongsts others. I have reposted them. I think they should stay. There are a part of the history of mecca.

Photos of Mecca

All photos of Mecca are from within or of the Sacred Mosque. Is it possible to get photos of the city itself? And chop out some of the S. Mosque photos, as these images appear in numerous other, more specific articles. ie Sacred Mosque, Islam, Hajj etc. Ashmoo 06:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Definently. Unfortunately it seems like very few people who go to Mecca take pictures of anything other that the mosque while there.--Sefringle 00:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Change Mecca with Makkah

Makkah is the holy city of muslims and belongs to muslims and we preffer to spell it as Makkah rather then Mecca as called by juesh inspired western media...

so fight for your right and change the spelling

Actually, we (Muslims and non-Muslims) have all discussed which spelling to use - 'Mecca' is the most common spelling in English and we have decided to use this in the article. Just because the holy city belongs to Muslims doesn't mean to say that it should be spelled in the way we (Muslims) want in this English encyclopedia. MP (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not such topic that can be discused by few Muslims inspired by western media. i watch these channels all day long I know there style better. They are using this common name for such a prestegius place to insult it. Every city or place has its uniqe name and haritage and they are translated into other languages according to local triditions not according to the non reated nerrow minded pplz

As you are clearly new to WP, I will not be so harsh: I sympathise with the idea that the holy city of Makkah should be spelt the way you want it spelled, but officially it's called Makkah al-Mukarramah as it says in the first line of the article. The reason for changing it to this is also explained in the article (if you have read it properly). Thus, you're concerns are addressed and resolved in the article. By the way, please be careful who you imply to be narrow minded and inspired by the Western media.

I live in England, and the first thing I think of is 'Mecca Bingo' when I see Mecca. The-pessimist 01:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This discussion was brought up once before; in a straw poll people favored 'Mecca' by an over three-to-one margin. From a policy standpoint, we generally use the most commonly-used English term as the primary one in an article; using terms like Mekkah that are "official" but have extremely low recognition in most of the English-speaking world could lead to confusion. If you really want to resume discussion on the subject, go ahead, but first you might want to scroll up and review what was said the last time it came up. --Aquillion 02:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

this prohibition on non muslims is simply unbelievable and outrageous

Refractored. And reminding User:Amoruso that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. El_C 19:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Why does Starbucks now appear as the Mecca main article?

This is probably the result of an overzealous entry level marketing associate in Seattle. Get over yourselves!

Edit war over words Sunni and Wahhabi

Maybe we should use the word Salafi instead of Wahhabi as the later is more acceptable those belonging to this method. However the instance that Sunni should be used to describe them is inapproriate. Salafies are a small group limite to the central province of Saudi Arabia. They have more say because the Saudi King is Salafi and uses his power and money to impose his interpretation. Please dont use the word Sunni to describe your extrmist views Hassanfarooqi 20:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Truthpedia

T, do not state as a fact that the Banu Quraysh were descended from Ismail. Historians would regard Ismail as a mythical character and the presumed descent as speculation. Also, your attempts to PROVE the antiquity of Mecca by mentioning Diodorus Siculus are basically hearsay. You're quoting a two-hundred year old paraphrase of the text and saying that Gibbon was correct in his speculation that the temple mentioned by Diodorus was the Kaaba. Unless you can give a translation from the Latin of the exact wording used by Diodorus and an opinion by a modern historian that Diodorus' text refers to the Kaaba, you've got nothing. Now if you can quote some Islamic text that claims the connection, we can say that "some Muslims believe that ..." and then cite Crone against it. You're working from antique hearsay; she reads Latin. Zora 19:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Not all historians. Not even all secular historians. Some secular historians regard the bible as a historical document, and don't reject everything in it that is not confirmed by other references. Anyways, we are talking about Arab historians. I have changed wording. Regarding Gibbon, he is 200 years old. So what? We are not talking his conclusions as facts. We say "possible references" and we put hos Gibbon quotes Diodorus, then we put how Corne agrues that there is no hard evidence linking those references to the South Arabian trade to Mecca. That should be fair for both opinions. Shouldn't it?--Truthpedia 19:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

200 year old hearsay should not be considered of equal standing with modern scholarship, just as we don't treat phlogiston as a valid theory of thermodynamics. Your theory, that Diodorus Siculus mentioned the Kaaba, is notable only if there are a sufficient number of people alive today who believe that, and if you have a quote showing this. I'd guess that you aren't a classicist, and that you got the quote from some Islamic literature or website. Therefore you need to go back to your source and see if you can find a quote proving that many Muslims believe that Diodorus Siculus mentioned the Kaaba. Zora 19:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Arabs always regarded Banu Quraysh as descended from Ismail. For this reason they refered to themselves as "Arabatul Arbia" or "The real big Arabs", and they refer to Banu Quraysh as "Musta'arbia" or "Arabized Arabs". Banu Qurash are now more outside Arabia and majority of them have ceased to be Arabs, especially those who went to Central Asia, South Asia, and Far East e.g. Indonesia.

Why is the Hajj required?

I've been wondering about this. Islam is not particularly fond of the religious veneration of people or objects, yet the Hajj is required of all Muslims who are financially and physically fit to go. It's odd, since a religion like Christianity (which is big on saints, relics, holy places, and the veneration thereof) but doesn't require pilgrimage to Jerusalem or Bethlehem. I know we have several users from Saudi, so maybe you guys would know. ChildeRolandofGilead 12:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

One of the main aspects of the pilgrimage is to instill in the pilgrims a sense of historical importance of the places they visit - the Kaaba is, according to traditional Islamic belief, the first place to be built to worship a unique creator. The acts of the pilgrimage (the Hajj riruals) are performed to give pilgrims direct experience of important aspects of their religion (for example, the stoning of the devil ritual). The Hajj also gives a sense of unity to the religion - people from many creeds and countries coming to the same place to worship. I hope this sheds some light on your question. Cheers. MP (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Slightly expanding on this - Every "ritual" in Hajj comes from history - the Kaba itself was built by Ibrahim and his son, under Hijr Ismail (the small semi circle next to the Kaba) has 24 prophets buried underneath it, the Tawaf was first done by Ibrahim, the Sa'e (walking between Safa and Marwa) was first done by Hagar (Ibrahim's wife), the standing at Arafat was where Adam and Eve met after 200 years of wondering the earth, the stoning of the devil comes from Ibrahim (and Hagar, and Ismail, their son). It is also a duty that man owes god, to prove that they are all the same, regardless of race or gender or what language they speak, and to prove that they are willing to leave behind their material wealth, and their family (it is strongly recommended to do a will before you depart for Hajj). Pzycoman 20:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Quibble - Muslims believe that Abraham (Ibrahim) built the Kaba. There is no historical record of it (nor is there anything in the Christian/Jewish Bible about it) Same for the Adam/Eve info. 68.40.65.164

I think Malcom X's experience at Mecca would summarize it. That's where he stopped hating white people. It is a sense of unity, people from all over the world, from different nationalities and cultures, come together. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 07:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not an article about the sects and their beleifs

What is this statement doing here? The Salafi Islam that dominates Saudi Arabia views all veneration of shrines and graves as bid'a, shirk, and idolatry, and hence approves and encourages the demolition of such structures.

