Talk:Black Stone/Archive 4

"

Hindu view
I'm very dubious about the "Hindu view" section that has been added to the article. I can't find any corroboration of its claims; what do other editors think? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm curious as well. I reverted the unexplained blanking of it as it does (initially) seem to be sourced.  However the sourcing isn't available online and easily verified.  It seems that this should not be difficult to with onlne resources. Dman727 (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I see it's been removed again. I suggest that we leave it out for now - I should be able to access the referenced sources tomorrow to check whether they corroborate what the section asserts. The thing that makes me suspicious about it is that no source that discusses the Black Stone (and I've found plenty via Google Books) even mentions a Hindu connection. If it was at all significant you would have thought someone would have mentioned it. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I've had a look into this. It seems to be based on the views of a single, apparently fringe, scholar named Abdul Haq Vidyarthi, a member of the Ahmadiyya sect. He appears to have published a number of works asserting that various features of other religions all lead up to the advent of Islam (e.g. Advent of Holy Prophet Muhammad Foretold in the Books of the Old Testament of Jews and the New Testament of Christians). His works don't appear to be referenced by any mainstream sources that I've found. I think Vidyarthi fails as a reliable source and the views expressed by him are clearly fringe; they appear to have no independent notability outside the rather small area of Ahmadiyya scholarship. In view of this, I've removed the "Hindu Views" section as being unreliably sourced and giving undue weight to a fringe viewpoint. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but it is not up to you, ChrisO, to judge the merits of a scholar. The view was published in an academic publication second to none- the Oxford University Press. Hadashot Livkarim (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No - the sourcing is totally inadequate and is being misused in the case of the OUP book. Let's go through the sources. Four are mentioned: "Abdul Haq Vidryarthi pg 91-7", "Atharva Veda, X:2.27", "Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization Oxford University Press, USA ISBN 978-019577940" and "Sayar-ul-Okul pg.191" Vidryarthi is cited as the primary source for the claims, but there's no indication of what book the citation is from, and as I've already said he doesn't seem to be cited by other sources; this fails the WP:V criterion that sources must be "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Wikipedia's policy requires us to "judge the merits of scholars" all the time, so your assertion on that score is simply not accurate. Same problem with Sayar-ul-Okul (who's he?); no works are cited and no page references are provided. There's no page reference for Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization and I've checked the book - it says nothing about the Ka'aba, the Black Stone or Vidryarthi. The anonymous editor who added the section seems to be promoting Vidryarthi's views and misusing the OUP publication as a supporting source, when it says nothing about Vidryarthi's claims. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The source regarding Abdul Haq if you look into the Google data base it states one source that was reviewed and digitized from the University of Michigan see ([]) that review from the University of Michigan should be reliable enough. --BabaTabla (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That edit seems to be a view with sourced information. If the Hindus think its their temple or have some connection, nothing is wrong with adding views with sources --BabaTabla (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But they don't. Take a look at Ahmadiyya - it seems to be a breakaway quasi-Islamic sect, not a Hindu group. As for your "review", it's nothing of the sort - it just indicates that the University of Michigan was one of the institutions which gave Google access to its library for scanning purposes. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This issue has previously been discussed on Talk:Kaaba I believe. There doesn't seem to be any real discussion of this theory beyond the partisan polemical literature. If there is any specific coverage by a reliable source, then it may merit inclusion.  ITAQALLAH  16:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The Oxford source seems to be reliable enough and as explained earlier the source regarding Abdul Haq, if you look into the Google data base it states one source that was reviewed and digitized from the University of Michigan see ([]) that review from the University of Michigan should be reliable enough. The sources seem to be in place with academic reviews. --BabaTabla (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The Abdul Haq is still an source and the academic Oxford should be one reliable source according to footnotes it falls into category. --BabaTabla (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you provide the exact passage from this work and in its correct context?  ITAQALLAH   17:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It was already mentioned in the footnotes see [] --BabaTabla (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The footnote says only "Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization Oxford University Press, USA ISBN 978-0195779400". No page ref, no passage. I've looked at the cited book and it mentions nothing about Abdul Haq Vidryarthi or any claims about the Ka'aba. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Theres no preview for that book. Perhaps this book will be available in my local library, soon there will be some development, i will post on this talk page the pages. The Abdul Haq seems to be a different book and the Atharv Veda must be a sacred script --BabaTabla (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Considering how important a topic that the Black Stone is, I would want to see multiple sources covering an unusual view, before it would be considered significant enough to be included in this article, per Wikipedia's policy on "undue weight". If there's only one reliable source which mentions the Black Stone in context with Hindu culture, then the Black Stone could be mentioned in some other article that is relevant.  For example, if there is a reliable source which states that people of the Indus Valley worshipped the Black Stone, then it might be worth putting a mention into the Indus Valley article, but not the Black Stone article. If, however, multiple reliable sources can be produced which show that the Hindu relationship to the Stone has "significant coverage", then it might be worth a small mention, in proportion to the other material that is already in the article. --Elonka 19:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I fully agree. I know of no such reliable sources, but that doesn't mean they might not exist. It would be helpful if the anonymous IP editor who added the material in the first place could address some of the issues that have been raised above. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Given the limited sources, the inaccuracy of claiming there is a universal Hindu view and the "undue weight" problem of a long section outlining the views of a single sect tangential to the significance of the Stone to Islam, I support the removal of this section or at least a severe trimming to a couple of lines. If the Stone was a generally accepted part of Hindu myhtology or beliefs there would be a wealth of sources and references. As there isn't there's too little to support including the section. Euryalus (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The Hindu view sources are under footnotes they seem to fall into category. Perhaps some editor would want to go through the passage and take out some lines or shape the paragraph into wiki standards. --BabaTabla (talk) 23:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think this should be included as per WP:WEIGHT. I had originally rv'ed the blanking of this material, but given the discussions and finding above, this view seems to be a particular;y minor viewpoint.  If this view were more than an extreme minority view, this material should easily be able to verify via WP:RS.  As it is, this information appears in only a few texts in a field of which thousands have been written about it.  Dman727 (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It was published in a university magazine. Basta. Mallerd (talk) 10:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This source right here [] - claims the black stone was a incarnation of shiva just as mentioned in the passage (note this book has refs for claims)

