Talk:Mecca

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Saudi Arabia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Cities on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mecca is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion.
This article has been tagged since January 2007.
To-do list for Mecca: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh


Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Verify: cite sources
  • Cleanup: less about the religous beliefs, more about the city functions
  • Expand: explain importance of city in regards to culture, economy, tourism, etc. Basically, how the city functions. This is an article about a city, not what muslims believe.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Mecca as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Indonesian language Wikipedia.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. In case of need for further archiving, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

|| Mecca vs. Makkah || Life in Makkah || Naming policy poll || Black Stone || "Bakka" discusion in two places--trimmed || GEUSS WHAT?


Please add new talk threads at the bottom of this page.

Contents


[edit] Inconsistency

We have both Mecca and Makkah scattered through this article. We really need to be consistent. RickK 09:31, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Another inconsistency: Sharif of Mecca page differs from spelling on Sherif Hussein ibn Ali bio page (Sharif of Mecca vs Sherif of Mecca) Nobs 17:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How is Mecca protected by unauthorized visitors?

How is Mecca protected by non-muslimic visitors? Is the town surrounded by a fence or a wall similiar like West-Berlin between 1961 and 1989?

[edit] Answer

No, but there are checkpoints along the way from Jeddah to Mecca, but they really do nothing, they don't check the passports or anything, I have been there, anybody can go in unnoticed.

I have been there many times and lived four years as a residence. It is not easy to enter Makkah without proper documentations like passport. Active checkpoints are all over the city. It takes about forty five minutes from Jeddah(main terminal) to Makkah but sometime takes hours just to clear check points.

[edit] Keeper/Servant of the Holy Places

Has anyone attempted to write on article on Keeper of the Holy Places? Nobs 20:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to the title Khadim-e-Harmain Shareefain? It would be interesting to have such an article. It is a title last used by the Ottoman Caliph--till relatively recently revived by the House of Saud. (Their preferred translation is "Custodian of..." See: http://www.saudinf.com/main/b7.htm)—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:10, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Some of this article needs to be merged with Hajj: I am thinking of the section 'millions of people' or suchlike under 'Hajj', and its overlap with disasterous incidents on this page. 81.153.177.193 22:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edit with an ideological load was deleted

Someone inserted a change in the text to indicate his/her belief that the God of the Muslims is not the God of the Christians, etc. As far as I know they all agree that there is only one God, and they are either all right or all wrong. If they are all right then there is only one God and they can only be speaking about the same thing even though they each may have their belief that their way is the only right way. There might be some way of NPOVing things a little, but the change that was in fact made was way out of line. It was a new contributor who did it, and some of his edits have been helpful, so I hope if he tries again he will involve himself in discussion on this talk page rather than starting an edit war. (Maybe he is too "raw" to have even conceived of an edit war. That would be fortunate.) P0M 00:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling in title and within article

I realize that this question has been discussed, but that was back in 2003, and has not really been brought up since. Why do we have a contradiction within the article? Why is the article name "Mecca", while every reference to the city within the article is "Makkah"? This is absurd: Either we say that one or the other spelling is our "official" Wikipedian spelling, and we stick with it both in the title and in the article. It makes absolutely no sense to try to sit on the fence by using both within the same article.

Personally I am strongly in favor of the spelling "Makkah", since this is the American Government's official spelling of the name. That makes the Naming policy poll inapplicable, since the question posed there was whether the common spelling should out-weigh the foreign country's spelling. Nobody there proposed that we not use the official US spelling of the name. I'm not sure when the State Department changed their official policy: their page on Saudi Arabia was last updated Sept 2004, so maybe it was after the poll.

My opinion is irrelevant, however. What matters is that the article needs to be standardized one way or the other. It's ridiculous to spell the city one way in the article title and another way throughout the article. — Asbestos | Talk 1 July 2005 11:32 (UTC)

Since apparently no-one watches this talk page, I'm perfectly happy to be bold and move the page myself, if only to generate some response. However, I'll start by being good and will create a straw poll:
The larger issue here is what to do when the transliteration of a name does not correspond with its commonoly accepted English counterpart. Consider Cairo. No English speaker would speak about his/her amazing trip to "Al-Quahirah." Nor should an English Wikipedia article about the Egyptian capital fall under that heading. Given its widespread use, Mecca strikes me as a similar case. 24.63.125.78 17:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Cairo is how the government of Egypt officially refers to the city in English. I think this article should be moved to Makkah, because that is the English spelling used by the Saudi Arabian government. Also, it is different from the case of Cairo/al-Qaihirah where Cairo is not a simple transliteration of al-Qahirah. Makkah and Mecca, both are direct transliterations of the name and therefore, the official spelling should be used as the main page title. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aslamt (talk • contribs) 00:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Poll: Spelling of Mecca / Makkah

  • Please sign with ~~~~ and explain your vote. This is a straw poll, so there is no official deadline, but a decision should be reached a week from now (July 12).

