Talk:Kaaba/Archive 2

message: With respect to this subject let me mention here that pictorial dipictions of Our PROPHET (May Peace be upon HIM) or any other kind of attempt in this regard is total violation of Islamic values. It is an open defiance to the Sacredness of the PROPHET of ISLAM. 
Picture being relevant is not the issue here. The issue here is the Peronality it is depicting. This issue may be of little interest to many people but for followers of Islam it is very serious.Any picture may be offensive to anyone but this particular picture is depicting a PERSONALITY whose sacredness is beyond any doubt. 
This picture is offensive to whole of the Muslim Ummah and we all want it removed from this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.29.249.34 (talk • contribs) 05:30, July 4, 2007
:No offense, but Islamic values have no place at Wiki as wiki is a medium for knowledge and learning, not religous worship. Therefore Wikipedia policy takes precedence over islamic taboo See WP:CENSOR. Dman727 06:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We? Who is we? Wikipedia is not oriented towards Islam, nor any other religion.  Its about knowledge - see WP:CENSOR I'm sorry that you personally find this offensive, however it would violate many wiki principles to censor the encylopedia to conform to a minority religious viewpoint. For that matter no encyclopedia at all would be possible if it attempt to conform to all religions.  I would suggest not viewing the picture so as to avoid being offended. Dman727 05:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The painting isnt blasphemeous, nor offensive, nor even a picture (its a painting). Maybe to a few, but for those you can always try Islamopedia or simply closing your eyes.  The painting is relevant, tasteful and extremely relative to the text at hand. Have you read the accompanying text?? What wikipolicy dictates that we must avoid it (at all cost no less)?  Remember Islamo-policy has no relevance here, only wikipolicy. Frankly, this sillyness is starting to get quite annoying. Dman727 12:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How you can decide if it is not blasphemeous and offensive. Are you Muslim? It is extremely offensive and blasphemeous for Muslims. --- A. L. M. 12:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Simple - I used the same process that you used to decide it is.  Our religion has NO bearing here. See WP:CENSOR Dman727 13:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is different debate and for its answer look at there. However, now you admit that it is (or may be) offensive to Muslims. Hence you will not say it again that "The painting isnt blasphemeous, nor offensive"? At least give us that much for God sake. --- A. L. M. 13:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If an article is offensive to a majority of people, is not noteable, and doesnt inform then its certainly reasonable to remove it.  In this case, this very old painting is noteable, informs and is tasteful to majority of the worlds population.   Is offense 100% irrelevant? Perhaps not.  But then I note the article Cleveland_steamer, one I find extremely offensive - probably to a majority of the worlds population, and only slightly noteable, yet the wiki community finds that the article meets wiki standards for inclusion (btw I've never voted on that article).  In short "offense" is one of the least concerns. Dman727 13:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's hard not to agree to remove an image that if an image is simultaneously offensive, non-notable, and uninformative.  Leaving aside your other points for a moment, what I'd like to figure out is, where is the line drawn?  To me it would seem logical that if an image's negative attributes outweigh its pedagogical value, then it should be removed.  Can we agree on this as a starting point?  --Doradus 17:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  Oh thats easy, the line is community consensus and wiki policy.  This is hardly new ground. Rather than trying to reinvent the wheel here, this same exact discussion has been hashed out several times (with the same objectors) on other articles.  See Depictions_of_Muhammad, Black_stone, Talk:Muhammad/Mediation, Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy and a few others.Dman727 17:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The consensus is that such images can be included, if they are presented in a respectful way.  I would also point out that though there are indeed traditions in the Muslim community which avoid images of Muhammad, that these traditions are directed towards Muslims, not towards non-Muslims.  It would be inappropriate for a Muslim to go through the Library of Congress ripping out any page that had an image of Muhammad.  It would be equally inappropriate for an orthodox Jew to go through a supermarket destroying anything that was non-kosher.  Or for a Christian from the Midwest to go through a California liquor store and berate them for selling alcohol on a Sunday.  Let's please keep individualized customs, separate from creating a source of knowledge. The images of Muhammad at Wikipedia are intended to inform -- not to antagonize, not to evangelize.  They are intended to educate.  Removing them would do a disservice to those who have a genuine good faith desire for knowledge. --Elonka 18:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Is there a relevant policy?  That would be ideal.  Thanks for the links. --Doradus 18:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I understand that English is not the first language of some of the editors here, so let me try to explain: The image is used with respect.  It is a picture about something that happened at the Kaaba, so it is right for it to be here.  Please do not use Muslim rules here. I understand that some Muslims say that there should be no images of Muhammad.  These are rules that some Muslims follow.  That is okay.  But please understand.  The rules about no images of Muhammad are religious rules.  The rules apply to Muslims.  They do not apply to non-Muslims. Please do not force Muslim rules on non-Muslims. You said that people want to defame other religions, but please, this is not correct.  There is no desire here to defame religions.  There is only the desire for knowledge. Please respect that Wikipedia is here to provide information -- not to promote religion. Wikipedia does not promote Christianity or Judaism or Islam or any other religion.  The desire here is just for knowledge, to make Wikipedia like a very large library. We want a peaceful and respectful location to provide knowledge to the entire world.  That is all. Peace. --Elonka 07:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you have to add images then do add them we cannot stop you. However please stop saying following. "The image is used with respect.". No they are not. They are disrespect to us and great disrespect. Hence stop saying so at least. Pleasee. Secondly do not say that "I understand that some Muslims say that there should be no images of Muhammad.". Not SOME but very vast majority of Muslims dislike those images. Thanks. -- A. L. M. 10:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There's a response to this whole issue of image insertion: User:Matt57/Pictures of Muhammad and Wikipedia policies. In short, removing these images is against Wikipedia policy. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  (reply to 124.29.249.34) By "respect", I mean that our intentions are good, to show an image that honors Muhammad in a positive way.  If we wanted to be disrespectful, we would show images like these. Instead, the consensus of Wikipedia editors is to use positive images of Muhammad that show him in a good light, as a wise man who made peace. I am confused as to how anything could be more respectful than that. --Elonka 16:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The article is not attempting to project Islamic values (nor any other religion).  The article is attempting to educate.  In fact, if the article DID project Islamic values, it would likely constitute a violation of WP:NPOV. It is respectful, tasteful, encylopedic, it is not blasphemous to most people.  While it is true that offends a small minority of vocal people, that is irrelevant to the task of writing an encylopedia and the overwhelming consensus supports its inclusion.  If the picture offends you, I suggest that you not view it. 07:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Can I clarify something here?  Do you believe that there are people who truly do not find the images offensive?  Or do you think that everyone adding the images to this article must be doing so to cause controversy and disruption?  --Doradus 16:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not on the pretext that it does not offend them.  It's on the basis that it doesn't matter if it offends people.  I'm not sure I agree with that argument, but let's at least be clear what the argument is.  --Doradus 11:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures of Muhammad (continued)