There seems to be indefinte amount of sources you can view [] for more sources or information. --BabaTabla (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

See User talk:Dbachmann/Sair al-Okul. I've given this the benefit of doubt, to the conclusion that this is just the usual Hindutva blog trash. Nothing to see here. dab (𒁳) 17:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Where there is smoke, there is fire... How do you explain the circumnambulation, unlike anything else in Islam but prevalent throughout Hinduism? That is not blog trash. That is fact. Is there any evidence of Islamic circumnambulation because there are loads of Hindu examples? We know Buddhism spread from India and ancient artefacts and temples have been found far afield. If nothing else, it brings Islam closer to Hinduism and Hindus closer to Islam which can only be a good thing. If we acknowledge the different opinions of different faiths as we do for many issues concerning Christianity, Judaism and Islam then surely this wikipedia entry is more universal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AKS77 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Your circumnambulation theory is interesting, but the problem is its your theory rather than something put forward in verifiable third-party sources. The links I've marked in the preceding sentence outline why we can't include our own theories, no matter how likely they seem. On your second point, we should certainly acknowledge a range of views in the article, but there are several issues to consider before any new theory gets included:
 * First, is it sourced properly? - theories that are unsourced or unreliably sourced cannot be included. Sourcing must be specific - simply giving the name of a book is not enough, you need the page number, edition, ISBN or similar. Without specifics, a source cannot be verified.
 * Second, is it a fringe theory? - that is,a theory that is so far from the mainstream view that it requires additional and extensive referencing in sources other than its adherents. This doesn't suggest that fringe theories are false, just that as they are startling or unlikely they require greater independent backing;
 * Thirdly, does inclusion give it undue weight? - even if a theory is extensively referenced, it might still be such a minority view or of such limited relevance that inclusion gives it more prominence than it realistically deserves.
 * There are other issues as well, like a neutral tone and avoiding syntheses, but the above are enough to start with on why the consensus is against inclusion of the "Hindu view" you've proposed. I don't mean this to sound unwelcoming, and I appreciate it sounds like a lot of obstacles for inclusion of a fairly short section. However you are proposing something out of the mainstream and that's inevitably a harder task. Euryalus (talk) 03:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Alfred Wegener was a fringe scientist in his days. Look at what most of us seem to believe nowadays. Fringe doesn't say anything: paradigm. Mallerd (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The circumnambulation being discussed is a practice and an observable phenomenon in practice even today and not a theory. The question raised regarding it is valid. Besides, not all theories in the domain of theories have been verified and all theories belong to somebody, so the "your theory" remark is unwarranted. Going by the same rigor, the reports of the various westerners who have seen the Black Stone in the 19th century cannot be seen to be authentic either as they were based on "one view". Going beyond, the "Hindu view" is just a view. The fact that the Black Stone is not allowed for examination and scholarly appraisal by a self interested group which wants to protect it from outside eyes and the fact that there are stories of the Kaaba itself being covered to hide pre-islamic inscriptions; all of this give sufficient lee-way for the "Hindu view". There's a case for it, academically speaking, so let's not get coy just because some people get jumpy about it! TheOnlyEmperor (talk) 11:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)TheOnlyEmperor