[edit] 1. Move the article to "Makkah"

  1. — Asbestos | Talk 5 July 2005 13:32 (UTC). It's the official US spelling of the name [1]; it's the official UK spelling of the name [2], and the spelling used by the British government's Standards of Education curriculum [3]; it's the official UN spelling of the name [4]; it's the English spelling preferred by Saudi Arabia. Obviously Mecca would redirect, so anyone could still find it.
    The Whitehouse calls it Mecca [5] .. a google search of "mecca" on all .gov sites found 19,000 hits, while a search of Makkah found 425. Stbalbach 5 July 2005 16:12 (UTC)
    None of the sources you gave claim Makkah as the 'official' name, they are merely one-off uses. The CIA World Factbook map shows Mecca. It is also listed as Mecca in the appendix with no mention of Makkah. As for the UK site you provided, see [6] (34 results) compared to [7] (1 result, intended for Muslims). The same goes for the UN site: [8] (222 results) vs [9] (38 results). Even if there was consistency within the US and UK governments and the UN, they have no power to dictate an 'official' spelling anyway. the wub "?/!" 6 July 2005 10:27 (UTC)
  2. Dragons flight July 5, 2005 15:42 (UTC) I generally support the position that spellings of proper names should follow the English spelling/transliteration preferred by the people or place being named, while of course maintaining redirects/explainations as appropriate.
  3. BlankVerse ∅ 5 July 2005 18:35 (UTC) The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia! The article title should be the most accurate and official name. Just as the Ivory Coast article is located at Côte d'Ivoire, in this case the article should be at the spelling prefered by the Saudi Arabian government.
  4. –Hajor 13:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC). Local preferred use. Encyclopedic register. Fondness for lost causes.
  5. 69.180.6.146 22:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC) We can always use redirects, and 'Makkah' is more proper as it is used by the governing country. (This previously unbulleted item has been numbered by me for better readability) Zunaid
  6. Better yet, move the article to Makkah al-Mukkaramah, the preferred transliteration of the Saudi government, with redirects from "Mecca" and "Makkah". Throughout the article the name "Makkah" should be used. Zunaid 11:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. It is the official spelling accepted by various governments. Aslamt 00:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2. Change each occurence in the body of the text (except the mention on the first line) to "Mecca"

  1. I think it's better to use the common English spelling in this case. I don't believe that there is such a thing as an "official" spelling for a place name. - Nat Krause 5 July 2005 14:18 (UTC)
  2. An article title is according to how the subject is most commonly known in the English language. This poll is imformal and doesnt over-ride the Naming policy (see links below). The name used in the article should reflect the article title, obviously. Explain the distinctions in a section of the article. Stbalbach 5 July 2005 16:00 (UTC)
  3. Use the English name, not the goverment-speak name. Twenty years of official sanction by political bodies has still not made the name into Makkah in English. -R. S. Shaw 6 July 2005 03:22 (UTC)
    Do you have any evidence that it is only "government-speak"? My vote above is based on a presumption that this is the English spelling preferred by the Saudi Arabian people themselves. If you can disprove that, I would change my vote. Dragons flight July 6, 2005 17:57 (UTC)
    yeah but, this is the English wikipedia. Most people know it by Mecca, not the native language. This is true with many articles. Confucius, for example, is a fairly unknown name in China. Stbalbach 6 July 2005 23:24 (UTC)
    It's their holy city, not mine. If they routinely refer to it in English as Makkah then out of respect that is how we should refer to it as well. I would be just as likely to support changing Confucius to "Master Kong" if most Chinese actually referred to him that way when speaking in English. Redirects are cheap, and most people may still find it by searching on Mecca, but I believe their preferred transliteration should be honored. As above though, I am willing to consider evidence that this might be more a political stunt than a popular preference, if anyone has such evidence. Dragons flight July 6, 2005 23:48 (UTC)
    Is there really any evidence about the actual preference of Arabian people in general on how to spell Mecca/Makkah in English? Most people in Saudi Arabia probably have no preference at all—they don't speak English. They know how to spell it in Arabic. Incidentally, I've talked to a lot of Chinese people in English and, indeed, most of them have never heard of "Confucius"—usually, they say "Kongzi" even when speaking English. - Nat Krause 7 July 2005 05:02 (UTC)
  4. The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to try and change popular usage. Use the English name, which is most common amongst the users of this encyclopedia and the governments of English speaking countries. the wub "?/!" 6 July 2005 10:34 (UTC)
  5. Agree with users above. PedanticallySpeaking July 6, 2005 17:29 (UTC)
  6. use english -- Chris 73 Talk July 6, 2005 21:41 (UTC)
  7. I agree with the comments already made. BrianSmithson 12:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  8. In English it's spelled "Mecca". Maybe it should be spelled "Makkah", but we write articles based on the way things are, not the way they should be. -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  9. "Mecca" is the common English name. Maurreen 13:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  10. Spellings other than Mecca are pratically NEVER seen in English. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:42, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
  11. It is the traditional spelling of the city's name. Makkah is only a very recent spelling, unheard of before a short while ago. For the record, I am a Muslim, and I do spell it as Mecca rather than Makkah, it is in the English language as so, I see no reason to change it. --Agari 19:13, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  12. "Mecca" is the correct and common english name, this is enwiki. Klonimus 03:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  13. Wikipedia policy is to use common, not official names. This prompted Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country names) to clarify the same issue for countries, which is however now inactive. Attempts to change the convention are occasionally made, but so far always fail. Rd232 13:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  14. Googlefight results. While official naming conventions and preferred local terms do count for something, an almost ten-to-one difference in actual usage counts for a lot more. Aquillion 06:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support. In English, it is spelt Mecca. "Makkah" is not English and is an invention of the Saudi government. This is the English wikipedia. 80.255 22:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support. If there were a spelling that could fix English speakers so that they came nearer to pronouncing the name the way it ought to be pronounced, then maybe I would support that choice. If there is no romanization that improves the pronunciation by English speakers of Arabic words, then there is no advantage I can see to adopting one that almost nobody knows how to use who is not already an Arabic speaker. P0M 01:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  17. Wikipedia follows common English usage. Jayjg (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support. Wikipedia policy is to use the common name, and in this case, Mecca clearly is more common. When and if Makkah (or other spellings) becomes more common, we might consider changing it, but for now it should be enough to list the alternate/official spellings at the top of the page. Turnstep 15:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support. For the reasons I described in the previous section. 24.63.125.78 17:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3. Leave the title as "Mecca" and each occurence as "Makkah" within the text, as it is now

