Talk:Kaaba/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Typography error?

The typography of "Al-Ħajaru al-Aswad, "the Black Stone"" in the first line of Kaaba#Architecture_and_interior seems to be odd. As I am not Muslim nor an Arabic speaker, I can't know whether this is intentional or not, but it is a transliteration I'm unfamiliar with outside of Cyrillic. The direct site for Black Stone has no usage of that H with stroke, but instead uses "al-Ḥajar" with the dot underneath. It seems like it should probably be changed to be "al-Ḥajar" (as in the Black Stone article) instead of "Al-Ħajaru" like it currently exists here. Romanization_of_Arabic#Comparison_table seems to suggest the dot underneath, and that the line through the H is a "capitalized" attempt at using the International Phonetic Alphabet to denote the Voiceless pharyngeal fricative. Someone more familiar with Arabic-to-English transliterations could verify. 00:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)~Bush6984

The station of Gabriel

The diagram image key includes "14: The station of Gabriel", which is not actually present in the diagram. No explanation is given in the article, although there is a note: "Key to numbered parts translated from, accessed 2 December". I believe the note refers to the whole section. Any idea what this is or if it should be there? LordQwert (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Further searches lead me to believe the "Station of Gabriel" has no verifiable source or meaning. The list presented in the article seems to be copied from previous lists, which also include the "Station of Gabriel" entry without explanation. I can find no other positive references describing, explaining, or verifying the purported station. I'm going to remove the item from the list. LordQwert (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Idol Anxiety reliable source

Yuunus27 removed two sources in this edit which they also tagged as WP:MINOR. The reasoning was that not a credible resource. I disagree as the first is by a university publication and the second is by a subject matter expert. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Keys

According to Sacred Relics (Topkapı Palace), the items in the Şadırvanlı Sofa include keys to the Kaaba.

Should this also be mentioned in this article? Andrewa (talk) 08:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kaaba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Interior

I think the article should address the following about the interior: Who has access to the interior and when? Are ceremonies held inside and what are they? What is used to get up to the high doors (i.e., ladder, ramp, staircase)? Are photographs or other illustrations allowed? Can any be shown on the page? WikiParker (talk)

@WikiParker: The interior is accessible through a locked door, but these are only open twice a year if I'm correct. Images of the interior being in the public domain are something I doubt, but if we speak to someone extremely knowledgeable about the fair use criteria barriers, then perhaps we could include it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Modern views In Islamic traditional views on origin?

The last paragraph contained views of Karen Armstrong except parts of claims based on Ibn Ishaq. However some of the views of Armstrong do not mention her info from any Islamic traditional sources on anything that can be construed what is only from Islamic view. User:Debresser reverted my edit in which I had moved it. I moved it without explaining so sorry for that. As there are other views besides that of Armstrong, like of Uri Rubin, Winfried Corduan etc I've added them as well. However Armstrong's view and pf all others not directly from any Islamic sources should be shifted to modern independent views. 169.149.143.147 (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done It has been restored to the correct location. Debresser (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I definitely agree. Unless what the authors says came from a medieval Muslim religious source, it should be separate. 59.89.41.170 (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Scientific perspective

The below section was added to the article, and I removed it because I think it misrepresents 'science'. I don't think there is any science which supports the view, but it is rather a religious view. I think saying it is a scientific perspective is erroneous. What do other people think?

There are views that Kaaba is the centre of the earth.[1] As per some scientific perspective it is said to be 'the centre around which the earth's centre goes every lunar month'. [2] It is also called the 'bary centre' on which earth monthly wobble.

  • This ought to be removed. The first source is published by the self-publishing company AuthorHouse and the second by Sarala Malla, which is really similar to the author Hari Narayan Malla, so that reeks of self-publishing too. If we would allow such sources, anyone can put anything on Wikipedia, saying: "but hey, it's true, it is published in this book." No, we should take care that sources have had fact-checking done by a reputable publisher. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ [1]; Open your eyes, by:Ansar Khan Open your eyes, p.35
  2. ^ The Confluence of Religions: A Scientific Perspective; p.32; Author: Hari Narayan Malla [ https://books.google.com/books?isbn=9993379107]; p.32
From an astronomical and geographical point of view the claim is rubbish. The barycentre of the earth-moon system varies during the course of the day and the lunar month. AstroLynx (talk) 08:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kaaba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Why a section about Ptolemy?

