Jump to content

Talk:Kaaba: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply
Reverted 1 edit by 202.47.33.85 (talk) to last revision by Lowercase sigmabot III
 
(34 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
{{WikiProject Religion |importance=Top |Interfaith=yes}}
{{WikiProject Religion |importance=Top |Interfaith=yes}}
{{WikiProject Islam |importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Islam |importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Saudi Arabia |importance=Top |Mecca=yes |Mecca-importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Saudi Arabia |importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Architecture |importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Architecture |importance=Top}}
}}
}}
Line 21: Line 21:
{{OnThisDay|date1=2020-10-31|oldid1=986098131}}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2020-10-31|oldid1=986098131}}


== Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2024 ==
== Zurah pilgrimage cite ==
Greetings, at the "Background" section I added a statement with cite about [[Zurah]]. I am asking here for help to verify if that is correct? If yes, I will de-orphan Zurah article. Regards, [[User:JoeNMLC|JoeNMLC]] ([[User talk:JoeNMLC|talk]]) 16:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


{{edit semi-protected|Kaaba|answered=yes}}
:Me our muslim support palestine [[Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:A5E:9E00:F950:4F1A:8834:50C7|2607:FEA8:A5E:9E00:F950:4F1A:8834:50C7]] ([[User talk:2607:FEA8:A5E:9E00:F950:4F1A:8834:50C7|talk]]) 14:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
In this sentence:


Islamic sanctities received great attention from the Circassian sultans during the period in which they ruled the Islamic world (1382–1517 CE), with the Kaaba receiving significant attention.
== Lit. Meaning Change ==


please remove the CE. It's obvious from the context: if this were BCE, it would be 1517-1382, not the other way around, and since Muhammad was born in the sixth century CE, there weren't any Islamic sanctities in 1382 BCE because Islam didn't exist yet. [[WP:ERA]] says "In general, omit CE or AD, except to avoid ambiguity or awkwardness", so CE should be omitted. [[Special:Contributions/123.51.107.94|123.51.107.94]] ([[User talk:123.51.107.94|talk]]) 01:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Someone's been changing the literal meaning of the Kaaba (the Cube) to 'the Nexus' for some reason. Namely @[[User:Herbertrogers67|Herbertrogers67]] [[User:Ballads2110|<b style="font-family:Verdana;color:#C41E3D">'''''ballads'''''</b>]]<small></small><sup>[[User talk:Ballads2110|<b style="font-family:Verdana;color:#1E2D2F">'''''one'''''</b>]]</sup> 15:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
:{{not done}} In most cases your analysis would be correct but in this article, CE is being distinguished from AH, not from AD. --[[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:JMF|talk]]) 10:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
::But according to [[Hijri year]], the current AH year is 1445 or 1446. If you don't generally use AH, you'll assume that this means AD unless it says otherwise. If you do generally use it, you'll know that 1382 was just a few decades ago (when there weren't sultans ruling the Islamic world) and 1517 is in the future. [[Special:Contributions/123.51.107.94|123.51.107.94]] ([[User talk:123.51.107.94|talk]]) 01:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
:::I can see the logic of that argument and in general we try to avoid attaching an era notation when no ambiguity arises (to avoid nonsense like "2024 AD"). But in this case I believe that the correct way to resolve it is to give the date in both notations, hence "{{tq|during the period in which they ruled the Islamic world (784{{ndash}}924{{nbsp}}AH, 1382–1517{{nbsp}}CE)}}", which I have now done. Of course another editor may agree with you and disagree with me: if so I will concede the point. --[[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:JMF|talk]]) 13:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2024 ==
:It's already been reverted ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kaaba&diff=prev&oldid=1155963373]) and Herbertrogers67 has been blocked indefinitely as one of multiple sockpuppet accounts apparently promoting a specific book and author (e.g. their [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kaaba&diff=prev&oldid=1155505149 other reverted edit]). [[User:R Prazeres|R Prazeres]] ([[User talk:R Prazeres|talk]]) 16:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


{{Edit semi-protected|Kaaba|answered=yes}}
I want to edit this section in Background :