  1. The correct roman spelling of the city is Makkah, and as such it should be referred to as that with the article, however, the most popular name for any article should be kept, and that extends to Mecca. --Irishpunktom\talk July 5, 2005 15:53 (UTC)

[edit] 4. Allow anybody to spell the city any way they want within the article

[edit] Discussion

  • Personally, I don't really care which of the first two is voted on, but know that either moving the article or changing the spelling will cause complaints. The current state, however, is just silly. Note that I believe that the Wikipedia:Naming policy poll does not apply, as most did not know that it was the official US and UK spelling of the name (and many voters appeared to believe that the suggestion was to change names such as "Rome" to "Roma") — Asbestos | Talk 5 July 2005 13:17 (UTC)
  • Youll need to provide evidence of an "official" spelling, if such a thing exists. Stbalbach 5 July 2005 16:16 (UTC)
  • I was using the spelling on the US State Department's Saudi Arabia profile as the "official" US spelling, though I agree that generally "official" is defined by dictionaries, if at all, not governments (except in France). In the UK, I was using the spelling in the government's Foreign Office, as well as all the British curriculum material (such as the page cited). I am perfectly prepared to accept that there is no such thing as an "official" spelling, and even that government websites on both sides of the atlantic still use both spellings in their documents (though it's quite possible that there's a cut-off date on "mecca" usage). — Asbestos | Talk 5 July 2005 19:09 (UTC)
  • Makkah is rarely used, google searches prove it. Wikipedia reports on what the (english) world does, it doesnt attempt to change what the world does. Stbalbach 6 July 2005 04:23 (UTC)
  • Neither of these sources define "official" spellings, see my comments above. the wub "?/!" 6 July 2005 10:30 (UTC)
  • The consensus at Wikipedia:Naming policy poll was formed around the position I agree with current wikipedia policy. Geographic articles should be named after what most English speakers would call them, even if that is different than the official English spelling. The official English spelling should still be mentioned in the article. The article therefore seems to reflect that position, and I can't see why you are arguing that the consensus reached at that poll should be set aside. It clearly references using the common usage name rather than the official English name. I don't happen to find the current situation absurdly silly either, since it seems based upon a compromise between the two positions. Steve block 5 July 2005 14:48 (UTC)
    That would be fine, but I felt that there were confusions during the polling process. 1) Under "Affected articles", it reads "(More common English spelling/officially declared by governments of countries where cities are located as official English spelling)", which does not seem to relate to "official US/UK government spelling". 2) Nearly 50 votes were cast before it was noted at the top that the poll did not apply to spellings such as Rome/Roma, London/Londres [10] and one can see clearly from the comments that many people were voting against the idea that we should start changing article titles to, e.g. Londres and Roma. — Asbestos | Talk 5 July 2005 19:09 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I would think that they had an opportunity to change their vote, though. Steve block 5 July 2005 19:54 (UTC)
  • Also, is it your position that all names are changed to reflect the official name then, and so disregard the common usage policy? For example Germany to Federal Republic of Germany? Steve block 5 July 2005 20:01 (UTC)

Question: the three changes I've seen since the 1950's regarding Peiping, Peking, and the current Beijing, all were accepted and adopted very rapidly as the standard in English. Can anyone explain how this came about? Nobs01 5 July 2005 20:10 (UTC)

[11] "There are also a lot of vaguely phonetic spellings - such as "Koran" and "Mecca" - that bear little relation to the Arabic spelling but entered popular usage many years ago and are now difficult to eradicate.