Why is there a section about Ptolemy in the article? It doesn't mention the Kaaba at all, treating only the Macoraba vs. Mecca problem, which is off-topic for this article. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Will remove if no one objects. Capitals00 (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Lexicology

Why the removal of sourced text? Is inviolable a better translation of muharram than consecrated? Not sure why Karen Armstrong counts as an original Islamic source though, could be safely moved to contemporary views. Ibn Ishaq on the other hand is incontrovertibly ancient and Islamic.Cpsoper (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Interior walls longer than exterior?

with sides measuring 11.03 m (36.2 ft) by 12.86 m (42.2 ft).

The interior walls, measuring 13 m (43 ft) by 9 m (30 ft),

Interior walls longer than exterior? Jidanni (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

No Christian equivalents?

Christiany is objectively a more popular religion worldwide than Judaism. Why provide equivalents from Judaism, a religion few know about than to provide examples from Christianity? This stinks of someone trying to spark more hostility online between Muslims and Jews. ("hehe you guys have a relic you bow down to. well guess what, WE HAVE ONE TOO! OUR RELIGIONS ARE BASICALLY THE SAME!"). 95.169.230.47 (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2020

Update pilgrimage statistics at the end of the second paragraph to 2019 as they are outdated. Updated statistics can be found here: https://www.stats.gov.sa/en/28 CH2022 (talk) 13:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done Although I retained the 2017 numbers as a useful point of comparison. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Arabic script in lede

Resolved

Could editors knowledgeable in correct use of Arabic script please examine this change and determine if it is correct? א. א. אינסטלציה and LissanX seem to have different interpretations and this is a very sensitive article. Per the normal editing cycle, it is now time for discussion and an edit war would benefit no-one. Thanks in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

There is no Hamzah in the Arabic prefix 'al-' (Arabic: الـ). It can only be written with a regular Alif (ا), or with an Alif al-Wasl (ٱ) if written with full diacritics (i.e. ٱلْـ). User א. א. אינסטלציה apparently doesn’t actually know Arabic so he’s vandalizing the page with his own POV spelling that doesn’t exist anywhere except in his own head. — LissanX (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
there is no wasla in the beginning of a sentence, an Arabic sentence cannot start with a sukun. ال ٱلتعريف is written with a hamza in the beginning of a sentence and with a waṣla in all other places. א. א. אינסטלציה (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
א. א. אינסטלציה do not edit war. While this talk page discussion is open, you should not be attempting to revert the article to force your changes into place. Waiting half a day and then making your same change, which has been disputed on accuracy grounds, is not a good-faith effort to find a solution. Continuing to edit war on this article will certainly result in reporting of your actions and may result in sanctions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
א. א. אינסטלציה Your statement just exposes that you have absolutely no idea what a Waslah even is. A Waslah is not Sakin (i.e. is not a letter with a Sukun), a Waslah is added when the word begins with a Sukun (e.g. لْـ, سْم, لْعَنْ, etc) to act as a liaison carrying a vowel to begin the word (i.e. ٱلْـ, ٱسْم, ٱلْعَنْ, etc). When at the beginning of a verb that starts with a Sukun, the Waslah is read as a Kasrah if the next vowel is a Fathah or a Kasrah (e.g. نْفِجَار [nfijār] → ٱنْفِجَار [infijār]); if the next vowel is a Dhammah then the Waslah is also pronounced with a Dhammah (e.g. خْرُجْ [khruj] → ٱخْرُجْ [ukhruj]). That’s how pronunciation is known – you actually have to know Arabic. The only time a Waslah is silent is when it is preceded by a vowel from a preceding word, which replaces the vowel of the Waslah. Even then, it does not have a Sukun, it doesn’t have anything. For those who don’t have this basic knowledge (i.e. non-Arabic speakers), sometimes a regular Alif (i.e. ا) is added with a Harakah instead of the Waslah (i.e. ٱخْرُجْ to اُخْرُجْ; and ٱنْفِجَار to اِنْفِجَار). This method is not proper Arabic, but is used for the reason noted above. It is never written with an Alif al-Qat' (i.e. أ). The only people who would ever write it as such are people who don’t have any basic understanding of Arabic and learned their semi-literate Arabic from quacks who themselves usually only know broken Arabic as a second language. There is also no such thing as "ال ٱلتعريف" (al- at-ta'rīf), it’s called a "لام ٱلتعريف" (lām at-ta'rīf) because Lām (لـ) is the only letter that’s part of the prefix and the Alif is a liaison (i.e. Waslah). No literate person spells it with a Hamzated Alif like you do.
Examples:

حَدَّثَنِي الْحَكَمُ بْنُ مُوسَى الْقَنْطَرِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا شُعَيْبُ بْنُ إِسْحَاقَ، عَنْ هِشَامِ بْنِ عُرْوَةَ، عَنْ عُرْوَةَ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، قَالَتْ طَافَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فِي حَجَّةِ الْوَدَاعِ حَوْلَ الْكَعْبَةِ عَلَى بَعِيرِهِ يَسْتَلِمُ الرُّكْنَ كَرَاهِيَةَ أَنْ يُضْرَبَ عَنْهُ النَّاسُ ‏.‏

وَحَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ أَبِي بَكْرٍ الْمُقَدَّمِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ عُلَيَّةَ، وَحَمَّادُ بْنُ زَيْدٍ، ح وَحَدَّثَنَا قُتَيْبَةُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا حَمَّادُ بْنُ زَيْدٍ، ح وَحَدَّثَنَا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ، وَزُهَيْرُ بْنُ حَرْبٍ، - وَاللَّفْظُ لَهُمَا - قَالاَ حَدَّثَنَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ ابْنُ عُلَيَّةَ، عَنْ أَيُّوبَ، عَنْ مُحَمَّدٍ، عَنْ عَبِيدَةَ، عَنْ عَلِيٍّ، قَالَ ذَكَرَ الْخَوَارِجَ فَقَالَ فِيهِمْ رَجُلٌ مُخْدَجُ الْيَدِ - أَوْ مُودَنُ الْيَدِ أَوْ مَثْدُونُ الْيَدِ - لَوْلاَ أَنْ تَبْطَرُوا لَحَدَّثْتُكُمْ بِمَا وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ يَقْتُلُونَهُمْ عَلَى لِسَانِ مُحَمَّدٍ صلى الله عليه وسلم - قَالَ - قُلْتُ آنْتَ سَمِعْتَهُ مِنْ مُحَمَّدٍ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ إِي وَرَبِّ الْكَعْبَةِ إِي وَرَبِّ الْكَعْبَةِ إِي وَرَبِّ الْكَعْبَةِ ‏.‏

أَخْبَرَنَا يُوسُفُ بْنُ عِيسَى، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا الْفَضْلُ بْنُ مُوسَى، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا مِسْعَرٌ، عَنْ مَعْبَدِ بْنِ خَالِدٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ يَسَارٍ، عَنْ قُتَيْلَةَ، - امْرَأَةٌ مِنْ جُهَيْنَةَ - أَنَّ يَهُودِيًّا، أَتَى النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقَالَ إِنَّكُمْ تُنَدِّدُونَ وَإِنَّكُمْ تُشْرِكُونَ تَقُولُونَ مَا شَاءَ اللَّهُ وَشِئْتَ وَتَقُولُونَ وَالْكَعْبَةِ ‏.‏ فَأَمَرَهُمُ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم إِذَا أَرَادُوا أَنْ يَحْلِفُوا أَنْ يَقُولُوا ‏"وَرَبِّ الْكَعْبَةِ "‏‏.‏ وَيَقُولُونَ ‏"‏ مَا شَاءَ اللَّهُ ثُمَّ شِئْتَ ‏"‏ ‏.‏

If you’re going to respond with the incorrect argument "that’s because it’s in the middle of a sentence and not at the start", I’ll gladly prove you wrong. — LissanX (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
From Wikipedia: "alif carrying the waṣla sign (ٱ) [...] occurs only at the beginning of a word that is not initial in a word group, or the beginning of a word following a prefixed preposition or conjunction." you do not put a wasla on the first word of a sentence! א. א. אינסטלציה (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
@AA Plumber:, if you're using Wikipedia as a source for how to format Arabic script, and LissanX can read it this well and (more importantly) post a scholarly analysis of the glyphs, perhaps it's time to admit she might be more knowledgeable about the subject than you? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
I know Arabic and in non of the texts I have ever seen an alif foth a waṣla at the beginning of a sentence! ألكعبة ٱلمشرفة א. א. אינסטלציה (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Yet you haven't demonstrated the depth of knowledge that LissanX has. To make an analogy, I know Russian but I wouldn't expect you to favor my translation of Tolstoy over Garnett's unless I could actually show you the shortcomings of hers. You haven't said anything other than "I know I'm right" this whole time. Content disputes are never settled by "I know I'm right." They are settled by sources and policies. The relevant policy here is the No Original Research policy, which is one of our Core Content Policies. Verifiability is part of NOR. You haven't provided any support or sources or other evidence for your interpretation of the use of this waslah other than your own knowledge. That's original research and that's unverifiable. Other editors can't take out your brain and look at it to verify you've never seen this usage before, after all. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Eggishorn in addition to this, nothing he has posted even from Wikipedia sources state that it is written with a Hamzah, only that it is not written with a Waslah. I’ve already indicated in my post above that some write it with a regular Alif (i.e. ا), and explicitly that it is never written with a Hamzated Alif (i.e. أ). — LissanX (talk) 01:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

