Talk:Stoning of the Devil

message: Shouldn't a new article be created for the stampede deaths of 2006? How does one start a news article? 24.63.125.78 16:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  January 2006 

message: From an outsider's point of view, it seems a bit surprising that the pillars can just be taken down and replaced by walls.  How long were the pillars there before?  Do they have archaeological value?  Where did they move them to?  Do some people still want to throw stones at the original pillars wherever they went?  Is the spot where the pillars and walls were stoned considered to be the actual location of the defile at al-Aqaba?  Do people have to stone those particular walls or could they toss rocks at any stone wall in Mecca?  Sorry if these questions are ignorant... it's just, I am ignorant, and so are most of the other people reading this article. Wnt (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know an answer, but would like to "me-too" the questions asked here. -- 77.7.156.54 (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  How old were the former pillars? 

message: The article says that at least 49 pebbles are needed. However, I believe this should be 42 based upon the information given in the surrounding areas. 2 (days) x 3 (walls) x 7 (pebbles) = 42. However, I am may be missing something, so I figured I'd leave a message here rather than change it. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 08:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There are three days involved, or four if one stays an additional day. On the first day, one throws 7 pebbles at just 1 of the 3 jamarāt. Then the following two days are as you enumerate: 7 pebbles thrown at each of the 3 jamarāt on both days. Thus the three-day total is 49. If the pilgrim stays at Mina an extra day, again 7 pebbles are thrown at each jamrah so an additional 21 pebbles are used and the four-day total is 70. If a thrown pebble does not hit a jamrah one must throw again, so more pebbles may be needed. -- Cam (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright. It was the first part that I had missed, leading to my confusion. Thanks for clearing it up for me. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  49 pebbles needed? 

message: In the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaraat_Bridge ist stated: "It literally means a small piece of stone or a pebble." If you translate Jamrah الجمرة with "Goolge-translator" you get "Anthrax, Ash and cinder". Anthrax is a dangereous disease with leads to black skin. Anthrax is greek and means "coal". So Jamrah does not seem to mean only pebble. Also if you compare the turkish word for Jamrah: "cemre" - you find in a good dictionary (Steuerwald turkish- german) "hot ash". also the word Akaba (aqaba) is translated with "obstacle". "جمرة العقبة jamrah al-ʿaqaba" seems to mean an obstacle of glowing coals. To understand what the aim of Jamaraat was read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning_of_the_Devil#Historical_and_spiritual_significance Jamaraat heap was an obstacle with Satan used to stop Abraham passing through the defile. So a heap of glowing coals or glowing cinder is a more logical obstacle than a heap of stones.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.172.148.117 (talk) 15:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of Jamaraat (pl) and of Jamrah (sg) and Aqaba 

message: One truly needs to google the word and see the old photos (before 2004) in which there existed an obelisk.
An obelisk is the true representative of Satan not a wall (which is of questionable Saudi Arabian rational background).
This is misleading to people with sane/religious mind.
If you see an obelisk elsewhere, then you should know somebody has been practicing Satanism!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by X stunner (talk • contribs) 19:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not a CORRECT photo 

message: A series of edits by  attempt to change the initial name of the topic in the opening sentence and suggesting the name "Stoning of the Devil" is incorrect. I cannot assess the accuracy of this assertion, but it is unsourced, sounds like a POV, and the user has been disruptive in pushing for this change. If @188.49.143.253 want's to provide an argument to support this position, this is the place to make it. --ZimZalaBim talk 02:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by 188.49.143.253