"An internet search with Google shows that "Mecca" is used almost six times more often than "Makkah" (the more accurate spelling that Muslims generally prefer). In a similar search "Quran" scores 44%, "Koran" 37%, and "Qur'an" 19%." Lost in translation - Transcribing Arabic into the Roman alphabet is fraught with difficulty. And in an age of electronic text, search engines and databases, the problem is only going to get worse, writes Brian Whitaker. Guardian Unlimited Monday June 10, 2002

Another problem with Google that Brian Whitaker didn't mention is that when searching on "Mecca", you will also find plenty of lower-case meccas ("Las Vegas is a mecca for gamblers"), other cities around the world named Mecca, MECCA as an acronym, and there is even a last name Mecca (see Mecca (disambiguation) for a partial list). My personal preference is that the city should be at Makkah al-Mukarramah to distinguish between the city and the province Makkah. BlankVerse ∅ 6 July 2005 05:28 (UTC)

[edit] Results

A straw poll is informal, so never official "closes", but a pretty clear consensus seems to be that we ought to standardize the spelling within the article body to "Mecca". I'll change the article to reflect this now. — Asbestos | Talk 08:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Number of Hajj pilgrims.

Clearly, 'every year about two (three) million gather for the Hajj' is wrong. Only in recent years has this number been reached. As for the current figure, the best source I could find is [12] which quotes the number of Hajj pilgrims as 2.56 million for 2005. In the section, 'millions of pilgrims' on the Hajj page, a claim is made that the number of Hajj pilgrims has reached 4 million ! (Any sources for this ?). --Mpatel 5 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)

[edit] Link to pronunciation aids?

Anent the recent discussion on romanization of Arabic names, wouldn't it be useful to have a link on this and similar articles to an article that gives IPA and other aids to the proper pronunciation of commonly appearing Arabic terms? P0M 16:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question regarding Islamic law/Mecca

Greetings. I have a question: what happens if a Muslim does not have access to Mecca, and thus cannot make the traditional pilgrimage? Are there any precedents or interpretations in Islamic law regarding such a situation? If so, what is to be done? Thank you very much for your time. Brasswatchman July 31, 2005. 11:07 AM EST.

Actually, let me rephrase the question, since I asked it in another talk section. Please understand that I do not intend any offense. I have been wondering, however - has there been any discussion of how Islam might adapt if Mekkah was destroyed? - --Brasswatchman 05:49, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Utterly destroying a city is harder than you might think. The scorched radioactive Godzilla-torn ruins of Mecca would have just as much religious significance as the intact city does now, and would probably have more emotional significance as a result of the tragedy. Even the glass circle where Mecca once stood would retain that significance. Unless someone unexpectedly invents a bomb capable of blowing up the past or destroying metaphysical religious concepts, Mecca's status as a religious symbol seems safe.
All of this ignores the possibility to Space-Muslims, of course, or some sort of intradimensional Muslims with no way to return; but somehow I feel confident that they would find a way to cope. I wonder, for the intradimensional Muslims--would a pilgrimage to an alternate-dimension Mecca count? Aquillion 11:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

It is the location of the holy sites in and around Makkah, rather than the actual buildings and/or relics that are of significance to Muslims. As an example, the Great Mosque surrounding the Kabbah, has been rebuilt in recent years on a much grander scale. Previously the mosque simply enclosed the Kabbah and adjacent sites (such as the Well of Zamzam and the Station of Abraham). The new building is a multistorey complex which has been extended on one side to enclose completely the low hills of Safa and Marwah, between which pilgrims perform an important rite. The grandeur of the new mosque does not in anyway affect the performance of the pilgrimage. If the entire city was to be obliterated, it would still be the location of the Hajj, although performing the rites might be a bit difficult.

As to Muslims who cannot make the pilgrimage, there are dispensations which have been used in the past. Firstly, the aspiring pilgrim has to satisfy several criteria before going on the pilgrimage (e.g. possession of sufficient wealth, reasonable health, and provisions for the pilgrim's family, in case the pilgrim does not return). For example, if the residents of a remote village were too poor to afford the lengthy and dangerous journey (before jet aircraft and air conditioning), then they could pool their resources and nominate a small party to undertake the Hajj on behalf of the entire village. Thus, all the villagers completed the pilgrimage without actually visiting Makkah.