message: I've protected because of the recent reverting over the image. Could someone explain what the issue is, and whether an alternative image could be found that would satisfy all parties? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 12:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is simple: Muhammad is shown. Some editors feel that the appearance of Muhammad anywhere violates their religion. The trouble is that this image is very notable - it is one of the earliest surviving depictions of Muhammad - and couldn't be more topical - it depicts exactly the legend which is recounted in the text. If this tradition is not topical to the article, or too marginal to be mentioned, that is another discussion which I've not yet seen.Proabivouac 12:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protection

message: Ok I'm going to reproduce part of my page here again to close this matter. Censoring images in any way is against Wikipedia policies. Any questions? Compromises on Wikipedia policies is not allowed, needless to say. Please stay firm with people who attempt to violate Wikipedia policies. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.
Some editors argue that in the light of this guideline:
* Typical Wikipedia readers do not find pictures of Muhammad offensive
* Exclusion of such pictures would result in the article being less informative, relevant and accurate.
* No suitable alternatives are available, as these pictures are historic
* As the policy states, "Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.". Therefore, the primary mission of Wikipedia and its editors is to improve articles so they are more informative. Being offensive is not Wikipedia's mission.
* In addition, there are no issues of copyrights as the copyrights for all these pictures have expired so the images can be used freely where relevant.
====WP:NOT#CENSORED====
This policy states:
* Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive.
* Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements.
====Printing Images of Muhammad: A minority tradition?====
Some users (Itaqallah and ALM) have suggested that since printing of Muhammad's images has not been a common affair, therefore Wikipedia too should not print the images otherwise it will be a violation of WP:UNDUE. Cartoon images of Muhammad have been printed all over the World and this is not likely to change now:
thumb|300px|center|Countries where one or more of the Cartoon images were published in some form
* List of newspapers that reprinted Jyllands-Posten's Muhammad cartoons
Printing of images is no longer a minority tradition and so UNDUE does not apply. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: very Good points. However, we should only use Cartoon in those pages. Because undue weight does not apply on them only. lets use cartoon on each page. --- A. L. M. 14:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that printing of images of Muhammad is not a minority tradition. This was the only policy that you guys could bring up and its a weak policy anyway, in comparison to "NOT CENSORED" and "Wikipedia:Profanity". --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where can I find defination of WP:weak policy? Once again thanks for cool arguments. Lets start voting to use cartoon on each page. I am for it. --- A. L. M. 14:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read below, the present cartoons are not relevant to this page. If you can find a notable cartoon of Muhammad and the Kaaba, feel free to upload it. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then how undue weight get generalized for pictures because of those cartoons?? See your own arguments above. Do you think they are logical? Come on! --- A. L. M. 14:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by your first sentence? Please rephrase. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia policies

message: ====Wikipedia:Profanity====
::Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.
Some editors argue that in the light of this guideline:
* Typical Wikipedia readers do not find pictures of Muhammad offensive
* Exclusion of such pictures would result in the article being less informative, relevant and accurate.
* No suitable alternatives are available, as these pictures are historic
* As the policy states, "Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.". Therefore, the primary mission of Wikipedia and its editors is to improve articles so they are more informative. Being offensive is not Wikipedia's mission.
* In addition, there are no issues of copyrights as the copyrights for all these pictures have expired so the images can be used freely where relevant.
====WP:NOT#CENSORED====
This policy states:
* Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive.
* Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements.
====Printing Images of Muhammad: A minority tradition?====
Some users (Itaqallah and ALM) have suggested that since printing of Muhammad's images has not been a common affair, therefore Wikipedia too should not print the images otherwise it will be a violation of WP:UNDUE. Cartoon images of Muhammad have been printed all over the World and this is not likely to change now:
thumb|300px|center|Countries where one or more of the Cartoon images were published in some form
* List of newspapers that reprinted Jyllands-Posten's Muhammad cartoons
Printing of images is no longer a minority tradition and so UNDUE does not apply. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: very Good points. However, we should only use Cartoon in those pages. Because undue weight does not apply on them only. lets use cartoon on each page. --- A. L. M. 14:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that printing of images of Muhammad is not a minority tradition. This was the only policy that you guys could bring up and its a weak policy anyway, in comparison to "NOT CENSORED" and "Wikipedia:Profanity". --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where can I find defination of WP:weak policy? Once again thanks for cool arguments. Lets start voting to use cartoon on each page. I am for it. --- A. L. M. 14:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read below, the present cartoons are not relevant to this page. If you can find a notable cartoon of Muhammad and the Kaaba, feel free to upload it. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then how undue weight get generalized for pictures because of those cartoons?? See your own arguments above. Do you think they are logical? Come on! --- A. L. M. 14:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by your first sentence? Please rephrase. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How Wikipedia policies/guidelines may apply to issue of Muhammad's pictures