That fact is extremely relevant to the city of Mecca, where old shrines and historical sites are being bulldozed and replaced by freeways and skyscrapers. The beliefs that lead to this behavior are relevant. Zora 18:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As per the title, I added a few sections that need to be expanded. This is not an article about Islamic beliefs or Mecca's importance to Muslims. It is an article about the city. If you know anything about how the city functions please replace the "sectstubs" with imformation.--Sefringle 00:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation help

The proper way to name the city has been a subject of argument for some time now. It seems a bit ironic to me that whichever way it is spelled I probably would not pronounce the name as the residents themselves pronounce it, or even get close. And then there are all the other words that appear in newscasts. People all seem to have their own ways of matching English speech sounds to the commonly accepted spellings. Is there a pronunciation guide (recordings) somewhere? P0M 01:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

As a native Christian Brit who lives near there I can confirm that Saudis pronounce it somehting like 'Muqa'. Western expats tend more towards 'Makkah'. That's just pronunciation and I'm not arguing for spelling it Makkah - although that seems to be gaining ground slightly. Hard to say if it has taken over as most searches on 'Mecca' throw up a lot of non-city meanings ('a Mecca for tourists' etc.) Sort of hand counting them, it's hard to say.

Thanks for the information. An acquaintance of mine from Pakistan is named Zaki, pronounced "zuh-kee" so it looks like the vowel value is consistent across a fairly wide range of Arabic speakers.

It might be very useful to have recordings of basic sound combinations of Arabic on Wikipedia somewhere. IPA is a very inadequate instrument for representing actual pronunciations. P0M 17:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Pakistanis do not speak Arabic. Pakistan's languages are Indo-Aryan, not semitic. Major difference in vowels. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 07:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

IMHO (I live in Jeddah) an English speaker reading it out with the 'Makkah' spelling is going to be very close to the Arabic pronunciation. It's certaily MAK not MEC. Must dispute MUQ (indicated above). Never heard anynting like that. Anjouli 10:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

It would be nice if we had more pictures of Mecca, particularly pictures of the city outside of the mosque. They would be beneficial for this article--Sefringle 03:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Zora's rewrite

Various editors had been inserting a lot of material re the Hajj, reworking the Bakkah section, and rewriting history in a pious Muslim vein. I secularized the article extensively. The article on the Hajj is the place to write about the Hajj, not here. Zora 06:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Zora's edits

I copyedited the section on the seizure of the mosque, trying to make it "blander". I removed a garbled personal opinion re the reason that non-Muslims aren't allowed in Mecca, and an unreferenced assertion that any non-Muslims who managed to make it into the city would be executed. The 18th and 19th century records show that non-Muslim travelers in the Hijaz sometimes faced death at the hands of rioting crowds and that the authorities rescued them from the vigilantes. There are no records of any executions in the 18th and 19th centuries, so far as I know, and none in the 20th century. People keep adding this claim and I've never seen any references or proof. Zora 09:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Fact tag after Muslim conquest of Mecca

I believe it was Selket who put a fact tag after a couple of sentences re the Muslim conquest of Mecca. I don't know anyone who doubts this. It's in thousands of books. Asking for a reference is like asking for a reference to the earth having a moon. In any case, there's a link to an article that covers the matter in depth, which should have all the references needed. It may not--I should really check, but I'm short of time. If the Conquest of Mecca article is junk, it should be fixed. Zora 06:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It's fine that it's in thousands of books. I would like to see this be a Featured Article one day, and that requires inline citations on pretty much any claim the article makes. This one seemed easy. The statement was ,"According to the Qur'ān and Muslim traditions, the city was attacked by an Ethiopian Aksumite army led by Abraha in 570, the year of Muhammad's birth. The attack was said to have been repelled by stones dropped by thousands of birds, followed by a plague. Mainstream historians dismiss most of this tradition as folklore." I do not know the Qur'an well enough to evaluate this statement. If the Qur'an states that, then it should be trivial to add a footnote with the Sura and Ayat of a particular interpretation. I'm sure someone can find the reference. If I could, I would have put the reference in myself, but I couldn't, so I tagged it.

BTW, moon cites "Moon" World Book Online Reference Center, NASA 8 times. --Selket ^Talk 07:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I left the tag re the Aksumite invasion; I agree that refs are needed. But the conquest of Mecca hasn't been doubted by anyone. If you know of any doubts, surely the article on the subject is the place to raise them.

It would be very hard to pick one reference to support the fact. Surely one would want to pick the most important reference -- but what would that be? There are hundreds of recent scholarly books about early Islamic history. Or do you want a primary source? Ibn Ishaq? Tabari? Zora 09:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not a priori obvious to me that "Before the time of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, Mecca was under the control of the Banu Quraish." It is also not obvious to me that (in the next paragraph) "18th and 19th century maps and pictures show a small walled city of mud-brick houses crowded around the mosque." Then, there's the date "630CE." Is there any uncertainty there? Does that date come from Islamic tradition? If so where are it's origins. If it comes from historians, 'cite one of them. I understand your concern that it would not be fair to the hundreds of books on the topic to cite just one, but a well referenced article will do just that. Note how well cited the article Nazareth is.

Before reverting my edits please see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence. The person wanting to include something has the burden of establishing verifiability. I'm not trying to burden you. If there are hundreds of books on the topic it should be easy to find one. --Selket ^Talk 17:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Differentiating between Muslims and Non-Muslims

Just a quick point here - if non-muslims are forbidden from entering Mecca, how does the Saudi Government define a 'muslim'? Clearly Nation of Islam members are allowed in - Malcolm X went to Mecca (I think before his conversion to conventional Islam) and some NoI beliefs are very divergent from conventional Islam e.g. that the white man is a devil created by an evil scientist called Yaqub, and that a new prophet from God appeared in 1920s Chicago. And what about Ahmadis? There are no clear cut boundaries with religions and there are always fringe groups that diverge from the mainstream - such as Jehovas Witnesses and Mormons who aren't generally considered to be Christian but are very very closely related.