The question of Space-Muslims has been partially (but wrongly) answered by the film Pitch Black, where a party of Muslims searches for New Mecca. Instead of undertaking an arduous journey, the Space-Muslim could simply ask forgiveness from God, for not being able to perform the Hajj. 213.104.241.134 22.48, 01 October 2005 (UTC)

In fact the Holy Kaba in Makkah has been destroyed more than once. By the Syrian army in Muharram 64 (Hijri date) for example. As for Space Muslims, there was an article in Arab News a few years ago that addressed this. On another planet you pray towards earth (or towards a vertical line pasing through earth if it is far above or below the horizon.) Prince Sultan Salman Abdulaziz Al-Saud has flown on the US Space Shuttle and managed to pray towards Makkah whilst in orbit. There is a precedent for adjusting prayer direction during prayer: Saudi fishermen do it if the boat drifts. (I live about 15 miles from Makkah.) --Anjouli 14:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Two further questions: a) What happens if a space-Muslim is on such a spot that Mecca is directly overhead? Somewhat overhead? b) What happens if a Muslim happens to be at the Antipodes of Mecca (which I think is somewhere in southern French Polynesia or thereabouts)? — Rickyrab | Talk 23:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This is quite a fascinating question that I always wondered about. Because of the distance from Makkah to other cities, Muslims basically stand in straight, parallel lines (called safs) facing Makkah when in salah. It is only at the Grand Mosque that the safs are actually concentric circles facing inwards, towards the Kaaba. I always wondered what would happen if someone were to build a mosque at the antipodes. Would the safs then be concentric circles facing outwards? Where would the imam stand? Zunaid 14:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I believe that in the highly unlikely event you are standing at the antipode of Makkah, you can face in any direction. Concentric circles facing outward would be correct. Now where the imam stands is an interesting question. To me it would make sense that the imam would stand in front of the outermost concentric circle. joturner 15:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islam template

Is it just me or does Template:Islam seem inappropriate here? None of the cities from the old Christianity template or the Judaism one have the templates on them. It just seems rather odd since the city is not just religion, whereas the concepts are. gren グレン 09:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, this article is heavily focused on Mecca's significance to Islam, so in that respect it's not surprising--just glancing at its text, it is basically written as an article about a central part of Islam. The same is not true, I think, for any of the Christian or Jewish cities mentioned... They are important, but not in the way that Mecca is to Islam. Mecca's importance to Islam is so great (and specific to that religion) that it rightfully dominates this page. The template is just a sign of that. Or, to put it another way: Basically everyone who searches for Mecca on Wikipedia is doing so specifically to read about an aspect of Islam. Aquillion 11:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree, but that is only a facet of Mecca and heavily shows the viewpoint we're coming from... since... most of us are non-Muslim I would presume and the Saudis have interestng laws. I think it should at least be moved down to The importance of Mecca section because... There is life in Mecca outside of Islamic ritual and that information probably isn't as easy to come by as the stuff about Islam is... It's a minor point I suppose but the city doesn't deserve the Islam template, the sections related to Islam do... If if the article had more about Meccan history it would show things about the Quaraysh and wouldn't all be about Islam. I just wanted to bring this up... hopefully the article will flesh out and it will become more apparent that Mecca has more to it than just Islam. gren グレン 12:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Agree with Aquillion on this point. The fact that Mecca is the location of the holiest place in Islam is sufficient for the article to have the Islam tag. I appreciate your viewpoint about non-religious aspects of Mecca gren, but whatever else is included in the article will not detract from the fact that Mecca is firmly associated with Islam. It really doesn't matter whether the Christian and Jewish articles have the tag or not (maybe they should have tags too), but I think the case is clear with this article. ---Mpatel (talk) 13:46, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Understandable... and if this article ever has more about its non-Islamic role then it will make more sense to broach this subject. gren グレン 16:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Mecca/Makkah is pretty much dominated by religion. Certainly there are some institutions one would expect in a city of this size, but the restriction on non-Muslims, the annual Hajj pilgrimage, the year-round Umrah pilgrimage, the numerous smaller mosques, the large service industry specifically aimed at pilgrims, and the Umm-al-Qura' Islamic University and hundreds of madrassahs all focus on the religious aspect of the city. To attempt a secular discussion of Mecca/Makkah is similar to a secular discussion of the Vatican City. Certainly there is a bank and a radio station, but the main focus is the religious aspect. 213.104.241.134 23.36, 01 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that the template is not NPOV. Only Muslim's believe that Mecca is a holy city. The city has significance outside of islam. I would be ok with the template in the section of the article that discusses the religious importance of the city. 129.120.4.1 19:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

An atheist or an agnostic would say that there are no holy cities, i.e., that the designation "holy" is a manifestation of the "my invisible friend is more powerful than your invisible friend" syndrome. As a matter of practicality and general interest, it is worth noting that certain cities and certain places are regarded as holy by certain religions. Is the Ise Shrine holy? Not to me, but it is holy to many Japanese. Is Tai Shan holy? Not to me, but it is to many Chinese. Is the campus area of St. Olaf College holy? Not to me, but I believe that elevated area is regarded by holy by the native Americans who live in that part of the world. It would be a a better world if we could all feel responsible and good about treating the holy places of other groups with respect. P0M 17:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, the reason being the fact that Mecca is the birth place of Islam. SO there is no reason in the world that this page should not have Template:Islam. --ObaidR 22:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section removal

I've removed the section on 'Incidents in Mecca' for the following reason: it doesn't belong here as it's specific about incidents pertaining solely to the Hajj, which is where I've moved (+ renamed section title + corrected some details + given links) the section to. ---Mpatel (talk) 13:50, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Residents in Mekkah?