So if I can summarize: there's one glyph that is at issue. א. א. אינסטלציה has looked at it and decided it is a waslah, which is improper in that position. LissanX has said, "No, that's not a waslah it's a hamzah or sometimes an alif." Could one of you post, maybe, something like ad official source? I think if we use these glyphs the same way, say, the Saudi government does, then we know what is correct. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Not exactly. I would summarize it as this: there's one glyph that is at issue – the initial Alif. There are three kinds of Alifs which are in discussion here: 1) A regular Alif (ا), an Alif al-Wasl aka Waslah (ٱ), and 3) an Alif al-Qat' aka Hamzated Alif (أ). User א. א. אינסטלציה has looked at it and decided it is a waslah, and has that it is improper in that position, instead insisting on a Hamzated Alif. LissanX has looked at it and also decided it is a waslah, and has said it is proper in that position. LissanX also stated that sometimes a regular Alif is also used, although that is not exactly correct, but a Hamzated Alif is never used.
Regarding official government sources, it is extremely rare for a state source to issue fully vocalized texts. The word used in this article, for example, would normally be written الكعبة in state documents – without any diacritics. However, if the Alif was in fact a Hamzated Alif, then those same state sources would write the word as ألكعبة, which it absolutely never has been. This, at the very least, proves that א. א. אינסטלציה’s spelling is incorrect. The only issue that remains is whether to use a Waslah or a regular Alif (i.e. ا vs ٱ). In sources which are fully vocalized and do have Waslahs in places where everyone agrees they are appropriate (i.e. in the middle of a sentence), they are usually also written at the beginning of a sentence.
Examples:

۝ بِسْمِ ٱللَّهِ ٱلرَّحْمَٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ؞ ۝ ٱلْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ ٱلْعَالَمِينَ ؞ ۝ ٱلرَّحْمَٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ؞

- Quran, Surah al-Fatihah (1), Ayahs 1-3.

Note that ۝ indicates the beginning of a verse and ؞ indicates the end of a verse. As you can see, words starting at the beginning of a sentence are also written with a Waslah.
In other parts where a period (ۘ) is used in the middle of a verse, a Waslah is still used in the first word after the period.

۝ ٱلَّذِينَ آتَيْنَاهُمُ ٱلْكِتَابَ يَعْرِفُونَهُۥ كَمَا يَعْرِفُونَ أَبْنَآءَهُمُ ۘ ٱلَّذِينَ خَسِرُوٓا۟ أَنفُسَهُمْ فَهُمْ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ ؞ - Quran, Surah al-An'am (6), Ayah 20.

۝ وَإِذَا جَآءَتْهُمْ آيَةٌۭ قَالُوا۟ لَن نُّؤْمِنَ حَتَّىٰ نُؤْتَىٰ مِثْلَ مَآ أُوتِيَرُسُلُ ٱللَّهِ ۘ ٱللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ حَيْثُ يَجْعَلُ رِسَالَتَهُۥ ۗ سَيُصِيبُ ٱلَّذِينَ أَجْرَمُوا۟ صَغَارٌ عِندَ ٱللَّهِ وَعَذَابٌۭ شَدِيدٌۢ بِمَا كَانُوا۟ يَمْكُرُونَ ؞ - Quran, Surah al-An'am (6), Ayah 124.

Official government websites also do the same. For example, this Iranian state website of the Arab province of Khuzistan uses a Waslah to start several sentences.

ٱلصَّلَاةُ خَيْرٌ مِنَ ٱلنَّوْمِ

— LissanX (talk) 03:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@Eggishorn: it’s been almost a week now, I think we should change the Arabic spelling in the lede. — LissanX (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
@LissanX:, I agree. There's been more than enough time for any other interested editor to object to your proposal and no-one has. I suggest you go ahead and make the change whenever you get a chance. Thanks for all your expertise. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
My pleasure, thanks for your contributions. — LissanX (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Architecture and interior

Para 1 gives internal and external dimensions - and the internal are greater than the external. See Jidanni's unanswered post from 7 March 2019. From the plan below the annotated diagram, the dimensions are as below.