As an additional point, should a young child from a non-Muslim background be allowed into Mecca, since there is a belief that all children are born muslim and 'diverge' as they grow up? And at what age would this divergence occur - presumably earlier if they were from a Hindu background than a Christian one, since only the basic concepts of God would be understood at first - various stories may be learned about Jesus but I would imagine a child would have to be fairly old to grasp the concept of the divinity of Jesus, thereby diverging from Islamic belief. So going back to my original point - should all children be admitted to Mecca, or would the Saudi government not agree with that? A bit of an academic point really since I doubt many people would want to send their children unaccompanied to Mecca.... Milvinder 21:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:TALK. The talkpage is not appropriate for these sorts of questions. Please refer to the humanities desk.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 08:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. He's a bit speculative, but the answers to his questions are relevant to the article. How do they define a "Muslim"? Are Alawis considered Muslims? Are the Druze? Are the Bahá'í? Are the Qu'ranists (the ones who deny the validity of the Hadith)? It's very relevant to the article as to whether and which sorts of Islamic "offshoots" are admitted into inner Mecca. --Lode Runner 00:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no time to go into this any deeper, but the Saudi establishment does in fact have very defined, detailed and rigid definitions of who is a Muslim and who is not. Most of the above you cite (not all) would not be considered Muslims by the Saudis. But that's not to say they could not go to Makkah. Even non-Muslims can in certain circumstances.Anjouli 16:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-Muslim visitors

"Non-Muslims are not permitted to enter Mecca ... A number of them disguised themselves as Muslims and entered the city of Mecca and then the Kaaba to experience the Hajj for themselves." -- I'd like to see additional info and cites as to who, other than Burton, is known to have done this. -- Writtenonsand 22:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

John Fryer Thomas Keane for one. There were quite a few. I'm meaning to add them all Anjouli 18:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)to WP when I get a moment.

Clarification on Government

So is Abdul Majeed bin Abdul Aziz the governor of the city of Mecca, or of the province of Makkah? Or both? It's not clear because the governor is mentioned in both articles. ... discospinster _talk 23:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Article rating

I have reassessed this article from A-class to B-class. The article, as I see it, does not even meet the good article criteria. It is not very well organized, and many sections are too short. The section on 'People' has three, very short sentences. There are also insufficient references. I count 5 or 6 'citation needed's in the article, which is unacceptable for an A-class article.

Why is 'transportation' a subsection under 'the city'? What purpose does the section on 'current status' serve?

Not to be mean here, but this article has quite a way to go before A-class. I would recommend looking at some of the templates and guidelines at WP:CITIES for suggestions. Also, take a look at the good article criteria, and consider nominating the article for GA status once some of the initial referencing and organizational issues are cleaned up. Dr. Cash 19:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Article is lacking

This article is lacking in significant amounts of information when compared to its Britannica counterpart. Anyone with access to Britannica articles may want to look at its Mecca article to see how we can improve this article. ΞΞΞ 05:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

I've tried to clean up the very messy and POV section about the spelling. This section has had a good pounding by two sides who displayed an almost fanatical zeal to stamp out one spelling in favour of the other. That was a year or so ago and I hope it's now calmed down enough to tidy this up and try to make it more NPOV. Still needs work (News orgs, notably BBC and others in coverage of the Haj) are now tending towards 'Makkah'. THat needs to be reflected and referenced. If you have strong feelings on spelling, please discuss here and let's not have a repetition of the historical edit war :) Anjouli 10:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As for renaming the article, I think that's going to come eventually, but probably not yet. There is a noticeable swing towards 'Makkah' but it's just starting. Please don't use Google searches as justification unless you can filter out lower-case 'mecca' (impossible I think) and any pages more than a year old. Anjouli 18:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Time to rename the article as Makkah

It's time to rename the article, the same way that the Bombay article became Mumbai. (And Bombay was not even all that offensive, unlike linking the holiest site in Islam with a gambling organization).

The main argument raised against this has been common use: major organizations and Google counts. Most organizations now use Makkah. (See Anjuli post above and other references in the article.

Makkah is now most common on Google:

1) Google mecca -bingo = 2,320,000 2) Google makkah = 2,160,000

but most sites using Makkah also reference mecca: e.g. Makkah(Mecca)

So how many of these are there?

3) Google makkah mecca = 175,000

subtract these from 1) 2,320,000 - 175,000 = 2,145,000

so Makkah beats Mecca by 2,160,000 - 2,145,000 = 15,000

Not much, but Mecca beat Makkah 10 to 1 a year ago. It's definitely shifting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.101.244.6 (talk • contribs)

• oppose this has been discussed heavily. Mecca is better. Google results do not determine what is more notable for wikipedia standards.--Sefringle^Talk 19:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-Muslims in Makkah