Does anyone actually live in Mekkah? Or is the city more or less dominated by pilgrims? Thanks. --Brasswatchman 03:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, non-pilgrims do live in Mecca. ---Mpatel (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Large city in its own right. US State Dept says it has a population of 1.6 million. –Hajor 12:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


Non plgrims do live in Makkah but for the convenience of pilgrims they live farther from Kabaah(main center of pilgrims).

[edit] problematical text

The current version has:

Still remain questionable what kind of 'old testament' that's been used. The old testament the Muslims believe is the real Tauraat.

These two sentences are not good English, and I am not sure what the writer intended to convey. Perhaps the first of these two was intended to mean:

What kind of 'old testament' was used is still in question.

I have no way to guess what the second sentence might be intended to mean. It simply is not a sentence, just a string of words. P0M 08:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I've removed it since it does not really add to the article. If the user wants to say what he means here, then we can add it again if appropriate. The whole issue is in any case better on the Bakkah page or its Talk page.--Anjouli 13:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Muslims and Mecca

This section is very anachronistic. We need to delimit when this started, who started it.. has it been continous, etc. But saying Non-Muslims aren't allowed is problematic since it's obvious they were allowed in 400... and since Muhammad lived there after the creation of Islam with many non-Muslims... well, did he slaughter them? Why is this claim made? etc... it should be expanded, but to remove NPOV it should be made to show the time table for these things. gren グレン 00:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but the points you bring up do not constitute a NPOV dispute, since they do not indicate that the section supports a particular judgmental point of view; they constitute a dispute over the section's factual accuracy, and I am editing the notice accordingly. Daekharel 00:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm restoring the "SectDisputed" tag, and adding a "fact" tag to indicate that we have no sources proving that Mecca still prohibits entry by non-Muslims. That they did it 100 years ago is not relevant to answering the question of whether it's done today. --Mareino 22:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Non-Muslims are still formally prohibited from entering the cities of Mecca and Medina. See answers 2/ and 3/ above and also [13] and [14]. Lonely Planet is the "backpackers bible". I dont know when it started. Brief explanation of the theology at [15] Jameswilson 00:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] As a city

This article gives a good idea about the basic idea of what mecca is. However, it doesn't give enough information as to how this city functions, what its residents do, what the businesses are there..It seems more like this article is merely a footnote of the article for Islam and not actually an article about a thriving city that has lasted how many years. There is not many statistics or demographic information, can someone add to this article? I just think it's completely lacking in most descriptions I'd like to see of a city.

[edit] Various small copyedits

I changed a few sentences slightly, either for stylistic reasons, or to make them sound more neutral and less pious. I don't think anyone would consider these major changes. Zora 02:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This should be an article about a CITY, not a religious article

Some anon keeps inserting references to Becca and Paran, trying to prove that Mecca is mentioned in the Torah/Old Testament. This is not the place. Take it to the breakout article.

Also, this is turning into an article about the Hajj and Islam, NOT an article about the city qua city. Needs to be re-focused. Zora 06:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've nominated it for improvment. Hopefully it will be improved. --Sefringle 03:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mecca linked to Hajj and Islam

The city means Hajj and Islam to most people around the world, regardless of religious persuasion. The references to these pages are essential and are academically rigorous, not pious - the same is applicable for "Prophet Muhammad" as a form of address. One does not remove the word 'Prince' from 'Prince Charles'. More needs to be done to expand on the history of Makkah and contemporary society in article, and better classification and standardisation of spelling in general. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.165.213.18 (talk • contribs) 10:13, Jan 17, 2006 (UTC).

I don't disagree with the use of the word prophet in front of Muhammad; after all, we do have Saint Patrick. But you cannot compare "Prophet Muhammad" to "Prince Charles". Whereby "Prince" is a political, factual title, "Prophet" is a title only Muslims give to Muhammad. joturner 12:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree one title cannot be compared with the other. But "Prophet" is not a title only Muslims give to Muhammad. Both Daniel Pipes and Bernard Lewis, American non-Muslim academics of Islam, use the term headlining articles and books. Hence, my emphasised point on academic rigour.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.165.213.18 (talk • contribs) 13:03, Jan 17, 2006 (UTC).
Yes, I agree with you completely on that point. This has been (and still is being) debated extensively on the Muhammad talk page and I am in favor of using "Prophet", given precedence and the use in academics. By the way, the preferred way to sign posts is with four tildes, ~~~~; that will automatically sign with your ip/username and the date. joturner 13:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added more on history of Mecca

I added sections on the history of Mecca and the contemporary city. We need many more pictures. I was having a hard time finding public domain pictures, though I found some stunning aerial views of modern Mecca that would be just lovely if they were only free.