"In her book Islam: A Short History, Karen Armstrong asserts that the Kaaba was officially dedicated to Hubal, a Nabatean deity, and contained 360 idols which probably represented the days of the year.[27] However, by the time of Muhammad's era, it seems that the Kaaba was venerated as the temple of Allah, the High God,"
==Repairs==


why?
Should we mention the 1957 and 1996 repairs? Perhaps not on the scale of the 1626 work but still significant.[[User:Geni|©Geni]] ([[User talk:Geni|talk]]) 00:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
the Kaaba can only be used to refer to the house of allah in itself, it doesn't have any other meaning, now the problem here is, this place couldn't be called el Kaaba before it was even built, and calling it that, causes some people to have a false assumptions about muslims worshipping others dietys in allah own house which is extremely offensive,


instead it should be something like this:
== September 2023 ==


"In her book Islam: A Short History, Karen Armstrong asserts that the grounds in which the Kaaba was built upon was officially dedicated to Hubal, a Nabatean deity, and contained 360 idols which probably represented the days of the year.[27] However, by the time of Muhammad's era the Kaaba was built as the temple of Allah, the High God,"
{{re|AgisdeSparte}} where in the source does it say {{tq|This factor partly explains why Muslims in Western colonial empires refused to join the Ottoman Empire during World War I|q=yes}}? This doesn't make much sense since theu were colonized and therefore, were in no position to choose what to do. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 09:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


as a Muslim and an Arabic speaker, I can tell you that the Kaaba is not a land again its the house of allah in itself and its important to distinguish between the kaaba in itself and the ground that it was built upon. [[User:Adam.R12|Adam.R12]] ([[User talk:Adam.R12|talk]]) 05:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:Hello @[[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]],
:{{not done}}:<!-- Template:ESp --> please read [[WP:VERIFY]] and feel free to reopen the edit request if you can find a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] that supports your proposed change. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 09:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:During World War I, the Ottoman Empire declared a jihad against the Triple Entente and attempted to incite uprisings among Muslims in the colonized territories, greatly alarming the colonial powers of the Triple Entente. They did everything they could to prevent this from happening, as the stakes were high, involving a potential widespread revolt in the colonies. For France, this was particularly relevant in French Algeria and Morocco. As the source states in Chapter 9, "Djihad contre Djihad": {{tq|In the town of La Calle, there were similar doubts, but local figures believed that if the news was true, then the Turks "must be regarded as the slaves of the German people." In Meskania, the Turks were already accused of being "false believers" who had hypocritically used Islam. <u>In short, although some uncertainty remained, the image of Turkey as a beacon of Islam rapidly deteriorated, and sympathy for the Arab brothers in the Levant naturally gained ground.</u>|q=yes}} [[User:AgisdeSparte|AgisdeSparte]] ([[User talk:AgisdeSparte|talk]]) 10:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
::{{re|AgisdeSparte}} Can you see the difference between what you wrote and what the source actually says? [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 10:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
:Just to be clear: what you say is most probably true. But for this high-profile article, every assertion needs supporting evidence. So when you find that evidence and it supports clearly what you say, then it can be incorporated. --[[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:JMF|talk]]) 12:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

:::@[[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] The source does indeed discuss Muslims turning away from the Ottoman Empire. The entire work revolves around the risk of uprisings in the colonies of the Triple Entente colonial empires, and that's precisely the essence of this passage and the overarching theme of the work. If necessary, I can provide specific references from the source to support this interpretation. [[User:AgisdeSparte|AgisdeSparte]] ([[User talk:AgisdeSparte|talk]]) 10:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
== Did you ever gone to the Kaaba sharif? ==
::::That doesn't explain the [[WP:OR]] that you added to the article and the parts that you omitted while quoting from it, such as "they believed this to be a lie, invented by the press to promote hatred of Constantinople". [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 10:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