The part of this article that says: "people of other faiths are forbidden from entering the city" is false. In fact, a true Muslim belief, as stated in the Holy Koran, specifically talks about encouraging other faiths to visit their lands and see their customs. A true Muslim will always oppen their home to anyone, as well as a city. The Koran states that if you are a Muslim, you must never descount or look down on other religions. Therefore, this sentence should be removed and someone who knows what they are talking about should write the articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.78.92 (talk) 01:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to distinguish here between Saudi practice and Islamic law. In a sense, both eds are right. The Saudis do make it very hard for non-Muslims to go to Makkah. There is even a big sign on the Makkah Expressway to stop non-Muslims. However it is in theory possible to get permission to visit, and the Saudis have certainly permitted non-Muslims (usually technical specialists) to enter when it suited them. The classi case was during the Makkah seige when French military contractors went in and broke the seige. Anjouli 17:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Lawrence Wright mentioned in 'The Looming Tower' that the French special forces who entered Makkah to break the siege accepted Islam during a special 'shahdah' ceremony... Supertouch (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The injunction prohibiting nonbelievers from entering the Makkan 'Haram' or 'Sanctuary' (الحرم المكي) [which is about 20km2 marked by markers as per the Prophet's instructions as per divine command as in Hadith](not to be confused with 'meqaat' markers for Hajj which are different than 'Haram' markers) was established since Hajj of 9AH by the first Islamic State established by the God's Messenger in the Arabian Peninsula & announced at the tongue of his representative Ali bin Abi Talib at the Hajj of 8AH to the people who were present there, in complaince with God's command as revealed then in Ayat [Q;9:28]which states (... indeed the associators {of God with idols} are 'najis' { or defiled & unpure } in their belief } so they may not get near the Sanctified Mosque {'Almasjid Al Haram'} after this year {ie. 9AH} ) & extends to other non-believers per Ayat[Q:2:126] in which God states on the tongue of the Prophet Abraham (... make this town {of Makkah} secure {from conflict}...) so every type of conflict is prohibited there: even conflict of religion to avoid any conflict at the place of worship: so one can dedicate fully to one's worship at the God's most beloved place on Earth & the first place to appear as a foam on the molten Earth as per the Hadith. Any noncompliance will be a sin. This is the general ruling implemented throughout all the Islamic era, confirmed by all the Islamic scholars by consensus. As to the exception in emergent situations, it is allowed for Muslims to hire non-Muslim expertise where lacking as per the Hadith where the Prophet Hired a non-Muslim guide to show the way to Madina upon his migration with Abu Bakr & is covered in Ayat:[Q:2:172] where it states: (... so whosoever is compelled without rebelling or exceeding there is no sin on him; verily God is the Most-Forgiving & the Most Merciful). Outside Haram area, non-Muslims can be invited to mosques to explain Islam & there is no prohibitionILAKNA (talk) 07:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Muhummad Section

Not sure why the below entry was striked out - I didn't do it. An argument could be made for keeping the Muhummad section in there, because it seems this is an integral part of Makkah's history, but it definitely needs to be made NPOV. Additionally, any content in this section should be restricted to Muhummad's contribution to Makkah's culture. I've made some edits towards that end. I'll keep an eye on the page to work with other contributors on this. --NZUlysses (talk) 07:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Common sense correction.

Prior to Mohammed, there were no moslems.... and prior to Mohammed, the majority of arabs were polytheists and would have had no reason to face Jerusalem. Only the Jews have continually faced toward Jerusalem when they pray.

"Another major change was that prior to Muhammad, Muslims had faced towards Jerusalem in their daily prayers, but Muhammad changed this practice and required everyone to face towards the Kaaba of Mecca instead." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.208.79 (talk) 11:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Prophet Ishmael, the eldest son of the Prophet Abraham, was a Muslim & was the first to inhabit Makkah with his mother Hagar & he was a messenger of God to the tribe of Jorham from Yemen that settled there after the miraculous springing - by Angel Gibrael at God's command - of the spring of zamzam at Ishmael's feet when he was an infant to quench his thirst, as before Makkah was a waterless valley. Then he married into the Jorham tribe, the predecessors of the Qoreish tribe who only digressed from the monotheism of Islam or 'Hanafiah of Abraham' into idolatry when about 140yrs before the Prophet Mohammad's birth in 430AD circa a Qoreishite brought an idol from Shaam & placed it in Kaaba, as per the Hadith. Because the final message is the continuation & the completion of the previous revelation, as it confirmed the previous interim local revelations it confirmed the previous interim local Qibla & completed it by reverting back Qibla to the 'Ancient House' the first house built on Earth by Adam for God's worship as the prevailing revelation was superseding all & permanent till the end of time & covers the whole progeny of Adam so the Qibla of Adam is reverted back as per AlQoraan & Hadith. ILAKNA (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please accept my correction: The initial direction of prayers prior to Makkah direction is unknown, but for sure it was not towards Palestine at all. Masjid al-Kiblatain indicated the initial Kiblah that was towards the East of Madina, not Palestine. This is one of the mysteries of Islamic history that appears to be unbelievable but true. There are also some ancient pre-islamic mosques in Gassim that were directed towards Riyadh as a matter of fact. And to tell you the untold truth, Islam did not start with Muhammad. The Prophet only brought it back to life after it was distorted with idolatry and with the dust of time and neglect. Muhammad resurrected Islam and corrected its path and practice with the written Word of God. Islam was the initial religion of Ibrahim who gave the name of Muslims to the people of Arabia (The Holy Kuran). Noureddine (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Free map?

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/saudi_arabia.html

Is the Mecca map there free? Can anyone verify the copyright of British government maps like that? gren グレン 08:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems very old , but i don't think its free because it's not a public domain.  A M M A R  19:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

A-class? Are you kidding me?

Demoting the A-class rating to B-class across all wikiprojects. The article wouldn't even pass the GA criteria, much less the FA criteria, and A-class articles should be very close to being FA. There's simply too many short sections, insufficient reference citations, inconsistent formatting, the lead section does not summarize the article, and the overall organization is poor. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Full Article Re-write incomplete

The last sentence of the History/Events section (added in this edit) seems incomplete:

(...) On July 31, 1987, during an anti-US demonstration by pilgrims, 402 Iranian pilgrims were killed and 649 wounded after the Saudi police opened fire against the demonstrators. During 1987 Hajj

CiaPan (talk) 07:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The main article, 1987 massacre of Iranian pilgrims, Explains more details. Why do you think we should add more ? and what exactly the details you want to add sir ?  A M M A R  21:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't want you to add anything. Just thought that words: 'During 1987 Hajj' do not make a proper English sentence (there is no grammar subject, and also no predicate in it). And of course it lacks the terminating period (dot) at the end. So either it is a beginning of a sentence that has never been written, or it is adverbial of the preceding sentence. Accordingly it should be completed or moved in front of the present dot (and de-capitalized). Or just removed. --CiaPan (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

PS. Or may be I should learn more English.... CiaPan (talk)

How about During the 1987 pilgrimage season ? , Or maybe i'm the one who should learn english hehe. Anyways, remove it or correct it by youself my friend  A M M A R  20:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I gave myself an en-1 level, so I dare to describe my doubts, but not to correct doubtful expressions (possibly: doubtful for me only). Regards. --CiaPan (talk) 08:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok leave it for now  A M M A R  16:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see it cleaned up. --CiaPan (talk) 08:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

'In 1924, the Sharif of Mecca were overthrown by the Saudis, and Mecca was incorporated into Saudi Arabia. Following the Battle of Mecca (1924), The city joint Saudi Arabia until the present days.'