I have been observing that wiki editors who are mostly Christian have a bias that all Arab things have to do with semitic traditions. Ancient history of preislamic Arabs clearly shows that Arabs were dealing with India (as Arabs called it Hind), particularly west coast of India as meritime travellers. They were deeply involved with matters in that region of westcoast of India. They had no religion of their own and as they adopted discarded dieties of Persians (dumped at Mecca by Persians as Zoroastrian religion spread) they also adopted many dieties from westcoast of India (Mannat, Allat and Ujja). They had many permanent colonies there and so they adopted many Hindu practices. Circumbulation is one of that. The Black Stone could have been imported from the granite black stone generally used to prepare 'ling' of Mahadeva (means, great God a very true synonym for Allah) an ancient god of Hindus. Ling means symbol and so Shive ling means symbol of Shiva. I suggest this habit of trying to simply rule out various views by misusing provisions of wiki rulebook should be stopped. I am also writing articles on wiki and I feel we must understand that wiki is not a Christian data bank but a world data bank. We cannot be emotional while preparing material for wiki mainstream pages. Suggestions that certain article disturbs emotions of millions people is no argument to remove a part from the article. Pathare Prabhu (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Book of Daniel
In Judaeo-Christian scriptures, the Messiah is Prophesied in the Book of Daniel 2 as a super-natural stone. Given the central role of the Messiah amongst Abrahamic Religions; and the central role of the Black Stone in Islam; is there any connection, between Judaeo-Christianity (Daniel 2, stone of Messiah) & Islam (Black Stone) ? 24.56.197.47 (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know of any connection. This is a question best asked at Reference_desk/Humanities. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Remove the Picture
I personally believe and strongly condemn for the picture which portrays Prophet Mohammed(Peace Be Upon Him). No one deserves right to visualize his physical appearance by way of art,picture,drawing or any other form. I appeal to the concerned authorities to delete the image which portrays Prophet Mohammed(Peace Be Upon Him)with immediate effect. I also request other viewers to support this good cause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.139.97 (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:CENSOR and Talk:Muhammad/images. Gabbe (talk) 06:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * what about hiding the image until click with that text :importScript('User:Anomie/hide-images.js');--Sghaier mohamed (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You can configure your browser or your account any way you want, to avoid seeing images. Talk:Muhammad/FAQ Q3 gives some guidance. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 July 2013
Please remove image showing Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) ready to fix the stone after picking it up from a sheet of cloth. It badly hurts Muslims' emotion to show pictures of Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) anywhere, so I humbly request the reader of this request to remove it.

