Talk:Kaaba/Archive 1

message: This is to the best of my knowledge and needs checking; any scholars of Islam want to take a look at this? The Anome 08:55 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Presumably at the antipodal point to the Kaaba, the Qibla is in all directions?
:Interesting question.  I reckon this point to be in the South Pacific, 230 miles from the nearest land, which is the Pitcairn Islands. -- Heron
:My squint at a globe put it about midway between Tahiti and Pitcairn, in French Polynesia. Rummaging on the 'net I found the nearest land to be Tematangi or Bligh Is., 140.62W 21.64S 142.177.18.54 18:57, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: One reference  states 21° 25' 24" N, 39° 49' 24" E, and other less precise references approximate this closely. Does anyone have exact coordinates from a system such as GPS? -- The Anome 07:53, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've used those numbers. If somebody has a more accurate update, they can correct it. --Chowbok 04:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I get 21°25'21.234"N × 39°49'33.996"E. --  Denelson83  15:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2003

message: If we ignore the legend that Abraham built the Kaaba, Muslim historical tradition says that the first Kaaba in this place was built in the early sixth century by the tribe of Gurhum. Its shape was that of a rectangle, with a semi-circle attached to one of the shorter sides. It was not nearly as high as the modern Kaaba.
The second Kaaba was built in 608 by the people of Mecca, and had the same shape, size and orientation: towards Jerusalem. It was higher than the first, about nine meters. Six pillars supported the roof. It had two doors on opposite sides, and probably some windows. It was destroyed during the failed Umayyad seige of Mecca in 683.
The third Kaaba was built immediately afterwards by az-Zubair. This time, a roughly square portion of the rectangle was built higher than the rest of the building. This part was now as high as the Kaaba of today (about 15 meters). Its roof was supported by three pillars, it still had two doors, and a number of windows. Inside, the square part was connected to the remainder by a wide arch.
The fourth Kaaba is the one we see today. (It has been completely rebuilt several times, but no more major architectural changes were made.) It was built to the order of the Umayyad Khalif Abdelmalek around 692. Abdelmalek set out to build the Kaaba to the prophet Muhammad's own specifications. The semi-cirular part was torn down to a hight of a few feet. The low wall that was left standing can still be seen today. The part between the square and the semi-circle was removed altogether. The arch was bricked up, as were all the windows and the door on the south-west side. The lowest two meters of the other door were also bricked up, so that today one needs a ladder to go through it.
I think this may be a bit too much detail though.
 
P.S. The last rebuild was in 1627.
:: Can whoever wrote this sign it or provide a link? I think the secular history of the structure is vitally important to the article and wholly underrepresented at present. Ombligotron 13:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  architectural history 

message: Are there any pictures showing the Kaabaa without it's black coverings? Commking July 11 2005
: Possibly, but I don't know where one would go to find PUBLIC DOMAIN pictures of that type. Zora 05:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures?

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

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

message: Regarding the new section that's been dumped here: 
*Firstly, it's not well presented; just a list of names and external links.
*Some of the the external links appear to be pro-Shia/Sunni websites; nothing wrong with this per se (well, maybe POV issues here), just that some of them appear to be unreliable (no sources given in them). I'm going to remove some of them, if enough people agree on this (I'll wait a week).
*The whole issue of who was born in the Kaaba seems to be controversial. The section should go a little deeper into this. For example, where did the controversy come from ? Is it just a manifestation of the Sunni/Shia split or something else ? --Mpatel 12:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. In fact, I'm going to leave the links which have reliable sources, but I will delete the rest immediately. --Mpatel 13:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial section on people born in Kaaba

message: This issue has to be dealt with: I've deleted a statement regarding some scholars' views that the Qibla was changed as a result of some rift between Muhammed (pbuh) and the Jews as I've never come across this before (it's not well-known, at least) - if there's a reliable reference, for the claim, then please provide it. I did not delete the meteorite issue, as I have a few references (but not with me) which I will include. --Mpatel 17:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to search to find references, but I believe that a number of Western scholars assert a connection between Muhammad's difficulties with the Jews of Medina, and the change of qibla. It's not just kookery. Zora 00:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: i've left the notice at the top in case anyone disagrees with what i've done or how i did it... --GNU<B>4</B>Eva 04:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  added the arabic text....  (about the kaaba in arabic) 