This passage needs correction. Historically, there was no battle & the city was surrendered peacefully after the siege without any fight by an agreement between the both parties that they would be provided safe passage out & the means of transport & whatever belongings & the retinue they wanted to take with them & wherever they wanted to go. Fighting is not allowed in Makkah by Qoraanic injunction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ILAKNA (talk • contribs) 17:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It was a siege actully, So we should rename the Battle of Mecca article. But It wasn't peaceful.  A M M A R  20:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Transportation Section

In the transportation section of article I don't see any mention of public transportation options (as would be expected of a city of 1+ million). I believe that mention should be made of existing public transit options (rail, bus, trolley, and/or shuttle systems). If these aren't in existence, then this should be mentioned as it is noteworthy for a city of 1+ million that doubles or triples in size every year for hajj. What I know of Makkah, there currently is ZERO public transit options. This of course excludes taxis from the definition of public transit. Anyone have info to add? Furtfurt (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The city doesnt have a rail or subway services. This is a common disadvantage in Saudi cities  A M M A R  20:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable

This source is unreliable. I don't see any credentials for the author. Also the NY Sun reports it as an opinion, not news story. Hence it should be removed.Bless sins (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Youssef Ibrahim, the writer of that article, is a former Middle East correspondent for The New York Times and energy editor for The Wall Street Journal, is a freelance writer and political-risk consultant based in the United Arab Emirates and New York. [16] I think he is reliable. Yahel Guhan 06:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope. I posted a similar question on WP:RSN (Wikipedia:RSN#Opinion.2Feditorial) and the response was that the topic of Mecca is so widely written upon, that we should not have to go to a source with marginal reliability (such as the NYSUN). One respondent wrote "In such cases, it's an easy bet that if only one source makes a claim that it is a extreme minority view not suitable for Wikipedia."Bless sins (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, there are multiple sources, not just one, so that arguement is irrelevant. Second, there is nothing "marginally reliable" about NYSUN. Yahel Guhan 01:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Its not the NY Sun, that's the issue. Its the editorial'. If the Sun reports there was an earthquake somewhere, it is probably a good source. But if the Sun calls Saudi Arabia a "jihadist Muslim fundamentalist government", we raise WP:REDFLAGs.

You claim that there are "multiple sources" for "This law has been criticized for religious discrimination against non-muslims." Actually I see only one. The CNN only reports, doesn't criticize.Bless sins (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with this editorial. IT is not a fringe theory, as the many sources I added prove, it is quite a notable viewpoint. In fact, nobody seems to disagree with it, except you and your fellow muslim wikipedia editors, so I'd say it is anything but a fringe viewpoint. Yahel Guhan 04:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Except that this is an editorial, and thus an opinion, not fact. How many times will I have to repeat this. There is consensus that we shouldn't have to rely on editorials as there are many scholarly sources that cover the topic.\

"as the many sources I added prove" Many? Not one except for the NY Sun article.

Also please refrain from attacking "muslim wikipedia editors".Bless sins (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you didn't respond I'm removing it.Bless sins (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You forgot the CNN and freedomhouse one. And I'm not "attacking" muslim wikipedia editors. I'm only pointing out that you happen to be muslim, and only muslims so far have opposed its inclusion, suggesting a possible WP:COI, since this is an issue which probably is very important to muslims, not to mention your comments at Portal talk:Discrimination/Selected picture, which would seem to further that hypothesis. Yahel Guhan 22:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"I'm only pointing out that you happen to be muslim" Can you please not judge me by my religion? Infact don't judge any user by his/her religion. I hope this is the end of the religion discussion.

A five word source is not reliable per Wikipedia:RSN#Five_word_source. CNN is already included, and I'm not disputing it, so no need to bring it up. Any other (hopefully reliable) sources?Bless sins (talk) 03:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You are, however disputing the NYSUn source, which is reliable. Or are you conceeding on that? Yahel Guhan 15:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources are generally good sources on some topics but not on others. A physicist is an expert on physics but not necessarily on human psychology. Similarly the NY Sun is a good source on news reports, not on making claims about the religious nature of Islam's holiest city.Bless sins (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"Claims" as you call it, on a modern city are news. Thus if there is discrimination in Mecca, it is news. YahelGuhan (talk) 04:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"News" is exactly that, something "new". The consideration of a 1,400 year old is not "news" much less "new". Finally, there was consensus that better sources (if they exist) should be found for making the same claims.Bless sins (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia did not exist as a country 1400 years ago, the highway did not exist 1400 years ago, and the highway sign did not exist 1400 years ago. Stop this nonsense. Thus anything Saudi Arabia does (including laws about Mecca) is news. The news is the criticism of the law as religious discrimination, and for that, news sources are reliable. YahelGuhan (talk) 03:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia has existed before World War II, which was decades ago. Besides the ban on non-Muslims is older than that - 1,400 years old as I said before. Why is it so hard for you to find a reliable source on the issue? Is it that none exists?Bless sins (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There are enough reliable sources already. They are in your opinion unreliable because you have an agenda here and they counter your agenda. I do not feel a need to waste more time finding more reliable sources when you just repeat the same arguements, and the current sources are reliable enough. Enough nonsense already, come up with a legitimite arguement if you wish to dispute. YahelGuhan (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd offer an opinion here, but I'm finding it hard to follow what the disagreement is. In terms of the actual article, what is the issue? What's Wording A, and Wording B? --Elonka 04:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Basicly, BS has a problem with the following paragraph:

This law has been criticized for religious discrimination against non-muslims.[34]Freedom House showed on its website, on a page tiled "Religious apartheid in Saudi Arabia", a picture of a sign showing Muslim-only and non-Muslim roads.[35]

Those who use fake certificates of Muslim identity (to enter) may be arrested and prosecuted by Saudi authorities[36]

YahelGuhan (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with "Those who use fake certificates of Muslim identity (to enter) may be arrested and prosecuted by Saudi authorities".Bless sins (talk) 05:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Five-word source

Also this article is about Mecca, not random Freedom House pages. [17] What does one page with five words on it have to do with reliable sources that usually explain themselves and give references?Bless sins (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is about Mecca, and discrimination, where an entire religion is forbidden to enter the city, is relevant Yahel Guhan 01:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the word "Mecca" or "Makkah" anywhere. "discrimination, where an entire religion is forbidden to enter the city," Your source also doesn't even say that. Your source doesn't even give one complete sentence!Bless sins (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yawn. The source, as anyone with common sense can tell, is clearly refering to the Mecca sign as being a "apartheid", a form of discrimination. Yahel Guhan 04:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:RSN#Five_word_source the five-word source is not reliable.Bless sins (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

again, you base this on one opinion. Yahel Guhan 22:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no one supporting you on this. So far I see the consensus against you. Bless sins (talk) 03:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a vote. Yahel Guhan 15:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on consensus.Bless sins (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Airport1