message: Some users (Itaqallah and ALM) have suggested that since printing of Muhammad's images has not been a common affair, therefore Wikipedia too should not print the images otherwise it will be a violation of WP:UNDUE. Cartoon images of Muhammad have been printed all over the World and this is not likely to change now:
thumb|300px|center|Countries where one or more of the Cartoon images were published in some form
* List of newspapers that reprinted Jyllands-Posten's Muhammad cartoons
Printing of images is no longer a minority tradition and so UNDUE does not apply. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: very Good points. However, we should only use Cartoon in those pages. Because undue weight does not apply on them only. lets use cartoon on each page. --- A. L. M. 14:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that printing of images of Muhammad is not a minority tradition. This was the only policy that you guys could bring up and its a weak policy anyway, in comparison to "NOT CENSORED" and "Wikipedia:Profanity". --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where can I find defination of WP:weak policy? Once again thanks for cool arguments. Lets start voting to use cartoon on each page. I am for it. --- A. L. M. 14:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read below, the present cartoons are not relevant to this page. If you can find a notable cartoon of Muhammad and the Kaaba, feel free to upload it. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then how undue weight get generalized for pictures because of those cartoons?? See your own arguments above. Do you think they are logical? Come on! --- A. L. M. 14:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by your first sentence? Please rephrase. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Printing Images of Muhammad: A minority tradition?

message: I wish to add :Category:Conversion of non-Muslim places of worship into mosques Chesdovi 13:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Add category

message: I would like to include this image in the Location and physicial attributes section.Proabivouac 21:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an excellent image, I wonder why it wasnt added before. Thanks for digging it up! Pretty interesting as well. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm…it was removed last year as "suspicious", but without any corresponding discussion or objections. The original image is here and was created by a Wikipedia editor using photoshop, supposedly from an older original. I would definitely prefer to find the original, and use it if we can. Otherwise, we have no way of verifying that these details are accurate (though I have no reason to doubt it.)Proabivouac 22:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've written a message to the uploader here, I hope we can find the origin of information for these images. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 11:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed image addition

message: For the record, I am opposed to the idea of merging the articles of Black Stone and Kaaba. The Black Stone is a significant object in its own right, and it is appropriate to have a separate article about it. --Elonka 20:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its better to have its own article too, because this is something very significant like you said, so I agree.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Shouldn't there be a section here about the Black Stone, at least? My thinking was that this a very important part of the Kaaba as well as being its own subject. Black Stone isn't so large that it couldn't be that section (and would be smaller once duplicated information was removed.) In principle, there would be a Black Stone article would a very detailed treatment, but the existence of that article in its current state isn't a good reason not to have this general information here.Proabivouac 01:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree there should be something significant on the Black Stone, e.g. a picture of the stone in the Location and Physical attributions section (since thats where its being talked about). I think the article contains enough of a short mention of the stone and the picture should do the needful. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 02:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge

message: What caption say currently has no association with the image. If the library say that this image represent that event then we can provide a reference. Otherwise we cannot use an event and ourselves say that image represent same event. It is original research. --- A. L. M. 12:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whats original research in this caption? Point it out. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 12:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  All of it, unless you present reference from the book that have the image. Or some other book point that image to event. -- A. L. M. 12:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which part specifically? The image coincides with the description. When are you going to let go of this issue? Also, see above. I've put the reference there. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The image has been confirmed to be authentic. In addition, please read this. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: They're not relics.Proabivouac 08:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Original research caption 

message: It is considered in Brahmins in Sub-continent that Kaaba was built for the devotion of Lord Shiva on the base of the story of Oor, an arabic merchent. He had got it erected for easy recognisation of Zamzam water sorce even from far distance in huge desert and dry mountains and for his devotion of Lord Shiva.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 00jayhind (talk • contribs) 08:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Origin of Kaaba"

message: The caption under that image showing all the people around the Kaaba. Umm... That's not millions of people. And btw, the antique painting of Mohammed and the stone should STAY on the site. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats because the image does not show all the people. a correct image (should be zoomed out further and) would show the Haram at its state during Hajj or Ramadhan's last 10 days where it it overflowing onto the streets and prayers have to be performed on the streets round the whole masjid and not just round the Kaaba. The statement is correct but the image displayed is incorrect/incomplete. User:Cs1kh (talk) 09:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

text: This year (2008) there were 5 million muslims from around the world during Hajj. I know it because i was there too. Regarding the picture of Mohammed, none exists. If anyone claims to have it, then he is a liar. [User Aslam|Aslam] 8:12, 22 January 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.246.218.178 (talk)  
This statement is impossible:  "However, the most dramatic times are during the Hajj, when about three million (officially)pilgrims simultaneously gather to circle the building on the same day." This is what the sources the author has quoted say: "About three million Muslims from around the world have gathered in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, for the annual Hajj pilgrimage."  Statement by author is not accurate and misleading and should be edited.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.142.61.242 (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Millions at Masjid al Haram in Mecca"?

