Talk:Black Stone/Archive 1

Photo
Is that a real photo of the rock? I thought pictures of it were forbidden.

This article states: "It is the cornerstone...", but states "In the Eastern corner about 5 feet above ground the Hajar el Aswad (the blackstone) is fixed into the wall."

Can anyone confirm which is true, preferably from personal experience?


 * This photograph shows how it is built into the cornerstone. &#8212;No-One Jones 04:52, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"only god that the Arabs were allowed to worship" deleted. This black stone is not god and not all arabs are muslim and not all muslims are arab. FWBOarticle 02:16, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) (And it is not worshipped)

Kiswa
The article states: "The Stone is covered by the Black Cloth, or Kiswa. This word may be derived from SWA (meaning Self, Sanskrit), or SVH (Shiva)."

Any derivation of Kiswa from Sanskrit [or any other form of Indo-Aryan] is as unlikely as it could possibly be.

PLese remove the FAKE PIC Photo OF HOLY PROPHET HAZRAT MUHAMMAD PBUH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.48.172 (talk • contribs) (23:32, July 31, 2007)

any pre islam information?
Where's the information about the Black Stone prior the Muhammad? Pilgrims would travel for miles to worship it centuries before Islam was created and Muhammad incorporated it into the religion.

This site gives in detail information about pre-islamic Kabba and Arabia. http://doormann.tripod.com/the0.htm

Cover of the black stone
I read that there is a golden cover of the black stone in the topkapi museum in Istanbul, Turkey.

See Image: The golden cover displayed was once the cover of the Hacer-ül Esved stone, the black stone which &#8220;fell from heaven&#8221; within the Kaaba.

Does anyone know how it came there? Could it have something to do with the Qarmatians that took it for 22 years?

I don't know, but Mecca was governed from Istanbul for 400 years (1517-1916) as part of the Ottoman Empire. So it probably was brought to 'the capital' during that time, after it had been replaced by a new one. Prater 17:04, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Damage
So it's damaged by Muhammad and put back together by him? --Menchi 05:31, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree, this seems unlikely. I've never heard this before... Muhammad always showed respect for the black stone when he visited the Kaaba. (He would salute it with his staff.) As far as I know, the cause of the damage is unknown. Prater 16:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The stone was damaged by an Ismaili sect, the Qarmatians, when they sacked Mecca and carried off the stone. I've corrected the article, and also removed a lot of duplicate info.

Qarmatians stole the rock, but i think it actually cracked in by cause of a fire.

Information re the Hajj, the Kiswah, and other matters doesn't belong in this article. We should link to those articles. Zora 22:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In fact there is a tradition about previous damage to the Black Stone: in a "pre-revelation" flood the Ka'aba was damaged and rebuilt but the main clans of the Quraish could not agree as to which one would have the honour of replacing the stone. After some discussion, Muhammed was asked to judge between the competing claims and came up with the solution that the stone would be placed on a sheet of cloth and representatives from each of the clans would participate in lifting the stone back into place. This is a "pious tradition" to underline the general acceptance in Mecca of Muhammed's "laqba" or nickname "Al-Amin" - the faithful/trustworthy one - prior to the revelation. The origin of the laqba is reputed to be Muhammed's first wife (and employer) Khadija who originally hired him to oversee her trading caravans. If memory serves, there is a version of this tradition in Martin Lings' book on the life of the prophet. I'll do some research and edit unless there is a major objection. Wildbe 3 July 2005 11:51 (UTC)


 * If we're putting in pious traditions about the Kaaba, sure, why not? Allow me also to call your attention to an article that I just now started, which needs lots of work: Islam and veneration for Muhammad. That may not be the best title (it could be changed), but Muslim editors keep inserting "pious traditions" in various articles and it seemed as if there should be a place to move them rather than delete them. This could be useful info for someone trying to find out about popular culture in Muslim-majority countries. Zora 3 July 2005 11:58 (UTC)

OK I see your point - that's why I didn't edit directly ;) In addition to the fact that I'm still quite a "newbie" and (sigh) my field of interest is a rather controversial one judging from the edit wars that go on. Wildbe 3 July 2005 12:05 (UTC)


 * No no no no ... I didn't mean "don't add it here". We've got folk traditions here already, so why not add this one too? I'm just saying that you could ALSO add it to the other article I mentioned. You probably also know other traditions re Muhammad -- the ones that we couldn't fit in the regular Muhammad article, because they're not accepted by Western scholars OR by the careful Muslim scholars. The hadith that aren't sahih . Sorry if I was unclear. It's late here in Honolulu, I'm upset from dealing with various fug-headed editors (GRRRRR!), and I'm probably not expressing myself well. Zora 3 July 2005 12:12 (UTC)

Ah I see. Don't worry I didn't take your post the wrong way and I do understand your point about pious traditions - there is a difference between an encylopedia and hagiography. In any case I need to check my sources first before fiddling around with the text. One point I think worth making in the article is the common misconception that the Black Stone is the focus for Muslims while praying - the point being that when the Qarmatians "borrowed" the thing the Qibla didn't go walkabout at the same time but stayed where it was. BTW there is another stone set in Ka'aba as well - a red(dish) one at 180 degrees to the Black Stone set about the same height. I can't see any reference to it in the Ka'aba related articles.Wildbe 3 July 2005 13:03 (UTC)