message: I think it would be a good idea to (either replace the second pic, as it seems irrelevant, or) add a pic showing a (distant) shot of the Kabba with all the pilgrims praying (the 'concentric circles' effect). Reason: the universal prayer direction is brought out and this is the main point of the Kaaba and hence should be emphasised. I'm not too familiar with downloading pics on WP, especially copyright issues, so I invite more knowledgable Wikipedians to pursue this. ---Mpatel  (talk) 15:22, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
: Sorry to be so slow in replying. I was showing the town to visitors. There's a toolbox on the left side of the screen, with a link to UPLOAD FILE. Click there and follow directions. I've done it a few times and it's worked -- I think. I still haven't figured out to do the Public Domain notice. Get the picture up first and then we'll see. Zora 07:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problem. Ok, I've uploaded 3 pics of the Kaaba - copyright unsure: 
*http://www.webislam.com/Descarga/Imagenes/Imagen_Texto/kaaba.htm
*http://users.ign.com/about/GIA-Gamer?boards=ign
*http://www.toursaudiarabia.com/images/kaaba-1.html
The first one is probably adequate for our purposes, the second one is outstanding (but the Kaaba is tiny), the third one is really about the cleaning ceremony. If they are all ok (copyright), then we may as well use the 3rd and either the 1st or 2nd. The page for the second one also contains many other great pics of mosques. ---Mpatel  (talk) 17:02, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
----
I like ALL the pics but ... there's a big problem if they aren't public domain. We can't just claim fair use, or ASSUME that the owners of the pics wouldn't mind. Everything in Wikipedia is given away freely, which means that owners of commercial sites can, and do, copy from WP. The owners of the pics might be highly distressed to find THEIR pics on commercial sites, being sold as clip art, whatever. We have to use either material that's pre-1923 or donated by the artists/photographers themselves. Wikipedia has a continual problem with copyviolations (copyvios) due to editors assuming that they can just cut-n-paste anything found on the web, text and pictures. Not so. Zora 21:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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

message: Forgive my ignorance, but what has the Kiswah got to do with the Black Stone ? As far as I'm aware, the Kiswah is a cloth that's used to cover the Kabah - as stated in the article - but it's relation to the Black Stone seems non-existent (apart from the fact that they are both black, but that means nothing - I think). I await enlightenment... ---Mpatel  (talk) 17:16, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
: That's a silly redirect. I think that Kiswah deserves its own article. Details of how the cloth is woven and embroidered, then cut up and distributed as relics, would be interesting and useful. Of course, as a seamstress, I'm interested in anything having to do with cloth. Zora 21:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kiswah redirected to Black Stone - why ? 

message: According to the article, it is believed that Adam was the one to build the Kaaba. Just at the following line, it says that according to the Koran, the Kaaba was built by Ibrahim and his son Ishmael. This is a very big contradiction as noboby would claim that it was built by Adam except the Muslims! Did I miss something or I am just being a stupid ignorant?! Cheers Svest 22:55, September 12, 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™
: Hi Svest. Actually, it says Adam was the first to build such a place of worship (not necessarily that he was the first to build a cubical structure called the Kaa'ba). It is a matter of definitions: the Kaa'ba is the present structure, whereas Adam built the first place of worship. After this place was built, it was corrupted, destroyed etc. and Ibrahim and his son Ishmael built the big stone building we call the Kaa'ba. Hope this clears up any misconceptions. Cheers. ---Mpatel  (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes sense now of course. My question was a bit ironic indeed. I don't know exactly how we can put that in focus to let readers know and not let them be confused. Cheers Mpatel. -- Svest 16:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Who built the Kaaba?