message: ````It is very simple to understand that making or painting any scatch of any body is prohibitied in islam it is some thing very basic like in chritianity the holy Marry and Commandmends of Allah to Moses in judism. So instead going for polling to keep or not it should not be presented in any way positive or negative. becuase on humanitarian grounds all have equal right to practice the religion as it is and other believers should respect each other. We better rem,ove the image. ALLAH bless us all. Ahmed Mujtaba Khan, Pakistan.   
Could everyone with an opinion on whether or not the 1315 Muhammad painting should be included at the Kaaba article, please weigh in?  I'd like to see one opinion per editor, stating where you currently stand on this issue.  Thanks, --Elonka 18:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Changing my opinion from "Replace" to "Keep or replace".  I do not personally find this image offensive, I find it beautiful and respectful, and see it as showing Muhammad in a positive light as a peacemaker.  But I do understand that some good faith Muslims are uncomfortable seeing any image of Muhammad, even if a positive one, and feel that it is blasphemous. However, per Wikipedia's policy on No censorship, the general consensus of Wikipedia editors is that images should be included if they are relevant to a particular article, even if some editors might find them objectionable on religious grounds. I support that policy. In regards to this particular image on this particular article though, I have to say that though I do support the use of this image on some other articles at Wikipedia, such as Black Stone and Depictions of Muhammad, that in the specific case of using it at the Kaaba article, I think that the image is of less relevance.  We don't have to include it -- there are other images which would probably work better, such as an actual photograph of the Black Stone.  This Kaaba article also has clear links to the Black Stone article, where the image is used.  We're not trying to hide it, and it's not necessary to include the same image on every single article that it is related to.  This is why I would support replacing the image here on the Kaaba article.  However, having said that, I also have to state that I believe strongly in another Wikipedia policy, that of Consensus.  And the consensus in this poll clearly appears to be that in respect to the Kaaba article, the image should be kept. I still have respect for the editors who disagree, but it is clear that we will never reach a unanimous decision on this one issue. As such, I am willing to change my opinion to at least a partial "keep", to show that I acknowledge the consensus and will support it. Perhaps in the future Consensus can change, but for now, I think it is best if we try to put this one issue to rest, at least for a few months, and move on to other debates. --Elonka 21:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mpatel, do you mean to say that the associated text isn't relevant to the article?Proabivouac 11:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If by the associated text you mean A story found in Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah (as reconstructed and translated by Guillaume) shows Muhammad settling a quarrel between Meccan clans as to which clan should set the Black Stone cornerstone in place. His solution was to have all the clan elders raise the cornerstone on a cloak, and then Muhammad set the stone into its final place with his own hands., then I don't see what the problem is - if the text is there, there's no need for a controversial picture. The caption text for the picture can stay with a show/hide option; nothing wrong with that. MP   (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've turned the standard for image inclusion on its head: usually we ask that what is depicted is a part of the text. Here you say that if it is, then the image is no longer needed. Hence any image anywhere is either 1) off-topic (unrelated to text) or 2) unneeded (as text already covers it).Proabivouac 11:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that I said controversial picture; not every picture in WP is controversial. Note that text has priority over any images, unless the images add more meaning understanding etc. to complement the text. MP   (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe we should also have a vote at Isra and Mi'raj, since you removed the picture there as well. We could vote on every article once a month, and then have or not have images that month depending on how the vote went. Or, it might be better to draw in the larger community and determine the wider consensus. Then maybe we could craft a policy reflecting that consensus that would apply to the whole project. Tom Harrison Talk 13:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not mind that picture sepcially because it face is veiled. However, I do not know why you have restored it when someone else has removed it? I just wish to support that poor fellow against you. Once again what you know about  :Image:Maome.jpg, what event it depicting?  ---A. L. M. 13:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I at least appreciate your candor. But why are you asking about Maome.jpg? Nobody wants to include it here. Our article on Depictions of Muhammad says it is an "Illustration portraying Muhammad preaching to his early followers." The reference is to the French National Library, but my proficiency with French is limited. What is your point about Maome.jpg? Tom Harrison Talk 13:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: p.s. - as with the caption for the 1315 Kaaba image I'd fixed earlier, that article had it wrong: Muhammad is not with his early followers, but in the last years of his life, forbidding intercalation after the conquest of Mecca.Proabivouac 21:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  My point is that you do not need to present that original research about most significant event in Muhammad life that you have presented above few times. You can say that you support including images of Muhammad, even if you do not know anything about them at all. Because you (and others) have been supported including Maome.jpg (and many other such pictures), when you do not know anything about it (Other then that they are in abc library or abc book cover). Hence please be honest at least. --- A. L. M. 13:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A.L.M., do you mean to say I am less than honest? Tom Harrison Talk 14:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not know but you are supporting many images which are only notable because they are old and saved by some library. Otherwise, we do not know anything about those images. Anyway, I do not wish to spend any more time here. --- A. L. M. 15:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: BYT has mentioned before that he did not find the image offensive. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Rules and Regulations?  The applicable and regulations that apply here are wikipedia rules and regs.  Islamic policy simply does not apply to most of the world and certainly not wikipedia. The very presence of wikipedia and indeed the Internet offends the amish..however you do not find them attempting shutdown the Wikipedia. It is impractical and impossible for an encyclopedia to conform to all the worlds religions.  Sincerly, I am sympathetic that the picture offends some.  There are things in wikipedia that offend me as well such as Cleveland_steamer.  However censorship is the enemy of knowledge and wikipedia is about knowledge.  I suggest that you do as I do when it comes to articles that offend you - avoid them. Dman727 05:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, Wikipedia is not censored. Make sure you read this. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Matt's (familiar) mantra. Altruism, I agree with your points, but I believe the only way to edit for the long term is to attempt to build consensus and acknowledge when it exists. The key is to stick around, particularly on a page like this one, and encourage others with a functioning conscience to do the same. Consensus can change. BYT 13:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've said yourself before that you dont find the image offensive, yet you agree with Altruism? On top of that you just voted a Keep in this poll. Can you please clarify your Keep above by repeating that you dont find the image offensive? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  Welcome to Wikipedia. Please familiarise yourself with WP:CENSOR. If you have any questions related to this you might find it helpful to contact an administrator. ColdmachineTalk 13:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors.  Claiming that other editors are including this image to 'spite' followers of Islam may constitute a personal attack. Try to stay cool please. ColdmachineTalk 17:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll: Consensus check