Dimensions Length Length Breadth Breadth
Face SW NE SE NW
Gutter 13.16 12.84 11.53 11.28
External 12.04 11.68 10.18 —
Internal 10.15 9.9 8.24 8.0

Ref. [8] gives dimensions of 12 m x 10.5 m x 15 m (L x W x H). The 12 m tallies well with the 12.04 above, but the 10.5 is significantly greater than the 10.18 figure.
Ref. [9] gives dimensions of 12 m x 10 m x 15 m (40' x 33' x 50') which is better accord with the external dimensions above.
Both refs give a height of 15 m, which is much more than the 13.1 m (43 ft) or (some claim 12.03 m (39.5 ft)) in para 1. [Note that 12.03 m may be an internal measurement. From the annotated diagram, there seems to be a parapet, but its height is not specified, nor is the thickness of the ceiling and roof; we know only that they're of teak capped with stainless steel. However, 12 m is a difference of 3 m from the 15 m height in refs [8] and [9]; even allowing for a parapet 1.5 m high, it's unlikely that the roof and ceiling would have a thickness of 1.5 m.]
Para 1 therefore should be amended as below (using only one decimal place, because it's inconsistent to have some measurements to two decimal places, and two to one decimal place). Note that I have interpolated a measurement of 9.9 m for the external NW face; I used the average wall thickness of the other three measurements and applied it to the 8 m measurement.

It is an irregular oblong approximately 15 m (50 ft) high. Its longer sides measure 12.0 m (39.5 ft) and 11.7 m (38.3 ft), and its shorter sides measure 10.2 m (33.4 ft) and about 9.9 m (32.4 ft).[8][9]. The longer interior walls measure 10.2 m (33.3 ft) and 9.9 m (32.5 ft), and the shorter walls are 8.2 m (27 ft) and 8.0 m (26.2 ft). The interior walls are tiled with white marble halfway to the roof, with darker trimmings along the floor. The floor is made of marble and limestone and stands about 2.2 m (7.2 ft) above the ground area where Tawaf is performed.

Para 2 mentions the golden door - bāb al-tawbah (also romanized as Baabut Taubah) - but item 11 refers to Babut Taubah. Is consistency possible?
Para 3 lists 13 items that are identified in the annotated diagram at the right — but the diagram shows 14 items! What is the 14th? The details of the diagram give it as "the station of Gabriel".

Item 1 mentions the four corners — but in subsequent items there are differences:
Corner Descriptor Arabic Item no. Arabic Direction
Eastern Black stone Al-Ḥajaru al-Aswad 8 East
Northern Iraqi Ruknu l-ˤĪrāqī 11 NE
Western Levantine Ruknu sh-Shāmī 10 Rukn e Shaami NW
Southern Yemeni Ruknu l-Yamanī 9 Rukan e Yamani SW

  1. Is it possible for the Arabic nomenclature to be consistent?
  2. With a near-rectangular footprint, it's not possible for one corner to be pointing eastwards, and the others NE, SW and NW! North, south, and west seem to be more correct than NE, SW, and NW.
  3. Item 10 mentions Syria, not the Levant. The details of the annotated diagram refer to it as "the corner of Syria".
  4. The order of items 8 to 11 is E, S, W, N. As it's easier to rearrange text than to rejig an annotated diagram, can item 1 be reworded in the same order as items 8 to 11? That is,
Al-Ḥajaru al-Aswad, "the Black Stone", is located on the Kaaba's eastern corner. As taught by Imam Ali, the southern corner is Ruknu l-Yamanī, "the Yemeni corner"; the western corner is Ruknu sh-Shāmī, "the Syrian corner", and the northern corner is Ruknu l-ˤĪrāqī, "the Iraqi corner".
The table thus becomes
Corner Descriptor Arabic Item no. Arabic Direction
Eastern Black stone Al-Ḥajaru al-Aswad 8 E
Southern Yemeni Ruknu l-Yamanī 9 Rukan e Yamani S
Western Syrian Ruknu sh-Shāmī 10 Rukn e Shaami W
Northern Iraqi Ruknu l-ˤĪrāqī 11 N

5. Item 7 mentions " ... Abraham's feet" - but then refers to him as Ibrahim. Maybe reword the sentence thus: " ... an imprint of the feet of Ibrahim (Abraham)."?
6. Item 12 refers to "Kiswah" and "kiswa" ... which is it?
7. The plan below the annotated diagram shows measurements along the centreline of 2 x 2.35 m and 2 x 1.75 m, i.e. 8.2 m. If we assume a length of 10 m (10.15 m along the longer wall, and 9.9 along the shorter wall), the difference is 1.8 m, making the base of each pillar 600 mm square. Maybe this dimension could be added?

Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 09:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Is the Kaaba a mosque?

