Talk:Mecca/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title:  Inconsistency 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Answer 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recent edit with an ideological load was deleted 

message: 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 | <FONT COLOR=#808080>Talk</FONT> 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Spelling in title and within article 

message: # — Asbestos | <FONT COLOR=#808080>Talk</FONT> 5 July 2005 13:32 (UTC). It's the official US spelling of the name ; it's the official UK spelling of the name , and the spelling used by the British government's Standards of Education curriculum ; it's the official UN spelling of the name ; it's the English spelling preferred by Saudi Arabia. Obviously Mecca would redirect, so anyone could still find it.
#:The Whitehouse calls it Mecca  .. 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  (34 results) compared to  (1 result, intended for Muslims). The same goes for the UN site:  (222 results) vs  (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)
# 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.
#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.
# –Hajor 13:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1. Move the article to "Makkah" 

message: #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)
#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)
#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)
#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)
#Agree with users above.  PedanticallySpeaking July 6, 2005 17:29 (UTC)
#use english -- Chris 73 Talk July 6, 2005 21:41 (UTC)
#I agree with the comments already made. BrianSmithson 12:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  2. Change each occurence in the body of the text (except the mention on the first line) to "Mecca" 

message: 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 | <FONT COLOR=#808080>Talk</FONT> 08:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Results 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Link to pronunciation aids? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Question regarding Islamic law/Mecca 

message: Does anyone actually live in Mekkah? Or is the city more or less dominated by pilgrims? Thanks. --Brasswatchman 03:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, non-pilgrims do live in Mecca. ---Mpatel  (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Residents in Mekkah? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  problematical text 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Non-Muslims and Mecca 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Various small copyedits 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. I've nominated it for improvment. Hopefully it will be improved. --Sefringle 03:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This should be an article about a CITY, not a religious article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Added more on history of Mecca 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Anon trying to censor mention of Wahhabi policies re "urban renewal" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  when were non-muslims preventing from entering mecca? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Non-Muslims and Mecca 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  What image should appear first? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Photos of Mecca 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Change Mecca with Makkah 

message: :Refractored. And reminding User:Amoruso that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. El_C 19:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  this prohibition on non muslims is simply unbelievable and outrageous 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edit war over words Sunni and Wahhabi 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why is the Hajj required? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This is not an article about the sects and their beleifs 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Suggestions for improvement 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Zora's rewrite 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Zora's edits 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Differentiating between Muslims and Non-Muslims 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Non-Muslim visitors 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Clarification on Government 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article rating 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article is lacking 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: 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.--SefringleTalk 19:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to rename the article as Makkah 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Non-Muslims in Makkah 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Muhummad Section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Common sense correction. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Free map? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A-class? Are you kidding me? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  '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.' 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Transportation Section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Culture - religious significance 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: As silence implies consent, I will move ahead with the above format.Bless sins (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, the organization looks fine to me. --Elonka 04:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed format 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Non-Muslims barred - how does this work on a practical level? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Images of Mecca 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  PBUH 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The origin of the name Mecca 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cultural vandalism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Saudi Prince and NYSE firm involved in Mecca Scandal. 

message: 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: Faro0485 (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  etymology of مكة‎ 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Category 

message: 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)
replies: text: No objections, which someone noted above implies consensus, so have editted accordingly. Pbhj (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  idols were '''cleansed''' from the Kaaba? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cosmopolitan &ne; Ethnically Diverse 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Errors in population density 

message: 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. Bridgetttttttebabblepoop 01:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Put that in the article about the US congressman. Not here.VR talk 03:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuking Mecca 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mecca Municipality