message: Missing from this page: The events of 1979 (Sunnite attacks). I believe this should be included here. 91.97.59.113 (talk) 07:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1979 events 

message: Maybe I'm way off here, but did the Boston Globe independently verify the claim that the Kaaba was a shrine for the Daughters of God (al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat) and Hubal. The Boston Globe reference just stood out as odd, as I believe the given claim has been known to historians. Perhaps the Boston Globe ref. should be substituted for some well-known historical references? Thanks. MP (talk•contribs) 21:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boston Times  

message: The first paragraph states that the Kaaba is "a large cuboidal building".  In what sense of the english-language word "large",  in the context of buildings, can this structure be considered "large" ? Look at the photos !  While in no way diminishing the importance of this building,  it is NOT large.Eregli bob (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Was..--139.179.207.248 (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A large building ? 

message: Hi,
could someone please clarify which direction exactly is referenced by Qibla?
I noticed, esp. in southeast asia and Australia, but also in India, that the arrow indicating the direction of prayer simply points eastward (whereas in this case, the shortest path to Mecca would be facing west).
So is it a general rule that people are supposed to pray towards the east (rather than towards Mecca itself), or is that just a cultural tradition?
Thanks,Duagloth (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qibla 

message: I think that more could be added to the pre-Islamic history of the Ka'ba.
The hatim is described briefly, but its pre-Islamic significance is not discussed. 
I propose that the following is added:
All of this, unless mentioned otherwise, is from:U Rubin, "The Kacba. Aspects of its ritual functions and position in pre-Islamic and early Islamic times", Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 8 (1986), 97-131.
According to the literature of Ibn Jurayj, the structure pre-dating the Ka'ba was a low-walled enclosure called an arish.  It is described as such a rudimentary structure that “cattle could burst into” its precincts.   This description recalls the animal-centred function of the hima, which, according to the encyclopedia of Islam, was a "forbidden" area reserved by a nomadic lord for his exclusive pasturing rights. 
When there was rain, water would flood down from higher ground of Safa and Mawra, two hills adjacent to the Ka'ba.  A protective wall, called jidar, was located to this side of the Ka'ba, standing between it and the hills.  The hijr, meaning "inviolable and sacrosanct," was on the same side, between the ka'ba and the jidar.  Muslim tradition upholds that the location of the hijr had been that of Ishmael’s pen for his sheep.  An interesting parallel: jidar (gidar) means pen for sheep in ancient Hebrew.  Indeed, Uri Rubin asserts that the hijr had a “profound ritual significance which is connected with sacrificial slaughter” and he suggests that animals kept in the hijr were consecrated as belonging to the idols. 
al hijr was also referred to as al-hatim which has the same sacred connotations.  This name reinforces the ritualistic nature of the hijr area.  113  hatim means literally “a crush” or “crowding” and that refers to people crowding for “oaths of supplications.”
The place where pre-islamic Arabs practiced the qasama which is a type of oath. 114. The hijr was also connected to the tossing or casting of objects, such as votive gifts: “these traditions apparently reflect a pre-Islamic idea concerning the functions of this area as the dwelling of the noble dead, in honor of whom, votive gifts were laid upon, or buried in, the ground.” 117  gifts also deposited inside the Ka’ba.
The Quraysh decided to rebuild the Kaba because of continuing floods and the need for more more protection than just the jidar protective wall. (p99)  Became a “permanent roofed structure” and different reports detail the acquisition of wood from a Byzantine merchant. (101)  The ka'ba was reconstructed in a square shape because lack of funds prevented them including the semi-circular hijr as well.  
Paintings were on the inside of the Ka'ba in pre-Islamic times: the images included prophets, angels, trees, images of Jesus and Mary. 102  When Muhammad finally took control of Mecca, he ordered for all of the paintings to be wiped off except for the image of Jesus and Mary which he requested to remain.  
The architecture of the Ka'ba, according to GRD King, was of a technique that correlates with the Axumite practices of the time:
P20 the Ka’ba, built with alternating masonry and wood courses; a technique that shows its contact with other lands especially Ethiopia, “To this extent, the Ka’ba of ca 608 AD was a building deriving in its construction from the mutually interpenetrated milieu of the Red Sea coast]]al lands.”
Any comments?  I dont know what the reputation of U rubin's article is, since it was published quite a few years ago.  also, he depends mostly on muslim sources -- I could clarify which muslim literary sources he takes each piece of information from.
Sincerely, sara (sswetzoff@gmail.com)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.21.34 (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  pre-Islamic history of the Ka'ba 

message: Is Kabaa the centre of the earth???
as i've read it so many times....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.118.143.90 (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the earth is a ball, then how can its center be on the surface?--96.246.244.238 (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it is not. It is believed to be the starting point of a column of noor from Earth to... heaven maybe.--139.179.207.248 (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centre of the Earth, 