"The main airport has a similar security policy." But Mecca doesn't have an airport. This can be verified by anyone who has fair bit of knowledge about the city.Bless sins (talk) 03:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow you must be desperate. See here And where is this airport? In Mecca. Though probability is they are refering to King Abdulaziz International Airport, in Jeddah, the main airport serving Mecca. Yahel Guhan 04:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Since when are Jeddah and Mecca the same? They are tow entirely different cities.Bless sins (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. Yahel Guhan 22:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Attribution to CNN

We attribute CNN because it makes an ambiguous statement. "Some religious scholars" without specifying who is very ambiguous. We need to state our sources clearly.Bless sins (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No. We attribute when there are conflicts in POV, which there are not. After all, while there are sources that say it is discrimination, CNN being one of many, not one reliable source says it is not discrimination. Yahel Guhan 04:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, can you not see where CNN puts the word discrimination in quotes? We should not misquote the source.

Also, if you can name the "religious scholars" then we don't attribute. But if use vague words, then we do attribute. Such an example is given in Wikipedia:NPOV#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements.Bless sins (talk) 04:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no misquote. I think you made your obvious agenda quite clear in your comment here. You want quotes to imply a "denial" which doesn't exist. We attribute when we quote bias statements. However, as this is the mainstream view, there is no bias here being presented by CNN. Yahel Guhan 04:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you see the word discrimination in quotes? Yes or no. Answer this question.

Does CNN specify which scholars (i.e. their names) justify the the "discrimination"? Yes or no. Answer this question also.Bless sins (talk) 05:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not playing this game. Yahel Guhan 05:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can't respond to a simple question, this means you are unwilling to enter discussion.Bless sins (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No. It means I am unwilling to play games, hopping around, avoiding the actual issue. Yahel Guhan 22:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

So, "discrimination" doesn't have to do with the "actual issue"? Again, I call on you to answer my questions. If you don't it'll make clear to me that you even you know I'm correct in this.Bless sins (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Discrimination is the issue. And if you look at the current version, it is in quotations. Yahel Guhan 15:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Airport2

Mecca has a military airfield only , not a commercial airport , can we consider it as an airport ?  A M M A R  05:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Airport implies the civilian place.Bless sins (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Quoting CNN

I don't care much this way or that way about the inclusion of CNN, though by the mentioning of the "religious scholars" it is already attributed (unless anyone has reason to dispute the accuracy of the CNN report). However, what I do care about is that the allegations and implications contained in their opinion not be presented as fact but quoted. The problem is that these scholars are basically saying that Mecca would be unsafe for Muslims if non-Muslims were allowed to enter, which IMHO is quote preposterous. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Str1977, wouldn't you agree that all religious scholars wouldn't necessarily agree with them? Thus, isn't CNN quoting a specific batch of scholars that (though entitled to their own view) can't be considered representative of the general view. This is why I attributed it to CNN.Bless sins (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, which is why it says "some/many religious scholars". Anyway, though the new version is unwieldy, I have no real problem with it. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Its good that we agree, but do you realize how ambiguous "some/many" is?Bless sins (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Culture - religious significance

Under this section heading (near the end of the section) the article states: 'Some have disguised themselves as Muslims and entered the city of Mecca and then the Kaaba to experience the Hajj for themselves.'. I seriously doubt that impostors entered the Ka'aba, given that only a very select few muslims in the world are allowed to actually enter the Ka'aba itself. Entering the mosque surrounding the Ka'aba is a different story altogether. 163.1.143.161 (talk) 00:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

it's said that:" It was originally one of multiple such buildings in Arabia, but was the only one made of stone, and therefore is the only one still standing." it has no source and its not logical,do Muslims pray toward the Kaaba because its the only one remaining? were where the others ? who built them? when did they disappear? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.178.224.165 (talk) 04:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes

Somebody, probably by mistake (I do not suspect malicious acting) made his/her footnote editon beyond my capacity to fixed it (I know still too little), and as in effect all footnotes starting with #18 and on are completely mixed up and beyond possibility to read this mess properly. Can anyone fix that?

Vega2 (talk) 22:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ick, you're right, that was a real mess. Looks like it was added by an anon on May 23.[18] I undid the edit, so things should be set right now. Thanks for bringing it up! --Elonka 22:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the image-warring on the restricted highway image

Is there some reason I missed why this wouldn't be included? Peter Deer (talk) 04:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Space and notability issues. If given the space, we should include images of Al-Safa and Al-Marwah, Zamzam well, the footsteps of Abraham (according to Muslim tradition anyways), the reputed house of the prophet Muhammad etc. Most reasonable people would agree that all the above mentioned images are far more notable than the highway image.

Regarding non-entrance of non-Muslims. We already have such an image (the archway), and its notability is sourced to a reliable source (CNN). Why do we need two images of non-Muslims non-entrance in Mecca, yet zero images of the important Meccan landmarks mentioned above? This is surely undue weight.Bless sins (talk) 05:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with including both images, though if we had to choose only one, I like the highway sign better as it gets the point across in a very clear manner. --Elonka 05:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The archway was mentioned in the CNN source as the marking point, thus I find it to be a more notable image. There is no source as of yet demonstrating the notability of the highway sign.

But seriously Elonka, don't you think that images of major Meccan landmarks (as described above) are more of a priority than highway signs?Bless sins (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to exclude the image. But that's my personal assessment. I think that the image is quite illustrative of the restricted nature of Mecca. Peter Deer (talk) 05:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you find a reliable source demonstrating its notability (just as I have found a source for the archway image)?Bless sins (talk) 05:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Secondly I've raised a similar point at Talk:Israel, about whether restrictive Israeli policies such as the West Bank barrier (which is accused of being apartheid) should be included in the main article?