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

message: Aren't there a big lack of real archeological and historical theories here? "According to Islamic tradition" and "According to the Qur'an" is just the muslim view point of the History of the Kaaba. But I think that a Wiki article about the subject have to contain some scientific research too - not just religious traditions and beliefs. Isn't it very important that a place like Wiki actually sticks to providing accurate and up-to-date ideas and theories about things like these?
I was also thinking that, which is why I posted this for a different section: I don't want to raise any hackles, but I'm curious to know: are there any pre-Islamic sources that mention the Kaaba, since it's supposed to be such an old structure? I don't mean to insinuate that it is not pre-Islamic. I'm just wondering if there's anything like a Xenophon or a Herodotus for the region that mentions something like the Kaaba in the centuries before the advent of Islam.
: There's a book on pre-Islamic Arabian history, by Hoyland, that might have some info. I just haven't finished reading the book. The problem is that the Hijaz was of little interest to Greek, Roman, or Persian historians, so that there's really not much there. Crone's book on Meccan trade also surveys the history and finds nothing much. 
: Lack of written history could be supplemented by archaeological work but ... just how far do you think an archaeologist would get with a proposal to excavate the Kaaba and the Grand Mosque? Zora 00:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of current scientific theories 

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

message: This needs to be added:  --Striver 03:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: history

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

message: Someone again linked to his webpage claiming that the Kaaba was a Hindu temple. Anon, no one except you believes that! The theory is not notable.
I also removed a mass of material that seemed to be a mixture of badly referenced Muslim piety and some anti-Islamic material about Islamic imperialism. Zora 19:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hindu temple again 

message: The Hindu temple guy struck again. Someone removed the geographic coordinates, for some reason, and someone added some bogus "info" re exactly what was in the Kaaba before it became a Muslim shrine. Zora 18:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw a number of dodgy edits a couple of days ago, but didn't have the energy to change them back at the time. Thanks for reverting. Oh, that reminds me, I better mention this specific type of recurring vandalism for Wikiproject Islam contributors here MP   (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The coordinates were not removed! I put them in a  coordinate template. If you look... you can see that they are actually more prominent on the page. Do you even know how computers work?--Dr who1975 22:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see that now. Yes, I know how computers work. I've put mine together from parts myself. No need to sneer -- this is a group project and sneering doesn't help us cooperate. Zora 22:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assure you my face was sneer free when I wrote it. Thank you for replying.--Dr who1975 23:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert to MPatel 

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

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

message: Can someone explain why the following external links with a non-muslim viewpoint of the Kaaba should not be included in the section?
*Kaaba, Black Stone, hajr-e-aswad
*Kaaba a Hindu Temple? - article by Historian Purushottam Nagesh Oak
Are these not relevant links? --Matt57 17:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PN Oak's theory has been covered above. there is no academic support for it, nor is it proven that anyone other than he believes it. per WP:NPOV, we are not required to give extreme minority views any coverage at all, and that includes in our external links. i see no argument as to why the first link merits inclusion. ITAQALLAH 17:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A user saying "Being a historian myself and reading that article, I'd say - after a first glance - that it's complete and utter rubbish, if not bland academic forgery" - is not proper rebuttal of the link. I can say the opposite and would that mean a defense? --Matt57 17:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: see negative proof. you are the one who must establish that PN Oak's theory is entertained by even some reputed academics.  ITAQALLAH 18:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Negative proof is not relevant here. All you need to do to take the link out is to tell me why it doesnt follow WP:EL. Can you disprove that? Dont forget to apply the same rules to the other external links sitting in the article right now. Please continue the discussion below with Zora. --Matt57 05:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: negative proof is relevant, you are arguing that it is false to assume non-notability when there is no evidence for it, whereas it is totally accurate and required. you are the one who must establish its notability with evidences; it is not "assumed notable until disproven". WP:NPOV also has sway over the distribution of external links, extreme minority opinions are not given any space at all, and that includes in external links. ITAQALLAH 14:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

message: All of Islam is based on "traditions" so I really don't understand why the tradition of the stone having been white and turning to black is any different. It is one of many "traditions" and not at all an esoteric one. Certainly, it is not POV. Here's a link to a website where it is quoted from an encyclopedia. There is also a big inscription with this "tradition" in the Islamic Museum in Jerusalem.
http://kaaba.oto-usa.org/name.html--Gilabrand 10:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then restore the claim with a cite. I removed it not based upon any prejudice I have towards it, but because it was contested and uncited.Proabivouac 10:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silly deletion  

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