message: I am aware that the name of the article is "Kaaba", which is a common English spelling. However, shouldn't we go with the correct spelling, especially given that it employs no special characters? The consensus on other Arabic names is to provide redirects to the correct spelling of the name with the exception of country names etc (Iraq, not al-‘Iraq).
A quick googling shows that "Kaaba" nets about 400,000 English results and "Ka‘bah" nets 110,000, so it's not completely out of the blue. Shouldn't we make an effort to provide correct information?  Naahid بنت الغلان Click to talk 18:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely feel that Wikipedia and the general public would be better served by providing the standard form as Ka‘ba and listing Kaaba as an alternate form only in the introduction. Much like "Moslem", it's an antiquated and highly-inaccurate transcription. I reckon this would also involve a page move. Does anyone object to this?  Naahid بنت الغلان Click to talk 05:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I use Kaaba throughout Wikipedia. There was a small discussion on this in 2005 (see Kaaba talk Archive 1 - Unify spelling). There should be some kind of consensus for this before any major changes are made. This should be mentioned at WikiProject Islam. MP (talk•contribs) 10:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We should stick with whatever the accepted primary transcription is, IMO. So far as I'm aware, that's Kaaba. Obviously, Ka'bah is the more accurate rendition. ITAQALLAH 17:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just out of interest, how does one determine which is the more accurate rendition, given that there isn't a one-to-one mapping between Arabic and Latin characters?  Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 18:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Library of Congress standard is used by Universities and scholarly writings the world over. ‘ is the ‘ayin.  Naahid بنت الغلان Click to talk 18:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ka‘bah - [[WP:BRD]]

message: This is interesting, not sure if it can be incorporated in some way: http://www.inter-islam.org/faith/Majorsigns.html#snake 72.226.64.201 (talk) 14:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not interesting, it's POV. And nuts. ناهد/(Nåhed) speak! 19:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well inside the Kaaba 

message: One article I quoted said: "There is no reference in the Bible to this event nor to Abraham’s being in ancient Mecca.—Genesis 12:8–13:18." Just to show some differing views.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Standforder (talk • contribs) 01:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  There's little to no menetion of how others views differ 

message: There's a request in Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Social_sciences for an article on the Stone of Good Fortune.  Does anyone have any reputable info on this aspect of the Kaaba?  All I could find on Google was stuff like this: http://i-cias.com/e.o/kaaba.htm
MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Stone of Good Fortune"?

message: I noticed us ordinary folks can't fix or edit the Kaaba page, which seems reasonable.
HOWEVER, there are some fixes that need to be made to references on this page!!!
To wit:
* in the section History / Before Islam, in the 9th paragraph which begins "Many accounts..."
** right there at the beginning is a superscripted reference that says "[which?]"
** and at the end of that sentence is another superscripted reference that says "[weasel words]"
** what the hell? those are lousy things to put on such an important religious page... please fix or remove those stupid reference tags
* in the later section Islamic tradition / At the time of Muhammad, in the second paragraph that starts "After this pivotal migration..."
** in the last sentence of that paragraph it says "Muhammad recited [Qur'an 17:81]", but the words "Qur'an 17:81" in the reference are superscripted which means that reference tag is badly formatted
Please fix these! They look bad! This is a very important page on a very important religious topic for both Muslims and pre-Islamic pagans!
If I could, I'd just edit and fix them, but editing is blocked... so please fix this!
Thank you, and
Blessings on the House of Wiki!
76.243.129.217 (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screwups on the Kaaba page -- bad references -- PLEASE FIX THEM! 

message: The sentence referenced to the Boston Globe , one of the goddesses is linked incorrectly. al-Lat is the sumerian goddess, it should be Allāt who was the pre-islam arabian goddess. Can a registered user pls fix. thanks --78.86.25.78 (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Should now point to Allāt. Euryalus (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  small link correction needed 

message: I don't understand the relevance of this template. --99.245.206.188 (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eschatology? 

message: The article says the hatim includes the grave of "Abu Simbel". That appears to be a nonsensical interpolation. Could someone delete it please?
86.137.96.144 (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abu Simbel? 

message: The source given is http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2005-12/29/article08.shtml. The Kaaba is cleaned with Zamzam and Rosewater. NOT Persian Rosewater. This may lead to the misconception that Iran is involved in a tradition that predated Iranian involvement in Islam.  —Preceding unsigned  contribs) 20:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Longstanding WP:CONSENSUS in Wikipedia is that images of Muhammad will not be removed. However, it is possible to set up your preferences so you personally do not have to view them. Rodhullandemu 16:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error concerning the Kaaba's cleaning 

message: Apparently, the Black Stone is 30cm diameter but the picture shows it more that three times bigger than the people... unless the people are really small.
You might be talking about the picture on the article on the Black Stone , I believe. The stone itself is small, but the silver frame around it is big. I don't think there's anything disproportionate.NMKuttiady (talk) 11:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  30 cm... 

message: I have removed the picture prominently showing a smiling pilgrim with a small Ka'bah in the background. This is entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia as the focus is clearly upon the person and not the subject of the article. The picture shows the Ka'bah from the same angle as the first picture thus contributing nothing to the page. DO NOT replace this picture with out at least discussing the issues I have raised—Wikipedia is not a depository for tourist pictures.--Supertouch (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was mistaken, the picture with the pilgrim shows the Ka'bah from the side containing the door, however, this angle is already included on the page in another picture.--Supertouch (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of pilgrim 

message: Stop making the page controversial,the picture is fake and not of Ottomon Era at all. It was forbidden to Draw pictures of Muhammad(saw) in the Ottomon era.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.33.99 (talk) 02:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is correct. It was severely punished, even. -andy 77.190.22.162 (talk) 12:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment from IP