Gr8usman4u (talk) 09:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That image comes from an ancient history book by a Muslim author, Rashid-al-Din Hamadani. It's a perfectly acceptable image. Muslims apparently had no problem with it back then.
 * Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any group, and that is an encyclopedically relevant image for this article. Objection to depictions of Muhammad is not universal among Muslims either. Please also see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, which provides a fuller explanation and also describes how to configure your browser or your Wikipedia account to prevent displaying these images. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Yoni?
Wikipedia should respect for all the Prophets and should avoid putting ant Pictures of this Kind. I strongly condemn this mistake made by Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foraadian (talk • contribs) 14:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC) Isn't it some kind of Yoni worship? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.20.200 (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope. That's a fringe Hindu theory. It's nonsense, of course. Prioryman (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Prioryman you are wrong, because no one has checked the blackstone from inside, neither hindus made this theory. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

to remove image of Prophet MUHAMMAD (P.B.U.H) File:Mohammed kaaba 1315.jpg
In Islam picture of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and other Humans are not allowed. But Wikipedia is showing illustrations with face illustrated and face is veiled or white washed. But still it is offensive to Muslims! here is the link to picture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Stone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg
 * I kiindly request you to remove this picture as soon as possible!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamzajarral9 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2014
Black Stone also known as Sange Aswad which is a corrupted form of the Sanskrit word Sanghey Ashweta--meaning non-white stone

Nitin.raj1989 (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * you would need to provide a reliably published source that verifies the claims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Add the detail about black stone?
The Black Stone which is the Shiv Emblem (also known as Sange Aswad which is a corrupted form of the Sanskrit word Sanghey Ashweta--meaning non-white stone) still survives in the Kaba as the central object of Islamic veneration. The Shiv Ling at The Kaba. It was broken in seven places and now is held together by a silver band.The term Kaba itself is a corruption of the Sanskrit word Gabha (Garbha + Graha) which means Sanctum. In addition, in the inscriptions from Hajja and its neighborhood was found a votive vessel dedicated by members of two tribes called Rama and Somia. Rama and Soma are Vedic deities, Rama is of the Solar dynasty and Soma is of the Lunar Dynasty. The moon god was called by various names in pre-Islamic times, one of them was Allah. Allah had 3 children, Al-Lat, Al-Uzza and Manat. Al-Lat and Al-Uzza were both feminine deities. Alla is another name for the Hindu goddess Durga. It is obvious that the goddess Al-Lat was Alla (Durga) and Al-Uzza was Oorja (energy or life force also known as Shakti). Manat was none other than Somnath which is another name for Lord Shiva. One significant point to note that Soma in Sanskrit means Moon and Nath means Lord. Thus the Kaba itself was dedicated to the Moon God Somnath alias Shiv and the word Somnath was corrupted to Manat. The famous Black Stone is none other than the ShivLing of Makkeshwar alias Mecca. Lord Shiva is always shown with a crescent Moon on his head and every Shiva temple is supposed to have a sacred water spring representing the Ganges. The Crescent Moon pinnacle of the Kaba and the Zamzam spring (actually Zamza from Ganga) are irrefutable testaments to the Vedic origins of the Kaba.

Note:Islam came into being about 1372 years ago. It is well known that over 7500 years ago, at the time of the Mahabharat War, Kurus ruled the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitin.raj1989 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There was discussion about it above. It has been mentioned by number of scholars and academics as well. But, I would like to see how many are interested in reviewing it. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Elsebeth Thomsen is notable?
Elsebeth Thomsen has came up with some strange or never heard theory first of all. 2nd thing, since she has no wiki page, is she even notable? There are probably many others who can be added instead of her, if you want to add. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Pre-Islamic traditions
I have added a referenced comment on Ibn Ishaq's report of the Ka'aba during pre-Islamic times. Cpsoper (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC) I have also added references from secondary and primary sources about views on pre-Islamic veneration of stones.Cpsoper (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Have added two references to the similar appearance of the stone and its cover, with a link to the pages, Tate cites Camphausen, but clearly agrees with him, and Rice gives details of worship practice which can also be verified directly from Ibn Ishaq.Cpsoper (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2014
Pleae remove the picture from history and tradition part. This picture could spark unrest among muslims as a blasphemos act.