 * Sure, add the bit about the red stone too. I've never heard about it, and I'd like to know more. Actually, it's been fun learning all this stuff about the Kaaba, which I had always thought something dark and mysterious, hidden from kafirs. Learning that there's nothing inside the Kaaba but marble and embroidered cloth removes the whole "Indiana Jones" aura of mystery. Zora 3 July 2005 22:00 (UTC)

Anon editor's additions
An anon editor added more traditions re the Black Stone, phrased as if all Muslims believed them. I worked them into the presentation, used English rather than Arabic, and tried to remain neutral between various Muslim beliefs about the Black Stone. Zora 18:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Idolatry
If "idolatry" is added just a link, without explanation, it is effectively an accusation. Therefore I rewrote the article so that the question of idolatry is put front and center, and discussed from several viewpoints. The idolatry link is found IN the article, not in the See Also list.

I also added bit re meteorite. I should probably source it. Wouldn't be hard, but I just don't have time to do the research now. I know I've seen it in several sources, not just one. Zora 00:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: Idolatry
I believe that a link to Idolatry is necessary here, as that article goes in depth covering all aspects of "idolatry". It even points out the views of idolatry in Islamic thought. If there is going to be a paragraph about "idolatry" and the black stone, I think that a link to the article on idolatry is a good thing to get more than 1 religious perspective on it.


 * It IS linked, in the article. Twice. As idolatry and as shirk. Zora 02:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: Re: Idolatry
What do you think that they're bowing to when they drop and turn to the east 5x a day? You have got to be kidding me. Please quit vandalizing the article. I cannot believe that Wikipedia does not even have a proper article on the Black Stone. It is something held close to 800 million people. Zora, you don't "own" this article.


 * Muslims are bowing to the Kaaba, not the Black Stone. Anyone INSIDE the Kaaba doing the daily prayers bows towards the outside, towards the walls of the Kaaba, and not the Black stone. People outside the Kaaba face the wall of the Kaaba closest to them, and not the Black Stone.


 * One Islamic site I skimmed had an opinion piece re the Hajj, saying that kissing the Black Stone was a pernicious custom, not to be indulged. The only reason for the Stone, said the article, was to mark a corner so that believers would know when they'd made one full circuit. I don't think every Muslim believes this -- some must hold the beliefs about the Stone absorbing sins -- but it seems as if the site would represent at least one segment of Muslim opinion.


 * A difference of opinion does not constitute vandalism. Zora 10:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

'Stone'
Just a little query. The article seems to use both 'Black Stone' and 'Stone' after the introduction. Should we just use one or the other for consistency ? ---Mpatel 15:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I've been switching between the two just so the prose doesn't become monotonous. It's purely a style decision. Zora 18:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Story re rebuilding of Kaaba
MPatel, you added the bit re disagreement as to who could replace the stone ... in the usual version, followed by a story about Muhammad suggesting that they put the stone on a cloak and raise it jointly. I believe the oldest version of that story is found in Ibn Ishaq, and it reads very much like a folk tale. Various secular historians have expressed skepticism about the tale, saying that a penniless orphan living in his uncle's house was not likely to have been consulted by the heads of all the Quraysh clans in a matter of some political delicacy. I strongly object to that story being inserted in the article as if it were an accepted fact. I'll try to rewrite it. Zora 18:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It probably is a folk tale. I remember my grandmother telling me it when I was younger, along with the story of the old lady who would always through garbage at Muhammad's house ;).Heraclius 18:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Information about Pre-Islamic Kabba
http://doormann.tripod.com/the0.htm

That's not information, that's kookery. Please stop. You are NOT going to get this into Wikipedia. Zora 20:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * However, can we use the old photographs of the Kaaba - seeing how much the surroundings have changed would be interesting in the article?

Recent edits
Hey! Those were my edits! They were not Muslim-bashing.

The sentences re shirk were there because I have spent some time erasing Muslim-bashing here that accuses Muslims of worshipping the stone. Instead of trying to erase accusations, you should meet them head on. Otherwise people scream cover-up and restore the accusations.

As for the secular historians -- I didn't give a source, because I couldn't remember where I'd read it, but I am SURE that I remember reading one academic treatise which pointed out that it was highly unlikely that a penniless orphan would have been consulted in a matter of such moment, and that the only explanation for the story is glorification of Muhammad.

It's just one instance of a general myth-making trend, in which Muhammad becomes incredibly handsome, he is universally admired and beloved, his face shines, etc., etc. Mecca becomes a huge wealthy city instead of the flea-bitten provincial town there is every reason to believe it was. Islam is not alone in this. For Distributed Proofreaders, I worked on a Tibetan biography of the Buddha that exagerrated the same way. It's kind of an endearing human trait -- like believing that your child is the handsomest and smartest that ever was -- but it has to be whacked on the head when doing history.