:::::You're correct in pointing out that I didn't include the specific part you mentioned because it addressed a particular point. What I emphasized was the concluding part, which comes after the passage discussing both those who disbelieved in the burnt Kaaba and those who believed in it, in order to provide an overall summary of the author's perspective. The "in short" portion succinctly encapsulates the author's stance and serves as a conclusion. I'll quote extensively, then, if you want, that's not an issue. Those are the first lines of the chapter :
I'll go when I'm able to go. Im not currently in the "traveling" situation 😃 [[User:Haraf13|Haraf13]] ([[User talk:Haraf13|talk]]) 13:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|From 1914 to 1916, the supreme weapon of pan-Islamism was more of a damp squib than an atomic bomb. The colonial powers, who took pride in the loyalty of their subjects, should have shown more humility because passivity does not equate to loyalty. Despite being disappointed and disheartened, Germany maintained the belief that it could still turn the tables if the balance of power shifted. At the beginning of 1916, despite the limited successes achieved so far, Germany wanted to believe that the French and British had been humiliated at the Dardanelles, Serbia eliminated from the war theater, a British army forced to surrender at Kut-el-Amara on the road to Baghdad, and there was no longer any fear from Russia after its defeats in 1915. Finally, there were doubts about whether France, severely attacked at Verdun, would hold up. However, instead of crowning the largely unrewarded efforts of the Berlin jihadists, the year 1916 marked their complete failure. On June 10th, Sharif Hussein Ben Ali of Mecca switched to the Allied side and labeled the Turks as traitors to Islam. What's more, he himself called for a holy war to liberate Arab lands from the grip of the Ottomans. Jihad against jihad. Muslims against Muslims. The theme of pan-Islamism, the struggle of all believers against colonialists, was immediately blown apart. Germany had not realized that the Ottoman Empire could also be considered an occupying power. In essence, Arabs were no different from Europeans: religion was not the sole adhesive of their identity, and the national idea far surpassed it. With the collapse of the pan-Islamist illusion, the veil was lifted: the Great War was not a religious war. However, instead of crowning the largely unrewarded efforts of the Berlin jihadists, the year 1916 marked their complete failure. On June 10th, Sharif Hussein Ben Ali of Mecca switched to the Allied side and labeled the Turks as traitors to Islam. What's more, he himself called for a holy war to liberate Arab lands from the grip of the Ottomans. Jihad against jihad. Muslims against Muslims. The theme of pan-Islamism, the struggle of all believers against colonialists, was immediately blown apart. Germany had not realized that the Ottoman Empire could also be considered an occupying power. In essence, Arabs were no different from Europeans: religion was not the sole adhesive of their identity, and the national idea far surpassed it. With the collapse of the pan-Islamist illusion, the veil was lifted: the Great War was not a religious war.|q=yes}}

:::::Here, the focus is on the pan-Islamist theme, the struggle of all believers against colonial powers. The passage highlights the disillusionment and ultimate failure of the pan-Islamist efforts, as seen when Sharif Hussein Ben Ali of Mecca shifted to the Allied camp and called for a holy war against the Ottoman Empire. This shift effectively undermined the pan-Islamist narrative. The text makes it clear that the central issue at hand is the question of an anti-colonial pan-Islamic revolt who was aborted in most part. One of the factors that contributed to this change of opinion, as clearly stated in the text, was the bombardment of the Kaaba, which may have triggered doubts among some but, "in short," was a factor in the shift of opinion. This is precisely what I had emphasized in my addition to the article, which was nuanced and included the word "partly," aligning with the author's statement. [[User:AgisdeSparte|AgisdeSparte]] ([[User talk:AgisdeSparte|talk]]) 10:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
:This a talk page to discussion on the improvement of the article. This is not a forum or discussion page about the travel plans. [[User:Xoocit|Xoocit]] ([[User talk:Xoocit|talk]]) 22:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I disagree because you stripped the context out of the author's statements and added your own [[WP:OR]] (that doesn't even make sense, as explained in my first comment). There is also the issue that the author is only mentioning a tiny portion of the Algerian population, while you're applying the [[WP:OR]] to the "Muslims in Western colonial empires". [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 10:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