Jawwadsaif (talk) 06:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

❌ as it clearly says at the top of this page:-


 * If you are here to talk about removing images of Muhammad from Wikipedia articles, please read this article carefully: WikiProject Islam/Images of Muhammad. Wikipedia is not censored.


 * If you would like to learn how to configure your browser so as not to see images on this article, please see: How to set your browser to not see images

- Arjayay (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Remove instances of (as) and (swt)
It seems that these are unnecessary after Allah and Adam in the article and only break up the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phasw (talk • contribs) 15:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Ordinarily I would agree, but it would appear that they are part of a quote. As such, we should use them verbatim rather than editing them. Quotes from external sources don't have to (and often won't) conform with Wikipedia's manual of style, but we shouldn't expect them to. Prioryman (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Jew hatred in this article
What's with this shit, because its a Muslim article, Jew hatred is going to be acceptable?

The Shi'ite Persians were suspected of being responsible and were the target of curses from other Muslims for centuries afterwards, though explorer Sir Richard Francis Burton doubted that they were the culprits; he attributed the act to "some Jew or Greek, who risked his life to gratify a furious bigotry."[23]

What's this explorer's opinion matter, except to implicate Jews and Greeks for no reason?

There is a million other quotes Muslims would love to see implicating Jews, but this is libel, as much as the accusation of the Persians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.171.38 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 7 September 2014‎
 * It's an encyclopedically relevant note in the history of the black stone, and the quotation is from a notable explorer, Richard Francis Burton. The statement is clearly presented as a quotation and not in Wikipedia's voice. The fact that some historians might have had a bias does not mean we need to censor the article because it offends you. Wikipedia is not censored for anyone's benefit. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Other locations of the Black Stone.
The Black Stone is also located in Istanbul, Turkey.

Fragments of the Black Stone are located in 3 separate places in Istanbul 1 - the tomb of Suleyman at the Sulemaniye Mosque 2 - the Mihrab of the Blue Mosque (Sultanhamet Camii) 3 - in a small mosque called Sokollu Mehmet Pasha Mosque

http://www.woreczko.pl/meteorites/travels/Stambul_2010/BlackStone-EN.htm

http://kauscience.k12.hi.us/~ted/Blackstone/hajar-al-aswad.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.172.0.205 (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Black stone stolen by Qarmatians
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qarmatians

I do not have access to the book referenced in the article, but it's common knowledge that the Black stone was not stolen by Fatimids, rather Qarmatians. Please correct the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.98.46.233 (talk) 04:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The article already says it was stolen by the Qarmatians, so I'm not sure what your point is. Prioryman (talk) 11:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

meteorite origin
1. Since the Wabar craters are mentioned, I suggest that somebody uses the wikipedia article about the Wabar craters to tell when that impact occurred.

2. In August 2014 there appeared on the internet statements that Anthony Hampton at Oxford University and a group of geologists have found evidence for a meteorite impact at Mecca. Unfortunately I can't find any verification anywhere on the internet that this is correct. It would be nice if somebody checked. And if correct, please add the information to this article.213.113.116.13 (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The image supposedly portraying the sublime personality of Muhammad PBUH is against Islam, And I, through this comment,want to draw attention of concerned to remove the image,as without this, purpose is being conveyed effectively, there is no need to indulge in such activity which ultimately leads to problems with particular society. Also, Wikipedia is diverse source of information targeting diverse population so there is no such demand of portraying such image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.36.114.167 (talk) 03:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please draw your attention to the discussion above, as well as Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, Depictions of Muhammad, WikiProject Islam/Images of Muhammad, Wikipedia is not censored. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 04:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

"Tanakh" is the more usual transliteration
It's given as "Tenakh" in the article, which is misleading to anyone not familiar with vowel lability. Spelt in the conventional way, the sentence might give rise to questions about why Jewish scripture should bear on whether kissing a Muslim relic is idolatrous. 72.70.24.61 (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jytdog (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2014
In the section 2. History and tradition please REMOVE the illustration showing Prophets Muhammad placing stone on the kaa'ba. It's prohibited in Islam to make illustrations/drawings of Prophet Muhammad.