I haven't reverted, because I'm fairly sure that we can come to an amicable agreement without a revert war. Zora 23:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Ofcourse we can; we always do. What do you propose exactly?-- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 00:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Can you restore the material you took out and then rewrite it in some way that's acceptable to you? I mean, I took my best shot at it, and I'd probably come up with another version of the same thing. Zora 00:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that the stone fits into idolatry, it just seems like a baseless criticism since I haven't ever heard, read or seen anyone consider it ever. Also how are "people" who are "there watching" not Muslims (only Muslims are allowed in Makkah)? The phrase really doesn't fit in to the article, just seems like a tossed around criticism. So I will leave that material out, but I will re-add the historian phrase. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 00:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems like a baseless criticism to you, but I believe that there have been at least two editors here who were convinced that Muslims were idolators who worshipped a stone. Indeed, there is some ground for that belief in the folk beliefs outlined in the article, re the stone interceding for those who kissed it. I think we both want Muslims and non-Muslims to understand each other, and this is something that should be met head on.

I should perhaps add that while in general I just do not like the Salafi/Wahabi way of thinking, on the one issue of shirk they have a certain justification, since many Muslim folk beliefs are as superstitious as any Catholic cult of the saints. Worshipping at graves and tying strips of rag to tomb railings and sacred trees, especially in pursuit of specific ends, like having children -- that's exactly the sort of instrumental approach to the divine that Muhammad thundered against. That's not to say that I approve of the Wahabi answer to this (using violence or the power of the state to destroy historical sites and to FORCE people to give up such practices).

In any case, this should be mentioned somehow, and linked to the article on Shirk. Zora 03:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

to zora your efforts are highly admired however you must be extremely careful when citing secular historians regarding islamic issues. History in the secular world and the islamic world is a weak science which is flawed and historians quite clearly give their view on what happenned in the past (his story). As it is said history is written by the victors, which clearly depicts do not expect truths in history expect biases.

Islam is a religion whose every valid detail can be found not in the books of history but in the books of hadith and their commentaries. These have been preserved in an immaculate format that whole sciences have been formed simply on the preservation of ahadith i.e Asmaa e Rijaal and Usool e Hadith.

My point being (please do not misunderstand me) be careful when citing secular/islamic historians as their slip of the tongues should not become yours. Islam has clearly expressed its views on words as a single word can change a persons status.

Regarding the so called 'mythology' of the handsomeness of Muhammed PBUH. This my dear friend has nothing to do with mythology but can be referenced over and over with hundreds of Shahih Ahadeeth from many illustrious Sahaabah. The simplicity of the matter is 'beauty is in the eyes of the beholder' and these Sahaabah had complete overpowering life changing and utterly selfless love for their leader and Prophet (may we emulate this love aameen). There is no room for myth in this.

Secondly on the quote of a pennyless orphan being put in charge of deciding who should place the stone. Well this pennyless orphan was quite commonly know as 'the trustworthy' and would commonly be entrusted with peoples earning savings and fortunes, and this practice carried on even after they rejected his call to Imaan. A man with such unparrallelled respect for his honesty and trustworthiness would undoubtedly be asked for important decisions. Again the above can be referenced over and over again in the Sahih Ahadith.

Please do not take my adivce in the wrong way but my point is for one who wants to reference Islam the legitimate references are limitless please direct your efforts in the right way may we all be guide to what is right and no ill feelings intended.


 * Sorry, but academic historians regard hadith with great suspicion, as even Muslim scholars will admit that many of them are da'if, or weak. Even Bukhari threw out 99% of the hadith he had collected, which suggests the urge to invent hadith to support a particular political or theological position. Academic historians believe that Bukhari and Muslim did not remove all the invented hadith. Zora 01:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Historians both academic and islamic themselves have no credbility and are regarded in academic and islamic circles with suspicion. You point out Bukhari threw out 99% of his hadith please reference this accusation. Bukhari has many publications not just his Sahih read Adabul Mufrad it might enlighten your eyes if you have knowledge in Usool e hadith. When referencing Islam its best to use Islamic sources as people want to know about Islam not what other historians academic or islamic have to say about it. Please study the science of hadith before you accept the flawed views of academic historians to inform people on matters Islamic. The choice is yours.

Just kissing it because Muhammed did
So why did Muhammed kiss it, or does no-one know?

More sources needed
The 'Significance of the Black stone' section has many beliefs about the Black Stone. The first one has a citation, but the rest desperately need some. Even some solid external links would be a start. MP  (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I just noticed there is a relevant external link. Now I'm after some reliable book or journal references. No satisfying some people... :) MP  (talk) 23:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've made a start at including some reliable sources. MP  (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth is there no picture?
Because the picture that we had was removed for possible copyright violation. Someone needs to supply another picture. Zora 18:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Kaaba has a picture of the Black Stone so I've added it to this article. Mazer 19:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * looks like the image has been scanned from a publication, though the uploader has tagged it as PD.  ITAQALLAH   15:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

John of Damascus
Someone added a statement from a medieval Christian writer claiming that the black stone was the head of a goddess. No one now believes that, and a random thousand year old slur doesn't deserve prominent treatment in the article. Zora 18:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)