:::::::You make a valid point. Indeed, it would have been more precise to specifically discuss the Arabs of the Maghreb, as the source's introduction to this passage states, "How do the Arabs of the Maghreb react to this revolt of the Arabs of the Mashreq?" The conclusion also highlights that "Even though some uncertainty remains, the image of Turkey as a beacon of Islam rapidly deteriorated, and sympathy for the Arab brothers in the Levant naturally gained ground." This clearly indicates that despite possible doubts among some (as mentioned by the author), the degradation of the image was the prevailing sentiment.
== Kaaba: Demand for Deletion of Blasphemous Imaged of the Last Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon Him) ==
:::::::However, you are correct in pointing out that the source in this passage only addresses the Arabs of the Maghreb in a general sense and does not cover other colonial empires, such as Muslims in India. It should be corrected in that sense, I agree. [[User:AgisdeSparte|AgisdeSparte]] ([[User talk:AgisdeSparte|talk]]) 16:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
{{atop
::::::::What I had aimed to convey and draw from the source was indeed the propaganda aspect that had been employed by the Hashemites following this event. They sought to rally Muslims worldwide, a fact well-documented in Chapter 9. Additionally, there was the propaganda significance of this event for Western powers, particularly France, which utilized it to ensure that Muslims did not revolt that could also be added. This broader perspective aims to move beyond simplistic interpretations that a text lacking nuance might foster. If you feel it's best to remove the final sentence for the sake of conciseness, it doesn't pose any issue. I used it to emphasize the nuanced aspect, but its removal wouldn't detract from the main point. [[User:AgisdeSparte|AgisdeSparte]] ([[User talk:AgisdeSparte|talk]]) 17:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
| result = No per [[WP:NOTCENSORED]] and [[WP:NPOV]]. — '''[[User:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>]])''</sup> 07:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::@[[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] Since the removed sentence is no longer present, that it doesn't bother me, and that you didn't appear to challenge the reality of the event happening in 1916, I took the liberty of adding sources related to the event in question and not on the passage that was disputed. [[User:AgisdeSparte|AgisdeSparte]] ([[User talk:AgisdeSparte|talk]]) 17:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
}}
::::::::::The other sources add no value to the article (about the Kaaba and nothing else). The inclusion of the propaganda is already verging on, if not UNDUE, so let's just leave it as it is. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 18:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Subject: Request for Immediate Removal of Blasphemous Images from the "Kaaba" Wikipedia Page

Dear Wikipedia Team,

I hope this message finds you well. My name is [Your Name], and I am writing as a member of the Muslim community deeply concerned about the presence of pictorial depictions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his blessed companions on the Wikipedia page titled "Kaaba" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaaba).

These images, located under the 'History' tab, are <nowiki>'''</nowiki>highly offensive and blasphemous to Muslims around the world, as any visual representation of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is strictly prohibited in Islam<nowiki>'''</nowiki>. The specific images in question are:

<nowiki>'''</nowiki>1. "Muhammad at the Ka'ba" from the Siyer-i Nebi, showing Muhammad with a veiled face, c. 1595.<nowiki>'''</nowiki>

<nowiki>'''2. A miniature from 1307 CE depicting Muhammad fixing the black stone into the Kaaba.'''</nowiki>

These images not only disrespect our beliefs but also deeply hurt the sentiments of millions in the Muslim community, including myself. The existence of these images on a public platform like Wikipedia fosters misunderstanding and disrespects our faith, which is rooted in profound reverence for our beloved Last Prophet (Peace be Upon Him). We kindly request that these images be removed from the Wikipedia page immediately, without any delay or further explanation.

We understand that Wikipedia requires supporting evidence for high-profile articles. <nowiki>'''</nowiki>In this case, the prohibition of visual depictions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is well-documented in Islamic teachings and widely recognized by scholars and religious authorities. Numerous fatwas based on Qur'anic scripture and hadith traditions from all schools of thought strictly prohibit drawing images of the last Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his blessed companions, deeming such acts as blasphemy. This prohibition is rooted in Islamic teachings that emphasize the importance of avoiding idolatry and misrepresentation. Scholars unanimously agree that there is no permissibility whatsoever for visual representations of the Last Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) or his blessed companions, as such depictions are considered blasphemous and fundamentally incompatible with Islamic teachings.<nowiki>'''</nowiki>

Furthermore, surveys indicate that a significant portion of Muslims find such depictions offensive. The Journal of Islamic Thought and Civilization highlights that Muslims believe visual depictions of all prophets should be prohibited, particularly those of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), as they hurt their emotions and go against their faith (Journal of Islamic Thought and Civilization). We urge you to consider the sensitivity of this matter and its impact on millions of Muslims worldwide.