There is a discussion on Talk:Conversion_of_non-Islamic_places_of_worship_into_mosques#The_Ka'aba concerning whether the Kaaba should be included in that article. Everyone is welcome to join the discussion. M.Bitton (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Tawaf merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Due to a lack of discussion, I am moving forward with the merger. AccordingClass (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I propose the merger of Tawaf into Kaaba. The Tawaf article is especially short (~5,000 bytes) compared to the ~50,000 bytes of the Kaaba and I think Tawaf can easily be explained in this article, similar to Sa'ee, which redirects to Safa and Marwa, a ~10,000-byte article of which ~3,000 is dedicated to explaining Sa'ee to the reader. --AccordingClass (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why was my edit linking the Wikipedia article on the Asatir reverted?

In this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kaaba&oldid=974908094 , I added a link to Wikipedia's article on The Asatir in this sentence:

"In Samaritan literature, the Samaritan Book of the Secrets of Moses (Asatir) claims that Ishmael and his eldest son Nebaioth built the Kaaba as well as the city of Mecca."

A few hours later, it was reverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kaaba&oldid=975000725

I don't see an obvious reason why it was reverted. The link appears to have functioned correctly, and I think it's useful - I linked it because I was reading the article and wanted more information about the Asatir, wondered if the lack of a link meant there was no Wikipedia article, found that there was an article and thought it would be useful to another reader like me if it were linked.

Is there a policy I'm unaware of why that actually shouldn't be linked? Steorra (talk) 06:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Whatever the merits, reversion should not have been done without any explanation. Even blatant vandalism gets an rvv edit note. So I have reinstated your edit. It may still get removed but only on production of a justification.
Obvious issues I can see with your contribution is that (a) you have used the loaded word "claimed" and (b, more importantly) you have not cited any source. Material about a sensitive subject like this must have very high standards of evidence. So please rectify both issues urgently. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
On second thoughts, "claimed" actually does seem appropriate. So it leads me to a new question: does inclusion of the Samaritan claim meet the wp:undue standard? I can see Islamic scholars considering the claim to be profane. Is there any other evidence to support the Samaritan claim? Is it evidence that cultural appropriation is not a new thing?
So I suggest what is really needed now is a proper wp:Bold, revert, discussion on whether the Samaritan claim merits including at all: and if it does, where should it go. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. And that sounds reasonable. I don't think I have much to contribute on the content of the sentence, though - I didn't add or change the text of the sentence in question, I only added a wikilink (which is why I was so surprised when it was reverted). Steorra (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Spam link

Could someone with editing access delete the spam link in the ‘Architecture and interior’ section? This links to an external site selling plans for a 3D print. see, [2]. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:8E86:F400:8CE6:9A6D:42EC:6AB4 (talk) 13:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for this report. For now, I have moved it [and the Google Maps links] out of the body (where it should never have been per policy WP:embedded link) and into 'external links'. I think that a few more opinions are needed on whether it should be deleted outright. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Could you advise why you consider any debate is needed? It’s clearly a link to a commercial site, and to promote sales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:8E86:F400:8CE6:9A6D:42EC:6AB4 (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
your accidental "indivisible" didn't help! :-)
I had a very brief look and it seemed to be what it says: a 3D-imaging visualisation. The problem is this: if we kick that one out, how do we defend keeping Google Maps? (IMO, because Google is showing reality). So I would prefer at least one second opinion. I am just an ordinary contributor like you, the only difference is that I have registered for a user name and been here a while. If another editor agrees, out it goes. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
As no-one has defended this link, I will delete it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
The Google Street View was actually a user-created digital chimera, not a real photograph of the interior. So I deleted that too, per WP:NOR. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
I deleted some more. Popular articles often attract external links which are unreliable or otherwise useless. The webcam link is also dead and I cannot find a substitute from an RS, so I marked it as dead. As for the picture of the door, I left it in despite my better judgement. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 21:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Inside

I am completely ignorant about this structure, so I have to tell you, while reading, my burning question is why are there no photos of the interior? Surely these millions of people passing through it every year must take a picture? Then I began to wonder, after mention of the steps and the cleaning, that maybe regular folks don't get to go inside. This really needs to be mentioned in the article, you can't make assumptions as to what people know. StarHOG (Talk) 18:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree, the article would benefit hugely from photographs of the interior. There are photos on the internet, but of course we would need ones that meet our criteria for use. DuncanHill (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Italic title

Pinging John Maynard Friedman on this since he seems to be the main active editor on these articles: Is there any consensus or convention for having the title in italics? I can't find another religious building article with an italic title, even for ones like Parthenon and Taj Mahal. IronManCap (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@IronManCap: I can't see a good reason either. MOS:ITALICS doesn't say it should or should not, though non-English words are often rendered in italic via {{lang}} (using the ''xyz'' technique is deprecated because screen readers don't 'see' it as significant). The fact that most other transliterations of building and place names use 'regular' type suggests to me that it is not normal and is a kind of scare quotes: I suggest that you wp:be bold and see who complains.
BTW, I am not familiar with the topic: my editing has mainly been to keep the text culturally neutral. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the opinion. I will go ahead with the WP:BOLD change and see if anyone objects. IronManCap (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I assume this was classed as a "major work of art" per MOS:ITALIC. I believe it should be treated more as an article about a religious building. IronManCap (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2021

Change: However, by the time of Muhammad's era, it seems that the Kaaba was venerated as the shrine of Allah, the High God. Once a year, tribes from all around the Arabian Peninsula, whether Christian or pagan, would converge on Mecca to perform the Hajj pilgrimage, marking the widespread conviction that Allah was the same deity worshipped by monotheists.