Ultimately my issue here is the devotion of more space to highway signs than to Meccan landmarks and Muslim holy sites appears to be a violation of WP:UNDUE.Bless sins (talk) 05:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Image guidelines are a bit different from text guidelines, especially because we are so dependent here at Wikipedia, on users who upload freely-licensed images. As such, I don't believe we have to prove that an image was used by a news source (indeed, that often makes the image harder to use, because of copyright issues). As for undue weight, we have one image of one sign, in the context of a much longer article that has many other images. How is this violating WP:UNDUE? Bless sins, I understand that you don't like the image, but could you articulate more about why it bothers so much? I'm still not understanding. We seem to have plenty of room for plenty of images. We don't need to include images of every aspect of Mecca, because we have lots of other related articles. But in terms of the highway sign, it's an interesting image, and the Mecca article seems the most appropriate place for it to be used. --Elonka 17:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is why its undue: we currently have two images illustrating non-Muslims absence in Mecca. But we have zero images of the zamzam well, one of the most important sources of water for the city (atleast until the pre-modern times), as well as a sort of relic. Is my argument clearer now?

If you take a look at article Israel, how many images of the West Bank barrier do you see? None. This is because articles on cities and countries usually don't include images of controversial aspects.

Nevertheless I'm not proposing that we remove all images of non-Muslims' absence in Mecca - I'm saying that the one image (of archway) is enough.

"I understand that you don't like the image" Because I'm seeing a disturbing pattern. At the portal:discrimination users were more interested in portraying Mecca as an example of discrimination than the Holocaust or the Rwandan genocide. Here a user is more interested in pushing Mecca as an example of "apartheid" than improving the section on history, economy, culture, or geography.Bless sins (talk) 04:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed format

I propose the following format for the article:

• Etymology
• History
  • Pre-Islam
  • Muhammad and early Islam
  • Medieval period
  • Saudi Arabia
• Geography
  • Climate
• Demographics
• Governance
• Culture
  • Religious significance (including Pilgrimage)
  • Language
  • Cuisine
• Economy
• Communication (including section on Media)
• Transportation
• Education
• See also
• Notes
• References
  • Further reading
• External links

This is based on the aritcle Jerusalem (FA class) with some modifications.Bless sins (talk) 06:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have shortened the format, as I felt it was too long. A user has already tagged the article for its great length.Bless sins (talk) 07:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend splitting out some categories to other articles, such as History of Mecca and Culture of Mecca, per WP:SUMMARY. --Elonka 17:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but that wouldn't change the way things are divided up. It would only reduce the amount of content in each of the sections we fork out. Do you agree with the proposed division?Bless sins (talk) 04:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As silence implies consent, I will move ahead with the above format.Bless sins (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the organization looks fine to me. --Elonka 04:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-Muslims barred - how does this work on a practical level?

I was wondering about this - how exactly do the Saudi authorities stop non-Muslims entering the city? Is there a gate or roadblocks etc. surrounding the city? Or do they check people in the town who look non-Muslim? (Westerners obivously - but what about western converts? And how exactly can they tell?) Also, what is the punishment for non-Muslims found in Mecca? Are they merely kicked out or jailed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.182.41 (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it comes about when you apply for a Visa and Permit. Several non-Muslims have made the journey to Mecca, Arabist Brits did it in the 19th century. You could probabily get away with it but you would need to at least know the basics. If you were going during the Hajj then you would have had to have studied the rituals and conventions before going, and you would also in a sense because of limited number of Visas 3 million, be denying one to an actual pilgrim so its an ethical question during that period. (Water Stirs (talk) 06:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC))

Um, its not that hard to not let in white people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.57.37 (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Some Moslems are white. Many Arabized Middle Easterners (Syrians, Lebanese, Palestinians) are white. In Europe, Albanians and about 40% of Bosnians are white and European-looking. There are also people in the developed Western countries, who've converted to Islam. That's why you can't use racial profiling at an airport. They'll send a white Moslem. Bostoner (talk) 03:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Images of Mecca

Just a humble request - the next time someone goes on a pilgrimage to Mecca could you bring back some ultra-high resolution shots from multiple angles? It would be nice if our article here/common had more visual detail, especially with the new generation of cameras out now.

Thanks! --mboverload@ 21:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

PBUH

I hope I don't offend anyone by asking this, but why is (PBUH} included after each mention of Muhammad's name in this article? I'm not asking what it means, since I know that. What I'm asking is why it is used in this article when it is not used in the Muhammad article itself, nor in other articles such as Islam and Muslim. It seems from those examples that Wikipedia's style is not to include (PBUH), and if so this article should be brought into line, but I don't want to edit myself in case there are specific reasons of which I am unaware to have (PBUH) in this article but not in the others. Loganberry (Talk) 19:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC) It was just done earlier today and I reverted it. It's covered at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)#Islamic honorifics. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 20:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. PBUH is not supposed to be there as per your cite to the MOS. Thanks for reverting. :)MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The origin of the name Mecca

Thanks to Wikipedia, my thoughts are being confirmed about the real origin of the name Mecca. The Bible story tells about Micah as living near the House of the Lord (the Kaabah). If we read the book of Judges we realize that it is not a coincidence that the Port of Laith on the Red Sea south of Juddah, with Juddah the famous port city and Micah the silver idol maker, are gathered in one region.

The Saudi historians pronounce the name of Jeddah as Juddah which, in the Semitic languages, cannot be written other than JDH. Of course, the Modern Hebrew would consider it as being Judah, or Judea. As for Micah, the old hebrew presented it as MKH and therefore, transfigurated into Micah. In addition, the name of Mecca has never been fairly explained as of its origin. Every time historians talk about the origin of the name they refer to the mention, in the Roman and Greek records, of a township in Arabia called Macoraba. That’s all. No other reference is made for the name of Mecca.

Briefly, the entire Juddah area is linked to Laith harbor and Mecca where in the deep past, before the Arabs were a pronounced nation, it was a prosperous country of trade and agriculture. At that time Arabia was an Israelite country and up to a large extent, the Israelites were Arabians among Arabs speaking old Arabic. By the time of Moses, there was no Arabic of the later centuries as spoken in the Koran. The old Arabic was what was frozen in the scrolls until after the Deportation, to be read and written by the Rabbis of Babylon. In the mean time, Arabic was evolving through the centuries to crystallize, beautify and clean-up from hiatuses and odd pronunciations with poetry and oral tradition. That is how Arabic had become a separate language from “Hebrew”, which is the old Arabic unfolded in Babylon after centuries of deep sleep inside the scrolls.

In other words, Arabism emerged after the Israelites had disappeared from the scope of Mecca (Perhaps after Tiglath-pileser III in 733/732 BC deported them to Assyria). This is my theory which involves the search for Assyrian traces in Saudi Arabia. Otherwise we can consider that Arabism has never been inexistent even during the Israelite era in Arabia, but only was eclipsed by the more intense and active tradition of the Israelite life there.