<nowiki>'''</nowiki>Addressing Wikipedia's FAQ:<nowiki>'''</nowiki>

<nowiki>'''</nowiki>1.Wikipedia is not censored:<nowiki>'''</nowiki> While Wikipedia aims to provide a neutral point of view, it is essential to consider how these images offend deeply held beliefs. The presence of such content does not foster an inclusive environment for all users.

<nowiki>'''</nowiki>2.Historical accuracy:<nowiki>'''</nowiki> The images in question are historically inaccurate, as acknowledged by Wikipedia. The artists who created these works lived centuries after Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and could not have seen him. Using inaccurate images perpetuates misconceptions rather than providing educational value.

<nowiki>'''</nowiki>3.Offense to Muslims:<nowiki>'''</nowiki> Wikipedia recognizes that depictions of Muhammad are offensive to many Muslims. This offense affects millions globally and cannot be dismissed as a minor issue. Suggesting that users change their settings to hide images is not a viable solution; such representations on a public platform like Wikipedia perpetuate disrespect and harm.

<nowiki>'''</nowiki>4.Preventing idolatry:<nowiki>'''</nowiki> The traditional prohibition against images of prophets serves to prevent idolatry—a principle that should be respected in any educational context. The presence of these images on Wikipedia violates this fundamental religious principle.

<nowiki>'''</nowiki>5.Comparison to other figures:<nowiki>'''</nowiki> While Wikipedia may use images of historical figures like Jesus, it is crucial to note that any depiction of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon Him) is universally forbidden in Islam. This distinction makes comparisons inadequate and unjustifiable.

<nowiki>'''</nowiki>6.Separate link for images: <nowiki>'''</nowiki>Creating a separate link for these images is also not an acceptable solution. The core issue remains that any depiction of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon Him) is considered blasphemous in Islam, and there is no allowance for such visual representations under any circumstances. The existence of these images on a public platform like Wikipedia is inherently offensive and harmful.

We acknowledge the FAQ section on the Talk:Muhammad page but believe that this request warrants special consideration due to its unique nature. The presence of these images does not contribute to the educational value of the article but rather perpetuates significant cultural and religious offense.

<nowiki>'''Examples of Content Removal from Wikipedia '''</nowiki>

<nowiki>'''</nowiki>1.John Seigenthaler Wikipedia Hoax (2005):<nowiki>'''</nowiki> A false and defamatory article about journalist John Seigenthaler was posted on Wikipedia and removed after being identified. This instance illustrates Wikipedia's commitment to maintaining content integrity by removing material that is harmful or misleading.

<nowiki>'''</nowiki>2.Essjay Controversy (2007):<nowiki>'''</nowiki> Contributions from a prominent Wikipedia editor who falsified his credentials were scrutinized and subsequently removed, demonstrating that Wikipedia actively removes content undermining its reliability.

<nowiki>'''</nowiki>3.Wiki-PR Scandal (2012): <nowiki>'''</nowiki>Manipulated content created by a company using sockpuppet accounts was removed, showcasing Wikipedia's efforts to prevent abuse of its platform.

<nowiki>'''</nowiki>4.Orangemoody Investigation (2015):<nowiki>'''</nowiki> Fraudulent content posted by a group of blackmailers using sockpuppet accounts was removed, highlighting Wikipedia's proactive stance against harmful content.

Relevant Policies

<nowiki>'''</nowiki>Wikipedia's Policy on Images:<nowiki>'''</nowiki>

According to your guidelines, <nowiki>'''"images that would bring the project into disrepute... may be removed by any user."'''</nowiki> The continued presence of these offensive images directly contradicts this policy as they clearly offend a significant portion of users.

<nowiki>'''</nowiki>Wikipedia's Policy on Offensive Material:<nowiki>'''</nowiki>

<nowiki>'''</nowiki>1.According to Wikipedia:<nowiki>'''</nowiki> Offensive material, while Wikipedia aims to include material that may offend, it explicitly states that "offensive words and offensive images should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner." The inclusion of these blasphemous images does not meet this criterion as they serve no educational purpose but rather cause harm.

<nowiki>'''</nowiki>2.Neutral Point of View:<nowiki>'''</nowiki> As outlined in Wikipedia's Guide to Deletion, all content must adhere to a neutral point of view (NPOV). The presence of these offensive images violates this policy by failing to respect a significant portion of your readership who find such content unacceptable.