message: My comment is about the article about the black stone.
I happen to be Muslim, and i happen to trust and respect (those words may be used in the past tense after seeing your reply) Wiki enough that when i wanted to do some research on my own religion, i clicked on Wiki to find out about the black stone and its history in my religion.
As i scroll down the page what do i see but a picture of our prophet (pbuh) who we Muslims hold in extremely high regard.
There is the common sense fact that 98.5% of people looking at the page must be Muslim in the first place, i say this as i am unaware of the name or existence of any jewish relic of some sort or christian relic which can be compared to the stone in order that i would be inclined to search for information on it, therefore i cant suddenly imagine hundreds or thousands of non-Muslim people to suddenly realise that there is a black stone in the Kaaba in Mecca and look it up on Wikipedia. 
You are aware of the public problems caused by this type of action and what a stir the subject of pictures of the prophet (pbuh) creates, whilst i do not condone any of the extreme actions taken by some over the matter, i would definitely consider editing/taking the picture down and informing you of what you are doing by leaving it there.  
It is very very insulting to Muslims for somebody to draw an image of our prophet (pbuh) you must understand, and ultimately, the picture serves absolutely no purpose in that it adds any value to the description of the stone or the article. 
If you are to weigh up its purpose for being there, against the insult that is definitely caused to some people that see it, you would realise that it is clearly not sensible to put such a thing up.
By leaving the picture up you are trying to say 'look at me, i am protecting the idea of free speech which nobody can take away from me and leaving this image on the page serves as a testimony to the fact' when in fact, you are just insulting people for no purpose whatsoever, and saying 'hey look at me, in the guise of, or me thinking that i am, protecting editorial integrity itself and the idea of free speech, i am insulting a vast number of people by placing an image in an article that adds arguably zero value to the article, and is not and never was a critical part of the subject of the article' 
Please leave it off the page...
peace and love
I CANT BELIEVE IT, you have done the same thing in the article about the 'Kaaba' (my comments were about seeing the picture in the article about 'The black stone') and placed the picture there too.
Now it is very obvious that you are just putting it up there to insult.
::Read this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Images of Muhammad. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Black Stone 

message: The article Chandragupta II claims "Vikramaditya inscription found in the Kaaba in Mecca proving beyond doubt that the Arabian Peninsula formed a part of his Indian Empire", giving page 315 of Sayar-ul-Okul as a reference. To me, the entire para about Vikramaditya's supposed inscription the Kaaba seems to be pesudohistorical junk. There seems to be no reliable source for this -- only fringe theories on unreliable websites. I wanted to delete the entire text straightaway, but thought of consulting someone more knowledgeable about Kaaba. Any inputs? utcursch | talk 15:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just googled a little bit and realized that it's a theory put forward by infamous pseudohistorian Purushottam Nagesh Oak, which means it's junk. Deleted the entire para from the article. utcursch | talk 15:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've read he has similar theories on the StoneHenge being a Hindu temple and Christianity being "a mal-pronunciation of the Sanskrit term Chrisn-nity also spelled as Krishna-neeti" and that the Papacy was "a Vedic priesthood" until Constantine the Great killed the Vedic pope to replace him with the head of the hitherto unimportant Christian sect. Can't find those sources now, but just shows the lengths to which pseudohistorical junk can stretch.NMKuttiady (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chandragupta II 

message: In my book A History Of The Middle East, second edition, by Peter Mansfield. Page 41.
This section is about the Ibn Abd al-Wahhab and his warriors.
They then turned westwards and in 1806 took the Hejaz with the Islamic holy places of Mecca and Medina. They destroyed many of the saints' and tombs and stripped the Kaaba - Islam's holiest shrine, in the Mecca Great Mosque - of its ornaments, which outraged their fierce puritanism
Is this true? What ornaments did they remove?
Velle (talk) 01:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of ornaments by al-Wahhab 

message: Below the heading Black Stone are five images and a video. The first two images relate to the Black Stone, but the amount of text is so small that in a typical browsing window, the second images displays alongside the section headed In the Qur'an even though it has nothing to do with the Qur'an. The next three pictures are historical, relating to the 17th century, 1880, and 1910. The video is 20th or 21st century. These three images and video display alongside sections headed After Abraham and Ishmael and Before Muhammad. It would be better if these images were moved to a different section of the article, perhaps a to-be-written section History (17th century–present. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image placement in article 

message: The PDF for "A Reply to Patricia Crone" is fairly easy to find, but I can find no other mention or reference to the alleged author after searching the KAU website, JStor, and Google Scholar, nor can I find many of the mentioned references (some don't even line up, such as the reference to Book 23 VI:47 in Ammianus' Roman History, but I'm going to assume my own illteracy here as I had to get the citation from Crone's book), let alone any other publications.
The only external reference I have found is a student asking for the author's contact information in the KAU facebook group in order to cite the reply (with the subsequent claim that the reference had been removed from wiki because of a lack of notability)
Can anyone more learned in this matter comment?
Barakitty (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al-Roubi Reference 

message: An image used in this article, File:Blackstone.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Blackstone.JPG)
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Blackstone.JPG Nominated for Deletion

message: this:
a man named "Amr bin Lahyo bin Harath bin Amr ul-Qais bin Thalaba bin Azd bin Khalan bin Babalyun bin Saba",  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.76.50 (talk) 05:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  impossibly long name with no cited source? 