Thanks

Chjawadm (talk) 12:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. My apologies. Jytdog (talk) 12:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the prohibition is not universal in Islam. See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ as well as Depictions of Muhammad. That particular image is from an ancient book of history written by a well known Muslim historian, Rashid-al-Din Hamadani, so it seems strange that Muslims would object to it. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not forbidden to represent a prophet in Islam, what is forbidden is to identify the prophet. The reason is that in Islam the prophet is considered solely a messager who denied himself. For this reason any representation of the prophet is at risk of placing any importance to the messager and venerating him rather than the source. This is the reason why at the Kaabah Muhammad considered all the images except for the elderly man and Mary and her child as idolatry. In the relationship between the mother and the child the emphasis is placed on the divine relationship between the mother and the child, the mother denial of herself. This is not idolatry! Because this relationship is intangible. The same goes with the elderly man who is barely recognizable. In fact it is said that it is Muhammed who assumed the elderly man to be Abraham, because there was no identification as such (Abraham having denied himself). Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 03:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Video Footage of the Black Stone
Please, add this unique video footage of the Black Stone as an 'external video'.

https://scontent-arn2-1.cdninstagram.com/t50.2886-16/13942865_1800701496815783_1434436484_n.mp4

https://www.instagram.com/p/BIqnxeTjCGO/

video by Turki Alharbi | @alharbi_turki9 on Instagram — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.201.242 (talk) 11:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Why is the Yata no Kagami in the See Also section?
What is the proposed similarity?--JaredMithrandir (talk) 11:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No idea, and I also don't know why the Lapis Niger was listed. (Yes, it's a black stone, but the name is the only resemblance.) I've removed the See Also section as unnecessary. Prioryman (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

improvements
User:Prioryman just wanted to say thanks for this steady run of well-sourced improvements. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words! I'm aiming in due course to nominate the article as a featured article candidate, but there's some way to go before it's ready for that, so I'll keep working to improve it. Prioryman (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

References to Semitic origin purged of Semitic prophetic response
During a series of edits in May, references to a secondary source and instances illustrating it from the Tanakh were removed with the brief explanation 'this is a bit off topic'. I have restored this material. If reference to the Semitic origins of stone worship are appropriate, so is a brief and sourced reference to the mainline Semitic view of the practice from then till now. Cpsoper (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It is problematic in that it uses primary religious sources and not analytical secondary sources. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The secondary source cites many other instances from same origin. What more penetrating analysis of the phenomenon in question can be found? This is a brief, illuminating sample of prophetic reaction. Cpsoper (talk) 09:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Questionable translation
The translation of "al-Rukn al-aswad" actually means "black corner." Aswad does not translate to corner, but rather, black. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qelmasri (talk • contribs) 01:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I was also going to edit it to make that change, then I found it was protected, so I am adding my agreement here: aswad = "black" --80.169.223.146 (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed, it seems the correct translation is "corner of the Black Stone". ~Anachronist (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect dates in the 'Desecrations' sub-section.
The date 1857 is used instead of 857, and 952 is not 23 years later. The source listed states Abu Tahir al-Jannabi as having ransacked the ka'ba in 930 and the stone having been returned in 951. Has something happened here?