<nowiki>'''</nowiki>3.Speedy Deletion Policy: <nowiki>'''</nowiki> This policy states that pages can be deleted without discussion if they meet criteria for speedy deletion due to being obviously inappropriate for Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Deletion policy). Given their blasphemous nature, these images qualify for immediate removal under this guideline.

<nowiki>'''</nowiki>4.Content Integrity Maintenance: <nowiki>'''</nowiki> Content that undermines Wikipedia's reliability or trustworthiness can be removed proactively by editors or administrators (Wikipedia:Content Integrity). Allowing these offensive images undermines your credibility as an encyclopedia committed to accuracy and respect.

<nowiki>'''</nowiki>5.Adherence to Neutrality: <nowiki>'''</nowiki> Wikipedia has a strong stance against Holocaust denial and antisemitism, clearly reflected in the Holocaust denial page, which debunks false claims and provides historical evidence. This commitment to neutrality and respect for deeply held beliefs should be extended to the depiction of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as well.

<nowiki>'''</nowiki>Handling of Other Sensitive Topics:<nowiki>'''</nowiki>

<nowiki>'''</nowiki>1.Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: <nowiki>'''</nowiki>Wikipedia handles content related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with sensitivity and neutrality, ensuring a balanced representation of different perspectives.

<nowiki>'''</nowiki>2.Abortion: <nowiki>'''</nowiki>Wikipedia presents diverse viewpoints on abortion respectfully, acknowledging the sensitivity of the topic.

<nowiki>'''</nowiki>3.Censorship and Internet Freedom: <nowiki>'''</nowiki>Wikipedia respects local laws and cultural sensitivities, demonstrating its commitment to respecting different cultural and religious practices.

In light of these considerations and your own policies, I urge you to take immediate action to remove these offensive images from the "Kaaba" page and review your guidelines regarding sensitive religious content moving forward.

Thank you for your understanding and swift action on this matter.

Sincerely, Yasha Ullah Afghan [[Special:Contributions/202.47.33.85|202.47.33.85]] ([[User talk:202.47.33.85|talk]]) 05:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}
: For the longer answer, see [[Talk:Muhammad/FAQ]]. --[[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:JMF|talk]]) 10:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 05:17, 28 December 2024

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2024

[edit]

In this sentence: 

Islamic sanctities received great attention from the Circassian sultans during the period in which they ruled the Islamic world (1382–1517 CE), with the Kaaba receiving significant attention.

please remove the CE. It's obvious from the context: if this were BCE, it would be 1517-1382, not the other way around, and since Muhammad was born in the sixth century CE, there weren't any Islamic sanctities in 1382 BCE because Islam didn't exist yet. WP:ERA says "In general, omit CE or AD, except to avoid ambiguity or awkwardness", so CE should be omitted. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 01:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done In most cases your analysis would be correct but in this article, CE is being distinguished from AH, not from AD. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But according to Hijri year, the current AH year is 1445 or 1446. If you don't generally use AH, you'll assume that this means AD unless it says otherwise. If you do generally use it, you'll know that 1382 was just a few decades ago (when there weren't sultans ruling the Islamic world) and 1517 is in the future. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the logic of that argument and in general we try to avoid attaching an era notation when no ambiguity arises (to avoid nonsense like "2024 AD"). But in this case I believe that the correct way to resolve it is to give the date in both notations, hence "during the period in which they ruled the Islamic world (784–924 AH, 1382–1517 CE)", which I have now done. Of course another editor may agree with you and disagree with me: if so I will concede the point. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2024

[edit]

I want to edit this section in Background :

"In her book Islam: A Short History, Karen Armstrong asserts that the Kaaba was officially dedicated to Hubal, a Nabatean deity, and contained 360 idols which probably represented the days of the year.[27] However, by the time of Muhammad's era, it seems that the Kaaba was venerated as the temple of Allah, the High God,"

why? the Kaaba can only be used to refer to the house of allah in itself, it doesn't have any other meaning, now the problem here is, this place couldn't be called el Kaaba before it was even built, and calling it that, causes some people to have a false assumptions about muslims worshipping others dietys in allah own house which is extremely offensive,

instead it should be something like this:

