Jump to content

Talk:Kaaba

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 202.47.33.85 (talk) at 00:13, 28 December 2024 (→Subject: Challenge to Wikipedia Moderators: Defend Your Stance on Blasphemous Content: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2024

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

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?

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)

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]

Subject: Challenge to Wikipedia Moderators: Defend Your Stance on Blasphemous Content

Dear Wikipedia Moderators,

Dear Czello, Doug Weller, Widr, and the Wikipedia Team,

It is glaringly obvious from the tone and structure of your responses that the gravity of the issue has either been misunderstood or deliberately dismissed. The refusal to engage with detailed arguments and a consistent reliance on oversimplifications reflect a lack of seriousness that undermines Wikipedia’s credibility as a global platform.

Let me make this explicitly clear: Your refusal to address the points raised, opting instead for dismissive and generalized statements, is not only intellectually disingenuous but also deeply hypocritical. If you claim to stand by neutrality, respect, and inclusivity, then why do your responses fail to uphold these principles? I challenge you. yes, challenge you, to respond point by point to the arguments laid out here. Anything less is an admission of weakness and inconsistency.

Key Issues and Challenges

1. Objectionable vs. Blasphemous: A Critical Failure of Understanding

Czello, your argument that “Wikipedia contains objectionable content” demonstrates a shallow and reductive approach. Blasphemy is not “objectionable” in the general sense, it is an act that strikes at the core of sacred beliefs of over 2 billion Muslims worldwide. The difference between objectionable and blasphemous is not merely semantic, it is fundamental.

If Wikipedia has no definition of “blasphemous content,” then how can you claim to operate with neutrality when dealing with issues that transcend the mundane? Are you willing to openly admit that Wikipedia refuses to consider the concept of blasphemy, even when it offends billions?

Challenge: How do you justify equating general objectionable content (which may offend a few individuals) with content that is blasphemous, deeply sacred, and universally offensive to an entire faith? Where is Wikipedia’s policy on blasphemy, and why has it not been addressed here?

2. The “Muslims Are Divided” Argument: A Laughable Justification

Doug Weller, your claim that Muslims themselves are divided on whether these images are blasphemous is both ignorant and irrelevant. Allow me to enlighten you:

  • The prohibition of depictions of the Last Holy Prophet Muhammad (May ALLAH send his Peace and Blessing Upon Him) is a universally accepted principle across all major schools of thought in Islam—Sunni, Shia, and others. This is not a matter of “division”; it is a matter of overwhelming consensus.
  • Any fringe opinions suggesting otherwise hold no legitimacy in the broader Islamic community and cannot be used to justify retaining such content.

But even if this were a matter of debate within the Muslim community, how does that justify Wikipedia hosting content that offends billions? Would you apply the same standard to other religions or cultural groups? Or is this selective reasoning reserved only for Muslims?

Challenge: Can you provide credible evidence of significant division among Muslims on this issue? And even if such division exists, how does it justify the deliberate offense caused to the majority?

3. Historical Significance: A Weak Excuse for Blasphemy

You argue that these images hold “historical significance.” This claim is fundamentally flawed. The artists who created these depictions lived centuries after the Last Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and could not have seen him. These images are speculative, inaccurate, and serve no legitimate educational purpose.

Let me ask you: Does historical significance outweigh accuracy, respect, and inclusivity? Would you justify hosting fabricated depictions of other historical or religious figures under the guise of “historical significance”?

Challenge: What criteria does Wikipedia use to balance historical significance against accuracy, respect for beliefs, and potential harm? Why do these images qualify when they fail to meet basic standards of accuracy and respect?

4. Ignoring Your Own Policies: A Hypocritical Stance

Wikipedia’s Offensive Material Policy explicitly states that offensive images “should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner.” The images in question fail this test—they are neither accurate nor necessary for educational purposes.

Additionally, Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy demands respect for all perspectives. By hosting these images, Wikipedia blatantly disregards the beliefs of over 2 billion Muslims. Neutrality does not mean offending the majority to appease a minority—it means balancing all perspectives fairly.

Challenge: How do you justify retaining these images when they violate both the Offensive Material Policy and the NPOV policy? Why is Wikipedia’s commitment to neutrality and inclusivity selectively applied?

5. Precedents of Content Removal: A Clear Double Standard

Wikipedia has a history of removing harmful or misleading content, as evidenced by cases such as the John Seigenthaler hoax, the Essjay controversy, and the Orangemoody investigation. These actions demonstrate that Wikipedia is willing to remove content when it undermines trust, credibility, or respect.

Why, then, is this case treated differently? Are the beliefs and sensitivities of Muslims less worthy of respect than those of others?

Challenge: Can you explain why Wikipedia is willing to remove harmful content in other cases but refuses to apply the same standard here? Is this not a clear example of selective enforcement and double standards?

6. Ethical Responsibility: More Than a Policy Issue

As a global platform, Wikipedia has an ethical responsibility to respect the sensitivities of its diverse audience. By hosting these blasphemous images, Wikipedia is not just failing Muslims—it is failing its commitment to being a neutral and inclusive platform.

This is not about censorship; it is about respect. It is about recognizing that blasphemy is uniquely harmful and requires a different standard of consideration. If Wikipedia cannot rise to this challenge, then it cannot claim to be a truly global and inclusive platform.

Challenge: Are you willing to admit that Wikipedia prioritizes a misguided notion of “openness” over the dignity and beliefs of billions? If not, how do you justify the harm caused by hosting this content?

7. The Only Acceptable Resolution: Immediate Deletion

Let me reiterate: Hosting these images in any form is unacceptable. Whether on another page, behind a disclaimer, or hidden in user settings, the harm caused by their existence remains the same. The only acceptable resolution is their immediate and permanent deletion.

Anything less is a failure of Wikipedia’s values and a betrayal of its global audience.

Challenge: Are you willing to take a principled stand and delete these images? If not, can you provide a justification that addresses all the points raised here without resorting to dismissive generalizations?

Final Challenge: Address Every Point

This is a direct challenge to the Wikipedia team: respond to each of the points raised here in detail. Do not hide behind vague references to “policy” or dismissive comments about objectionable content. Address the arguments, defend your stance, and demonstrate that you are willing to engage with the seriousness this issue deserves.

Anything less will confirm what many already suspect: that Wikipedia’s commitment to neutrality and inclusivity is hollow and selectively applied.

Sincerely,

Yasha Ullah Afghan 202.47.33.85 (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kaaba&oldid=1265650296"