We need much more information on the contemporary city. Guidebook stuff. Also -- I'm going to remove the Islam template. There are enough links to Islam and Islamic history in the article that no one needs the template! Zora 14:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Good accurate work. The Islam template is now obselete and is covered subtly throughout the article. [[User:212.183.136.195 21:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)]]

[edit] Anon trying to censor mention of Wahhabi policies re "urban renewal"

The anon removed the sentence re traditionalist Muslims and replaced it with "a minority of Muslims". I don't think it's a minority. I've run across the sentiment in too many places, from Sufis to Progressives like Ziauddin Sardar. Should I start adding quotes? Please don't try to censor WP. Zora 22:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

There is hardly ever any hard evidence in cases like this. I suppose if the subject comes up again you might ask for citations to the presence of the sentiment among non-traditionalists. P0M 06:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] when were non-muslims preventing from entering mecca?

It's not clear. It would take a lot of trawling through historical sources to figure that out. Zora 07:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Muslims and Mecca

I've heard about this prohibition many times but try as i might i wasn't able to find an answer to the obvious next question:what exactly is the penalty if a non-muslim is caught in Mecca(or in Medina for that matter) and do we have any precedents?Padem 05:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There are any number of travel accounts from the 18th and 19th centuries that record hostile reception of Western travelers -- anywhere in Arabia outside port cities and especially in the Hijaz. Some travelers were killed by mobs or angry Muslims acting alone. Others were rescued by the authorities (who wanted no trouble with Western governments) from hostile mobs. Dunno about the penalty today. I would imagine that any non-Muslim who pretended his/her way into Mecca and was then discovered would be expelled from the country, but that's just a guess. Zora 07:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


In current Saudi Arabia, the strip of Hijaz, where both holly cities of Makkah and Medina are. And in Islamic law that holly land is only for Muslims so non-Muslims are not allowed to enter that area. Muslims can go other masques of Muslims but its only one place where they are not allowed because before Islam that area was house of idles and sun worshipers. So to prevent this are from these people Islam give these special instructions. farazilu 01:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Grossly inaccurate. Jeddah, which is in the Hijaz, has a 7,000 Chrisitian Brits alone living there (ref British Foreign Office) plus lots of other Europeans. Only inner Makkah and Medina are restricted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.109.73.59 (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] What image should appear first?

The Map or the image of Kaaba. Zora argues that one would like to see the Map first. Well if you'd see the articles about Major cities on Wikipedia like for example London, Paris etc the first thing you would see is a famous landmark of that city. Like for example the article on Paris features an image of the Eiffel Tower (instead of its map, and even though there is an article about it). So I am reverting the changes made by Zora. --ObaidR 22:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to put the picture of the Kaaba first, that's OK -- but don't remove the map! That's hard, useful information! If you want to put the map later, fine, but don't remove it! Zora 22:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
How about addressing the copyright status of the map. Right now, it is tagged with an obsolete copyright tag. I attempted to find a replacement but couldn't determine which one is appropriate. joturner 01:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I have updated the liscensing for the image. It is released into the public domain by the Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection at UT-Austin. Pepsidrinka 02:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Good. I don't think the map should go first but it's good that both images will stay in the article. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 02:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Good then --ObaidR 19:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The map should not be the first picture for the reasons ObaidR mentioned. Most city articles don't even have maps. joturner 03:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why the revert on History of Mecca

I don't see why a user felt he had to revert the page. The fact remains that I have added possible pre-Islamic references to Mecca, reference which are both Roman and Greek and used by Gibbon amongsts others. I have reposted them. I think they should stay. There are a part of the history of mecca.

[edit] Photos of Mecca

All photos of Mecca are from within or of the Sacred Mosque. Is it possible to get photos of the city itself? And chop out some of the S. Mosque photos, as these images appear in numerous other, more specific articles. ie Sacred Mosque, Islam, Hajj etc. Ashmoo 06:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Definently. Unfortunately it seems like very few people who go to Mecca take pictures of anything other that the mosque while there.--Sefringle 00:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change Mecca with Makkah

Makkah is the holy city of muslims and belongs to muslims and we preffer to spell it as Makkah rather then Mecca as called by juesh inspired western media...

so fight for your right and change the spelling
Actually, we (Muslims and non-Muslims) have all discussed which spelling to use - 'Mecca' is the most common spelling in English and we have decided to use this in the article. Just because the holy city belongs to Muslims doesn't mean to say that it should be spelled in the way we (Muslims) want in this English encyclopedia. MP (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not such topic that can be discused by few Muslims inspired by western media. i watch these channels all day long I know there style better. They are using this common name for such a prestegius place to insult it. Every city or place has its uniqe name and haritage and they are translated into other languages according to local triditions not according to the non reated nerrow minded pplz

As you are clearly new to WP, I will not be so harsh: I sympathise with the idea that the holy city of Makkah should be spelt the way you want it spelled, but officially it's called Makkah al-Mukarramah as it says in the first line of the article. The reason for changing it to this is also explained in the article (if you have read it properly). Thus, you're concerns are addressed and resolved in the article. By the way, please be careful who you imply to be narrow minded and inspired by the Western media.