Augulus (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Kaaba Theory: Vedic origins
In a 13-page pamphlet titled Was Kaaba a Hindu Temple?, Oak derives a claim of a "Vedic past of Arabia" based on an inscription mentioning the legendary Indian king Vikramāditya that Oak claims was found inside a dish inside the Kaaba. According to Oak, the text of the alleged inscription is taken from the page 315 of an anthology of poetry entitled Sayar-ul-Okul (Se’-arul Oqul meaning the memorable words), compiled in 1742 on the orders of a "Sultan Salim" (the actual Sultan at the time being Mahmud I, sultan Selim III lived from 1761 to 1808) from the earlier work of prophet Muhammed's uncle Amr ibn Hishām (poetic name "Abu al-Ḥakam" or ابوالحكم meaning the "Father of wisdom") who had refused to convert to Islam, and, first modern version published in 1864 in Berlin and a subsequent edition was published in Beirut in 1932. Oak goes on to state that the anthology is kept in the "Makhtab-e-Sultania Library" (Galatasaray Mekteb-i Sultani or Galatasaray Imperial School) in Istanbul in Turkey, which is now also known as Galatasaray Lisesi school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:1049:CCF9:8CF6:2895:283F:82A4 (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The above was copy-pasted from P._N._Oak. This dubious claim does not seem to be based on reliable or verifiable historical sources. AstroLynx (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2021
Please remove the first picture from history and tradition section as pictures of Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) are not allowed. 2400:ADC5:120:5400:64B1:F305:6407:CD35 (talk) 05:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/FAQ Cannolis (talk) 07:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2021
to show respect to prophet of Allah : muslims use PBUH (PEACE BE UPON HIM) after prophet name : Muhammad (PBUH) Nasim2011 (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: General practice in articles is not to include PBUH; please see here for more information. Pupsterlove02  talk • contribs 12:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2021
Remove Hk2084! (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * . There is no reason given to remove that image. It is relevant to the article section. If you are offended by it, see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ to learn how to configure your account to avoid seeing images like this. Wikipedia is not censored for your benefit. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I am requesting the painting to be removed or replaced with the image showing only the black stone because this picture is unreliable as it has not been approved by qualified Islamic experts. If not approved, then it is misleading and has no substantial ground to it. The painting is not from a reliable source and so it is not verifiable. Moreover, Wikipedia states that information on their website should not be inconsistent. If you are describing the aspects of the culture and history of Islam to a certain user, the picture will contradict one of those aspects which once again reduces the reliability of the website. For example, if A has occurred then B should occur and so logically if A has not occurred then B too has not occurred. In this context, it means that if pictures of Prophet Muhammad(PEACE BE UPON HIM) are not allowed then Islamic culture does not have or approve of any such picture. But by showing this picture, you are stating that they might actually approve of it informally which is inconsistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hk2084!  (talk • contribs) 21:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The image needs no approval from "qualified Islamic experts" and its presence does not imply any such approval. Wikipedia is not an Islamic site, and it is not subject to Islamic rules. The image is a depiction, from a source credited to a notable Muslim author, by an ancient artist who intended no disrespect, and it is appropriate to illustrate the section where it appears. Reliability of any ancient painting of any historical figure (because photography did not exist then) has no bearing on its value in the article.
 * You are also flat-out wrong to say that pictures of Muhammad "are not allowed." They may not be allowed for you, but this prohibition is not universal among Muslim communities, as stated in Talk:Muhammad/FAQ Q1. See also Q2 for information about why an image needn't be authoritative. Again, see WP:NOTCENSORED and the answer you were given previously about how to avoid seeing the image if it offends you. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2021
Sir I request to you kindly remove illustration 1315 from History section as its wrong to show such illustration and is against islam.This will lead to anger in islamic community. HomaAbb (talk) 04:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2021 (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. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Black Stone Of Kaaba In Super Resulution 49000 MP.jpg

Kaaba sharif black stone story
Male 103.115.134.212 (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2022
Muslims do not worship the Black Stone.[5][6] just like how the Catholics, Christians and Hindus don’t worship crosses, statues objects etc. 49.245.126.197 (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

PORT HOLE not portal
"The Black Stone is seen through a portal in the Kaaba" should be: "The Black Stone is seen through a port hole in the Kaaba" A 'portal' is: "a doorway, gate, or other entrance, especially a large and imposing one." 2600:1700:4CA1:3C80:19F6:8AD7:8076:2F0E (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * A portal is just an opening. A "port hole" is a circular opening on the side of a ship, which would be incorrect. I don't see the problem. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2022
Change the stone has been present since the time of Adam and Eve, and add to this,However, according to the most commonly accepted and authentic narration, it is believed that Hajr e Aswad was brought to Prophet Ibrahim (AS) during the construction of the Holy Kaaba. Alirana597 (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Ductwork (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2022
please remove pictures of illustrations of maccans and prophet, its one of the biggest and disrespect against islam, we will take swear actions if needed. 223.130.29.148 (talk) 09:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ – Wikipedia does not censor images. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 09:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Image of Black Stone in the Arabic Wikipedia page
As indicated several times, the image of the black stone in the Arabic version of Wikipedia is not suitable since its not exactly the same image of the Black Stone in the English version of Wikipedia. The image of the Black Stone in the Arabic version has some pharaonic symbols/alphabets at its top corner which is not suitable. So kindly replace the image of the Black Stone in the Arabic version of the Wikipedia with the CLEAN Image of the Black Stone as in the English version thanks and best regards -Waleed Ahmad Jameel Addas 196.2.85.170 (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Reference required
I think that the following sentence should have a reference attached, a note that a reference is needed, or a link to the those who venerated the stone…in pre-Islamic pagan times.”