To: However, by the time of Muhammad's era, it seems that the Kaaba was venerated as the shrine of Allah, the High God. Once a year, tribes from all around the Arabian Peninsula would converge on Mecca to perform the Hajj pilgrimage, which was a mark of the widespread conviction that Allah was the same deity worshipped by monotheists. At this time the Muslims would perform the Salat prayer facing Jerusalem, as instructed by Muhammad, and turning their backs on the pagan associations of the Kabah. Mkneubert (talk) 11:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Pre-Islamic in lead

Need a mention in the lead that the Kaba is a pre-Islamic structure and place of worship, which was desecrated by Mohammad eg. by destroying 360 idols, before being taken over for Muslim use. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Second best thing, I have added it in the infobox. Ip says: Work Better yes. (talk) 14:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Name of Prophet Ibrahim's Wife.

The Name of the wife of Prophet Hazrat Ibrahim AS, is Hazrat Hajra AS (ہاجرہ) not hajar ATFSKETCHING (talk) 05:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The text as it stand is taken from the article Hagar in Islam which reads:
Hājar's name in Arabic calligraphy.

Hājar (Arabic: هَاجَر), known as Hagar in the Hebrew Bible, was the wife of the patriarch and Islamic prophet Ibrāhīm (Abraham) and the mother of Ismā'īl (Ishmael). She is a revered woman in the Islamic faith.

So if you would need to secure consensus to change that article first, with lots of supporting evidence. Please explain your concerns at talk:Hagar in Islam. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nishat.Choudhury.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

edit request

kaab currently redirects here. Please add a hatnote to handle the disambiguation page Kaab (disambiguation)

Please add 

{{redirect|Kaab|other uses|Kaab (disambiguation)}}
"Kaab" redirects here. For other uses, see Kaab (disambiguation).

-- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done —GMX(on the go!) 19:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Kaaba sharif date

. 27.147.191.36 (talk) 08:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2022

Hi, please remove the picure showing prophet mohammad .... this is considered highly blasphemous as muslims dont allow drawing of the prophet muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him.

Its the.picture where a black stone is held in a carpet. 2001:16A2:C15C:BADF:D01F:B284:2C09:AA11 (talk) 14:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: will not be removed regardless of religious customs. if you have an account, you may instead add this script to your css to stop those images from rendering 💜  melecie  talk - 14:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2022

In this article is a percentage when it is supposed to say a multiplication symbol of 3.6 or something similar 2604:CB00:1D11:DC00:9494:D0E3:BD7C:562C (talk) 04:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

 Question: Can you specify where exactly in the article you want it to be changed? ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk  11:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Comment They are referring to According to the Saudi Ministry of Hajj and Umrah, 6,791,100 pilgrims arrived for the Umrah pilgrimage in the Islamic year AH 1439 (2017/2018 CE),[a] a 3.6% increase from the previous year, with 2,489,406 others arriving for the AH 1440 Hajj.
The above doesn't make sense as it's mixing the number of external Umrah performers (found in this source) with Hajj pilgrims (the source that is cited in the article), leading to the confusion highlighted by the IP.
I removed the unsourced part (others are free to reinstate it if they are wiling to work out the percentage increase, though, they might as well do it for 2021 and update both numbers). M.Bitton (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Pictures of the interior

Why are there no pictures of the interior, even historical ones? There is only an architectural plan. Is there a prohibition of depiction of the interior? Is it that the people who access the interior don't think about taking pictures? Error (talk) 09:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Such images do exist, but none have been donated to Wikimedia, completely free of all copyrights. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Pre Islamic Mecca

The article states the following:

The town of Mecca is absent from any known geographies or histories written in the three centuries before the rise of Islam, although many Muslim and academic historians stress the power and importance of the pre-Islamic Mecca.[citation needed] They depict it as a city grown rich on the proceeds of the spice trade.[12] Patricia Crone believes that this is an exaggeration and that Mecca may only have been an outpost for trading with nomads for leather, cloth, and camel butter. Crone argues that if Mecca had been a well-known center of trade, it would have been mentioned by later authors such as Procopius, Nonnosus, or the Syrian church chroniclers writing in Syriac.[11] According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, "before the rise of Islam, it was revered as a sacred sanctuary and was a site of pilgrimage."[13]