"In her book Islam: A Short History, Karen Armstrong asserts that the grounds in which the Kaaba was built upon was officially dedicated to Hubal, a Nabatean deity, and contained 360 idols which probably represented the days of the year.[27] However, by the time of Muhammad's era the Kaaba was built as the temple of Allah, the High God,"

as a Muslim and an Arabic speaker, I can tell you that the Kaaba is not a land again its the house of allah in itself and its important to distinguish between the kaaba in itself and the ground that it was built upon. Adam.R12 (talk) 05:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please read WP:VERIFY and feel free to reopen the edit request if you can find a reliable source that supports your proposed change. M.Bitton (talk) 09:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear: what you say is most probably true. But for this high-profile article, every assertion needs supporting evidence. So when you find that evidence and it supports clearly what you say, then it can be incorporated. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ever gone to the Kaaba sharif?

[edit]

I'll go when I'm able to go. Im not currently in the "traveling" situation 😃 Haraf13 (talk) 13:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This a talk page to discussion on the improvement of the article. This is not a forum or discussion page about the travel plans. Xoocit (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kaaba: Demand for Deletion of Blasphemous Imaged of the Last Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon Him)

[edit]
No per WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NPOV. — Czello (music) 07:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

Subject: Request for Immediate Removal of Blasphemous Images from the "Kaaba" Wikipedia Page

Dear Wikipedia Team,

I hope this message finds you well. My name is [Your Name], and I am writing as a member of the Muslim community deeply concerned about the presence of pictorial depictions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his blessed companions on the Wikipedia page titled "Kaaba" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaaba).

These images, located under the 'History' tab, are '''highly offensive and blasphemous to Muslims around the world, as any visual representation of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is strictly prohibited in Islam'''. The specific images in question are:

'''1. "Muhammad at the Ka'ba" from the Siyer-i Nebi, showing Muhammad with a veiled face, c. 1595.'''

'''2. A miniature from 1307 CE depicting Muhammad fixing the black stone into the Kaaba.'''

These images not only disrespect our beliefs but also deeply hurt the sentiments of millions in the Muslim community, including myself. The existence of these images on a public platform like Wikipedia fosters misunderstanding and disrespects our faith, which is rooted in profound reverence for our beloved Last Prophet (Peace be Upon Him). We kindly request that these images be removed from the Wikipedia page immediately, without any delay or further explanation.

We understand that Wikipedia requires supporting evidence for high-profile articles. '''In this case, the prohibition of visual depictions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is well-documented in Islamic teachings and widely recognized by scholars and religious authorities. Numerous fatwas based on Qur'anic scripture and hadith traditions from all schools of thought strictly prohibit drawing images of the last Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his blessed companions, deeming such acts as blasphemy. This prohibition is rooted in Islamic teachings that emphasize the importance of avoiding idolatry and misrepresentation. Scholars unanimously agree that there is no permissibility whatsoever for visual representations of the Last Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) or his blessed companions, as such depictions are considered blasphemous and fundamentally incompatible with Islamic teachings.'''

Furthermore, surveys indicate that a significant portion of Muslims find such depictions offensive. The Journal of Islamic Thought and Civilization highlights that Muslims believe visual depictions of all prophets should be prohibited, particularly those of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), as they hurt their emotions and go against their faith (Journal of Islamic Thought and Civilization). We urge you to consider the sensitivity of this matter and its impact on millions of Muslims worldwide.

'''Addressing Wikipedia's FAQ:'''

'''1.Wikipedia is not censored:''' While Wikipedia aims to provide a neutral point of view, it is essential to consider how these images offend deeply held beliefs. The presence of such content does not foster an inclusive environment for all users.

'''2.Historical accuracy:''' The images in question are historically inaccurate, as acknowledged by Wikipedia. The artists who created these works lived centuries after Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and could not have seen him. Using inaccurate images perpetuates misconceptions rather than providing educational value.

'''3.Offense to Muslims:''' Wikipedia recognizes that depictions of Muhammad are offensive to many Muslims. This offense affects millions globally and cannot be dismissed as a minor issue. Suggesting that users change their settings to hide images is not a viable solution; such representations on a public platform like Wikipedia perpetuate disrespect and harm.