The stone was venerated at the Kaaba in pre-Islamic pagan times.

I do not think that the sentence should be removed. Wikityper3 (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2023
Dear Wikipedia,

I would like to bring to your attention a mistake on the page about the Black Stone in Kaaba. It is mentioned that the stone was set in Kaaba by Prophet Mohammad and he has the credit for it. However, in reality, it was Abraham who placed the Black Stone in Kaaba.

I kindly request you to update the information on the page to reflect the correct historical facts. Sameer8156 (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2023
Plz remove the picture/graphics about the historical event of Prophet Muhammad PBUH placing the stone at corner of Kaaba 59.103.23.242 (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Wikipedia is not censored in favor of any group. See Help:Options to hide an image and WP:Content disclaimer. Bestagon ⬡ 19:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2023
Muhammad According to Islamic belief Muhammad is credited with setting the Black Stone in the current place in the wall of the Kaaba. A story found in Ibn Ishaq's Sirah Rasul Allah tells how the clans of Mecca renovated the Kaaba following a major (change fire to flood) which had partly destroyed the structure. The Black Stone had been temporarily removed to facilitate the rebuilding work. The clans could not agree on which one of them should have the honour of setting the Black Stone back in its place.[38][39] Kachau28 (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Section on Desecrations
in section on desecrations, this is written:

"In January 930, it was stolen by the Qarmatians, who carried the Black Stone away to their base in Hajar (modern Eastern Arabia). According to Ottoman historian Qutb al-Din, writing in 1857, the Qarmatian leader Abu Tahir al-Jannabi set the Black Stone up in his own mosque, the Masjid al-Dirar, with the intention of redirecting the hajj away from Mecca. This failed, as pilgrims continued to venerate the spot where the Black Stone had been."

There is another location that is purported to be where the Qarmatians kept the black stone: Ain Al Kuayba in Eastern Saudi Arabia. High surv (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Aslam o laikum! Please Write P.B.U.H (Peace be upon him) With Holy Prophet's name.....it is a humble request!
It a humble request! Good luck! 119.73.119.42 (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Kindly refer to MOS:MUHAMMAD for that. Thanks.The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Black Stone a pallasite?
Scientific origins section says: "It has been described variously as basalt stone, an agate, a piece of natural glass or—most popularly—a stony meteorite."

Appearance of the Black Stone section says: "... a pitch-black exterior and a silver-grey, fine-grained interior in which tiny cubes of a bottle-green material were embedded..."

This may be covered in more depth in Ref. 2, if someone has access to that book. The description seems consistent with a stony-iron Pallasite. Cteno (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

the "ancient" building
Ancient history is refering mostly to times before 500 AD (476,565 etc) 1. Where is reliable source of this building in this times? 2. It was rebuild multiple times so can we say it realy is "ancient"? 2A02:A310:C043:2D00:B11A:E565:3D82:2B73 (talk) 05:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2024
Remove reference 36 that the Black Stone is "thought to be a reference to Allat", one person's opinion and thoughts (even if written in a book) cannot be a generalized opinion or facts, especially when it comes to God's miracles, like the Black Stone. "the Black Stone is sacred to Muslims, it should not be equated with Allat, which is an idol of pre-Islamic times." Scholarforpeace (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Geardona (talk to me?) 00:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)