The explanation is that Micah (Should be read Makkah) was an Israelite living in the Bethel area (The ancient House of God, founded by Abraham). He was a famous figure in that area as a Grand Rabbi so that people gave his name to the area, just like they did in the Harbor area of King Josiah's mother Judaidah on the Red Sea. I do not agree with the local Arabian explanation of the name Juddah as being the "Grand Mother of all Arabs", as they say. Furthermore, the name of Meccah took another name in the past: Pekkah, which is the name of another Israelite king of Judah, that is how the name is pronounced in the Koran: Bakkah. As for the H suffix, it is a reference to HIM, God the Almighty. Many names in Arabic end with the same H like Warakah, Nuwairah, Makkah, Ubaydah, Ousamah, Buhayrah, Kuraydah, Umayrah, etc... Respectfully, Noureddine (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Micah the term “house of gods” is used (judges 17:5) if anything it would apply to something pagan.--Standforder (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Judges 1:1 (m-kh-h) “man”, not place.--Standforder (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC) Judges 1:2, place mountainous region of Ephraim.--Standforder (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC) Laish also called Lashem, not mentioned as a port. – Judges 18:27-29; Joshua 19:47.--Standforder (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC) “Juddah” doesn’t exist in the text is “y-h-dh-h”.--Standforder (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC) “pekka”does not exist in the original Hebrew text it is Pa-qa-ha.--Standforder (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Bethel existed in the region of Ephraim in ancient Israel (Samaria), and right beside the tribe of Dan, mentioned in the account.--Standforder (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's another etymological theory: "Mecca" originally meant "bar house". Islamtoday.com It's refuted, and I certainly don't believe it, but maybe it's worth mentioning. Hexmaster (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Saadia Gaon identifies “Mesha” (Genesis 10:30) with Mecca. Shiafishman (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Cultural vandalism

According to the gulf institute 95% of old Mecca has been demolished, and several historically significant sites related to Islam. This has galvanized criticism, I would like to create a section to explore this (Water Stirs (talk) 06:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC))

I've started it DeCausa (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Saudi Prince and NYSE firm involved in Mecca Scandal.

HRH Prince Faisal bin Mugrin bin Abdulaziz, son of Prince Mugrin head of internal security, Al Muttahed a leading Saudi development firm listed on the Saudi Stock Exchange and Northcourse owned by Wyndham a NYSE company have been involved with a property scandal in the holy city of Mecca(Makkah) Saudi Arabia.

Le Meridien Hotel Towers Makkah offered a noble and spiritually rewarding product to Non Saudi's however this blessed gift is nothing but a shameful con.

In cahoots with Saudi firms, (Saudi Amjad/Al Muttahed (a Saudi StockCompany) & Al Fassel Global Services) Northcourse, the creators of this project have been perpetrating a holy sin, marketing and promising the blessed gift of owning property in Holy Makkah close to the prophets Mosque to Non Saudis knowing full well that what they were doing was illegal, immoral and plainly deceiving buyers.

Le Meridien the hotel chain purported to be the timeshare resort managers through disclaimers denies any association with the project

"It has come to the attention of Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., (Starwood) that units at Le Meridien Towers Makkah hotel in Saudi Arabia are being offered for sale or rent as condominiums or timeshare by third parties. These timeshare units are not offered, licensed, sponsored or endorsed by Starwood, Le Meridien brand or any Starwood affiliates.

Starwood and Le Meridien brand disclaim any relationship with such timeshare or condominium units."

Apartments have also been sold to non Muslims.

How can the Saudi Government condone this kind of scandal, this blasphemy in the Holy City? Northcourse, Almuttahed and Al Fassel Global Services need investigating and serious action taken against them, using the holy city for business purposes and cheating faithful out of money in this way is shameful.

The Saudi, other Gulf authorities and Allah (PBUH) should punish the perpetrators of this evil crime. Muslim companies, communities, mosques and Governments around the world should boycott doing business with the companies mentioned above.

http://muslim-investor.com/info-sharing/venture-capital/le-meridien-apartments-in-makkah-saudi-arabia.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammed997 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You think that's bad, have you heard about the Saudi destruction of historical sites from the days of the prophet? Then again what does this even have to do with makkah? Faro0485 (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

etymology of مكة‎

Can we have a meaning of the arabic root word (miim kaf kaf), and perhaps the two theories of the origin of that word mentioned here: [19]Faro0485 (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Category

Mecca is not in the "top" category, as it is not the Capital City of a country. New York City is not "top" either. Wallie (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

idols were cleansed from the Kaaba?

In the Mohamed section it reads "Mecca was cleansed of all its idols and cult images in the Kaaba." Cleansed? Would it be more acceptable to say "all the ancient tribal religious art was destroyed or defaced by Mohamed's army and is now lost to history" The entire Mohamed section barely belongs here as more than a footnote but- cult images cleansed? Is that a joke? Rmussy (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No objections, which someone noted above implies consensus, so have editted accordingly. Pbhj (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Cosmopolitan ≠ Ethnically Diverse

A city closed to the non-adherents of a religion is the opposite of any reasonable connotation of the English word cosmopolitan and in fact is outside the norms of hospitality practiced in the centers of most the other world faiths. The word will deserve tagging for some support or to amend to "cosmopolitan within an islamic context" if it stays. New York, Hong Kong, etc. are famous cosmopolitan cities in that general sense in which Mecca is the paradigm parochial city. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 06:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Errors in population density

The figures for population density are inconsistent. Since square kilometers are smaller than square miles, the number of people per square kilometer ought to be smaller than the number of people per square mile. 206.74.30.191 (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)James R. Frysinger, JimF@metricmethods.com

Nuking Mecca

I believe a US Congessman made such a comment and that is of historical interest. If nuking Western Pakistan, Eastern Afghanistan, and Mecca was really a possible George Bush response to the 17 out of 18 Saudi citizens attacking the USA on September 11th, 2001, then I think it should be included in this article. Bridgettttttte_babble^poop 01:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC) This talks about Makkah and its nationals. Wasifwasif (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Put that in the article about the US congressman. Not here.VR _talk 03:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Mecca Municipality

What is the square mileage of Mecca Municipality? The land area of the urban and metropolitan areas are given, but not the land area of the city proper/municipality, which is standard for wikipedia city pages. --Criticalthinker (talk) 08:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)