This places too much value on the single and unconsensual opinion of Crone. I think the "Mecca" article offers a much more balanced and accurate summary:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mecca#History

Historian Patricia Crone has cast doubt on the claim that Mecca was a major historical trading outpost.[1][2] However, other scholars such as Glen W. Bowersock disagree and assert that Mecca was a major trading outpost.[3][4][5] Crone later on disregarded some of her theories.[6] She argues that Meccan trade relied on skins, hides, manufactured leather goods, clarified butter, Hijazi woollens, and camels. She suggests that most of these goods were destined for the Roman army, which is known to have required colossal quantities of leather and hides for its equipment.


I don't know if it is proper to copy content from other articles, but in the very least someone ought to rewrite the first given paragraph, based on the sources of the Mecca article. 2804:14D:90BC:81AA:8DC6:6FFE:4A2D:D6E2 (talk) 12:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis and yes, the text from Mecca#History should replace the current text. Yes, you can certainly copy material from one article to another provided you give proper attribution. You do that by writing in the wp:edit summary something like "Copied material from Mecca#History: see history of that article for provenance." So yes, as you identified the problem, you should have the credit for correcting. But if you would prefer someone else to do it, just reply with that request. Thank you for asking first.
Personally I would drop the Sahin citation since academia.edu is not a reliable source and the name of the journal where the article appeared is not given. So it undermines the credibility of everything around it.
BTW, why not create an account for yourself?. It is not mandatory but it will make it easier to do things. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply and the suggestions, but I'll leave the specifics of getting this change done to you, or anyone else who may be interested :) 2804:14D:90BC:81AA:A40A:153:B317:E59E (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 Done --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Crone, Patricia; Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam; 1987; p.7
  2. ^ Holland, Tom (2012). In the Shadow of the Sword; Little, Brown; p. 303
  3. ^ Abdullah Alwi Haji Hassan (1994). Sales and Contracts in Early Islamic Commercial Law. pp. 3 ff. ISBN 978-9694081366.
  4. ^ Bowersock, Glen. W. (2017). Bowersock, G. W. (2017). The crucible of Islam. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press. pp. 50 ff.
  5. ^ Sahin, H. "Civil Society Institutions in Pre-Islamic Mecca". (journal unidentified).
  6. ^ Crone, Patricia (2007). "Quraysh and the Roman Army: Making Sense of the Meccan Leather Trade". Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. 70 (1): 63–88. doi:10.1017/S0041977X0700002X. JSTOR 40378894. S2CID 154910558.

"Dhul-Suwayqatayn" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Dhul-Suwayqatayn and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 30#Dhul-Suwayqatayn until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. – Batreeq (Talk) (Contribs) 23:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

"List of people born in the Kabaa" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect List of people born in the Kabaa and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 29#List of people born in the Kabaa until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The picture of Prophet

In Islam it is not allowed to recreated the picture of Prophet Muhammad PBUH. I ran across this page by accident and I would like to request to remove the deprecation that shows the picture from this page 91.147.161.35 (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

We do not remove such images. Please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ for an explanation. DuncanHill (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
If you believe that it is wrong to make a picture of Mohammed then you don't have to do so, but you have no right to impose your beliefs on other people who hold different opinions. JBW (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
The picture in the article was made by an Islamic artist in about 710 AH (1307 CE), so clearly it was not haram then. See also Depictions of Muhammad for the full story. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2022

I would change "Historian Patricia Crone has cast doubt on the claim that Mecca was a major historical trading outpost.[12][13] However, other scholars such as Glen W. Bowersock disagree and assert that Mecca was a major trading outpost." to "Historian Patricia Crone has cast doubt on the claim that Mecca was a major historical trading outpost.[12][13] However, other scholars such as Glen W. Bowersock disagree and assert that it was." or similar because it would avoid repetition and sound better. 2A02:2F0E:570A:D000:F88F:ADD6:BC90:B669 (talk) 13:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 16:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Lit. Meaning Change

Someone's been changing the literal meaning of the Kaaba (the Cube) to 'the Nexus' for some reason. Namely @Herbertrogers67 balladsone 15:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

It's already been reverted ([3]) and Herbertrogers67 has been blocked indefinitely as one of multiple sockpuppet accounts apparently promoting a specific book and author (e.g. their other reverted edit). R Prazeres (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kaaba/Archive_4&oldid=1218264922"