'''4.Preventing idolatry:''' The traditional prohibition against images of prophets serves to prevent idolatry—a principle that should be respected in any educational context. The presence of these images on Wikipedia violates this fundamental religious principle.

'''5.Comparison to other figures:''' While Wikipedia may use images of historical figures like Jesus, it is crucial to note that any depiction of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon Him) is universally forbidden in Islam. This distinction makes comparisons inadequate and unjustifiable.

'''6.Separate link for images: '''Creating a separate link for these images is also not an acceptable solution. The core issue remains that any depiction of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon Him) is considered blasphemous in Islam, and there is no allowance for such visual representations under any circumstances. The existence of these images on a public platform like Wikipedia is inherently offensive and harmful.

We acknowledge the FAQ section on the Talk:Muhammad page but believe that this request warrants special consideration due to its unique nature. The presence of these images does not contribute to the educational value of the article but rather perpetuates significant cultural and religious offense.

'''Examples of Content Removal from Wikipedia '''

'''1.John Seigenthaler Wikipedia Hoax (2005):''' A false and defamatory article about journalist John Seigenthaler was posted on Wikipedia and removed after being identified. This instance illustrates Wikipedia's commitment to maintaining content integrity by removing material that is harmful or misleading.

'''2.Essjay Controversy (2007):''' Contributions from a prominent Wikipedia editor who falsified his credentials were scrutinized and subsequently removed, demonstrating that Wikipedia actively removes content undermining its reliability.

'''3.Wiki-PR Scandal (2012): '''Manipulated content created by a company using sockpuppet accounts was removed, showcasing Wikipedia's efforts to prevent abuse of its platform.

'''4.Orangemoody Investigation (2015):''' Fraudulent content posted by a group of blackmailers using sockpuppet accounts was removed, highlighting Wikipedia's proactive stance against harmful content.

Relevant Policies

'''Wikipedia's Policy on Images:'''

According to your guidelines, '''"images that would bring the project into disrepute... may be removed by any user."''' The continued presence of these offensive images directly contradicts this policy as they clearly offend a significant portion of users.

'''Wikipedia's Policy on Offensive Material:'''

'''1.According to Wikipedia:''' Offensive material, while Wikipedia aims to include material that may offend, it explicitly states that "offensive words and offensive images should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner." The inclusion of these blasphemous images does not meet this criterion as they serve no educational purpose but rather cause harm.

'''2.Neutral Point of View:''' As outlined in Wikipedia's Guide to Deletion, all content must adhere to a neutral point of view (NPOV). The presence of these offensive images violates this policy by failing to respect a significant portion of your readership who find such content unacceptable.

'''3.Speedy Deletion Policy: ''' This policy states that pages can be deleted without discussion if they meet criteria for speedy deletion due to being obviously inappropriate for Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Deletion policy). Given their blasphemous nature, these images qualify for immediate removal under this guideline.

'''4.Content Integrity Maintenance: ''' Content that undermines Wikipedia's reliability or trustworthiness can be removed proactively by editors or administrators (Wikipedia:Content Integrity). Allowing these offensive images undermines your credibility as an encyclopedia committed to accuracy and respect.

'''5.Adherence to Neutrality: ''' Wikipedia has a strong stance against Holocaust denial and antisemitism, clearly reflected in the Holocaust denial page, which debunks false claims and provides historical evidence. This commitment to neutrality and respect for deeply held beliefs should be extended to the depiction of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as well.

'''Handling of Other Sensitive Topics:'''

'''1.Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: '''Wikipedia handles content related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with sensitivity and neutrality, ensuring a balanced representation of different perspectives.

'''2.Abortion: '''Wikipedia presents diverse viewpoints on abortion respectfully, acknowledging the sensitivity of the topic.

'''3.Censorship and Internet Freedom: '''Wikipedia respects local laws and cultural sensitivities, demonstrating its commitment to respecting different cultural and religious practices.

In light of these considerations and your own policies, I urge you to take immediate action to remove these offensive images from the "Kaaba" page and review your guidelines regarding sensitive religious content moving forward.

Thank you for your understanding and swift action on this matter.

Sincerely, Yasha Ullah Afghan 202.47.33.85 (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.
For the longer answer, see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kaaba&oldid=1265692708"