message: Just to touch a recent edit. It is actually easy, because many pray mats have a compass built in. Every Android and Ipad tablet has a Qibla compass which shows you where to pray. Every mosque built on Earth (big statement). Is built with its "alter" to face the Kaba. Ascertaining The Qibla is an obligatory aspect of Salaat. So it is not an exaggeration to say that all Muslims face the Kaba when they pray.
:How about "most Muslims around the world..."? I'd say "All Muslims [X]" is always an exaggeration, unless [X] is "are Muslim". --Allen (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The key variable is Muslims who pray, face the Kaaba.  I dont think it is most, it would be all. I am unaware of any Muslim who prays and faces the North Pole, or any random place. --Inayity (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: We cannot verify this thus we can't say it. That's the way Wikipedia works. Please read WP:VERIFY. Dougweller (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with that, but it can be written in a way that is accurate, To say Most suggest that some dont-- which is also invalid. It might be better to say are expected to. I dont know. On a side note the film Pitch Black shows Muslims on that alien planet where facing Kaaba was impossible. So they faced in a circle. (i just thought I would bring that up for no good reason other than to share).Kaaba, and many books will confirm this --Inayity (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "Are expected to" is fine. Thanks for the suggestion. It's better than 'most'. Dougweller (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just to resurrect this, I am sure that at times Muslims that prayed did not know for sure where the Kaaba was relative to their current location, so they had to use their best guess. Tablets and GPS are relatively new, and not everyone has access to them. There are also the cases of, say, a ship wrecked sailor, who would have neither of those, and would make their best guess . Also, to be fair, facing Kaaba is *infinitely* harder than the Christian practice of *not* facing a special direction, but that's due to a divide by zero issue :-) 134.161.227.70 (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facing Kaaba is not that hard and part of the ritual of pray 

message: According to Wikipedia, since 1985 95% of historic buildings in Mecca have been destroyed. To quote: "Wahhabism, is hostile to any reverence given to historical or religious places of significance for fear that it may give rise to idolatry".  Is it also intended to demolish the Kaaba?203.184.41.226 (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demolition? 

message: The article has a shocking lack of definite, prominent information on which the actually extant black structure was built.  Near as I can tell, based on a single sentence, the answer is 1629.  You'd think that information would be a lot more prominent in the article (maybe in the infobox or something).  --Cyde Weys 15:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire, p. 354 (Google Books, search "1630"): "In 1630, however, a freak flood inundated the Great Mosque and caused great structural damage to the Kaaba. This required the direct intervention of sultan Murad IV... who sent workmen from Egypt to carefully restore the mosque". According to German Wikipedia (through Google Translate, accessed on 2013-10-24): "After 1630, the Kaaba was badly damaged in a flood, that they threatened to collapse, prompting the Ottoman Sultan Murad IV in the same year a new building. [5] The present building dates from this period.". According to a blog in French (same remark): "In the year 1630, the northwest wall of the Kaba was damaged by a great flood. Sultan Muraad ordered its demolition and rebuilt according to the model of Quraysh and using the original stones. Since no one has changed its model drastically. Only minor renovations have taken place. This is the Kaba that exists today." --Alekol (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  When was the present structure actually built? 

message: Islam has 1.5 billion people why is the lead about Islam referencing a Jewish site? In the body, with other ref to other religions then fair-is fair. But It looks very suspect reading about an Islamic Holy cite special to 1.5 billion people and needs to be "made sense of" by comparing it to another faith. It would make more sense to compare to Christianity. Why is it there in the first place?  And if this was a Jewish page I would argue Judaism does not need Islam in its lead to justify or explain Judaism. I have had their attitude across wikipedia since i have been here. African traditional religions do not need Islam and Christianity in there first line to be valid. You can also see i deleted it from there also. I have no problem with it in the body, but not the first line of the lead.  --Inayity (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a comparative religion page 

message: Time to open this old chestnut again, I think we should stick to a standardised spelling of Kaaba in this article. There seem to be about four variations used including Kaaba (the article title), Caaba, Ka'ba and Ka'aba. I think we should stick to a singular spelling, namely 'Kaaba' as it is the article title and the most common variant currently in use in the article. I believe exceptions should be made for when the alternate spellings are used within quotes as would be standard practice with quotes elsewhere on Wikipedia. If there are no serious objections I will make this change.IrishStephen (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As it has been more than two days with no objections I will make the change to a standardised spelling that I mentioned above. IrishStephen (talk) 03:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you IrishStephen for the standardization. Unfortunately, most of the Arabic names doesn't have a standard transliteration in English. So as you suggest, if a word doesn't have a standard transliteration in English then we should use Wikipedia article name on that subject, if exist. For example if the article name is Kaaba, then all words refer to there should be Kaaba in the Article. Not Qaaba, Qabah, Kabah, Kaabah etc.. I also want to add, similarly, Wikipedia transliterates the city where Kaaba is in as Mecca. So we should stick on this name. If anybody believe that "i.e. Mecca" is a wrong transliteration then they should discuss that issue on that page before making a change here. Thank you.Yakamoz51 (talk) 10:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:   is al-k-ain-bah. The ain is the problem. Really no way to show it in English script. PiCo (talk) 05:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardised spelling. 

message: Taking something to WP:RSN should always be mentioned on the article's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 08:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now at RSN 

message: The Kaaba because of its recessed roof is NOT a true cuboid, therefore, I changed its description to "cuboid-like building". I also added "four-sided Kaaba" to emphasize the importance of how its 4 corners are aligned with the 4 Cardinal points. - Ben Franklin 75.74.180.52 (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Cuboid-like" / "four-sided Kaaba" emphasizes 4 Corners pointing to 4 Cardinal directions 

message: Allah is the Arabic name for the One GOD, so I added "One GOD" (Allah)" - Benjamin Franklin 75.74.180.52 (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "One GOD (Allah)" 

message: Muhammad is the correct spelling of the prophet's name due to its gematria (Abjad numerals/hisab al-jummal). - Ben Franklin 75.74.180.52 (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muhammad is the correct spelling of the prophet's name due to its gematria (Abjad numerals/hisab al-jummal)