I live in England, and the first thing I think of is 'Mecca Bingo' when I see Mecca. The-pessimist 01:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This discussion was brought up once before; in a straw poll people favored 'Mecca' by an over three-to-one margin. From a policy standpoint, we generally use the most commonly-used English term as the primary one in an article; using terms like Mekkah that are "official" but have extremely low recognition in most of the English-speaking world could lead to confusion. If you really want to resume discussion on the subject, go ahead, but first you might want to scroll up and review what was said the last time it came up. --Aquillion 02:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] this prohibition on non muslims is simply unbelievable and outrageous

How come such behaviour allows to exist ? The Jews should just do the same with Jerusalem. The Muslim just want everything for themselves, it's just unthinkable. My God.... the audacity here. The world community needs to do something about this since we're talking about a whole city that is prohibited and not just a site. Amoruso 10:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


I appreciate your opinion. But this in not a meter about an ordinary city or a place, this is the holiest city for Muslims so it’s a serious meter and we respect your opinion. Because Mecca is a word common for many cities and it does not represent the glory of that specific city that Muslim call MAKKAH farazilu 1:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Every king and president of the nations in the world will put restrictions with regard to access to their residentials and offices, where common people cannot enter without having special permits and authorization. The same law applies to Makkah, where God allows certain people to access to His sanctuary. He is the Owner of all places on earth, and it is up to Him to create such law.

I agree that the prohibition is outrageous, and you're not going to convince many non-Muslims with appeals to God, whom many consider fictitious. A secular argument is needed - it seems very hard to justify apart from religion.Topologyrob 05:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder what the "immigration" policy is for Vatican City. It seems to me that if a community controls a house, a compound, a neighborhood, or a city, then that community must have a right to control access to their territory. What if somebody argued that he had a right to come into my house to inspect it because he was the most aggressive man in the neighborhood and arrogated this right to himself? In the U.S. I am not obligated to let even the police into my house, or onto my property, without a proper court order, and the court order stands on a finding by a judge that the police have reasonable grounds to believe something is going on that they need to check on. Some of the military camps in the U.S. are quite large. People cannot get beyond their guard at the gate unless they are granted permission (and trying to sneak in can get you arrested).
Why should there be a size limit beyond which a government cannot forbid entry to a city? And if there were such a size limit it seems that it would imply that national boundaries cannot be enforced. If I want to visit some country I can just fly my personal airplane over and casually drop in on them? I don't think so. P0M 01:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The argument here is based on religious discrimination - it's no different banning non-Moslems from Makkah than it is banning blacks from using the front of the bus in the old US South. Nothing but old-fashioned prejudice that has no place in the 21st century.220.237.81.156 11:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

While I do not really like the banning from Makkah all that much, I do not think that your comparison holds, either. For one thing, US black people live there already, while AFAIK there are only muslims living in Makkah; denying access to a city is quite different from mistreating people who are already there. Also, User Patrick Moran's point is quite valid. Were we to take your prejudice argument very seriously, the implication would be that it is morally wrong for the United States of America (or, supposedly, any modern country) to deny access to foreigners at all. Not only that, but apparently private residences would be an obsolete, morally bankrupt concept as well. Muslims have a right to choose a city (even if it is by a questionable allegation of divine command) and do as they please in there as long as they do not actually harm anyone while so doing. Find some evidence that non-Muslims are being brought to Makkah (accidentally or otherwise) and being mistreated and I will be upset; but if they are simply being kept outside in a non-violent way and in circunstances that do not particularly disconfort them, fine by me. And yes, that is exactly what we should expect of Vatican City as well. It too has every right to deny access to whomever it wants to as long as there is no actual harm in doing so. Luis Dantas 13:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your nice comments Luis Dantas. I believe that the saying of Prophet to not allowing non-Muslim in side Hijaz comes when there was no more Non-Muslims around. After conquest of Mecca approx all of the Meccans are converted to Islam. --- ALM 15:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what the problem really is. It is the holy city of Muslims and Islam has sanctified the city and made it into an area exclusive for Muslims. I think it should be respected by all. I would not, as a non-Christian, be really offended if I was not allowed entry into Christian sacred places. To compare it to a situation where blacks are denied entry somewhere is unfair. Islam is an ideology and not an ethnicity. Ethnicities can never be changed, whereas ideologies can be. User:Aslamt 01:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Amoruso: Please read WP:TALK and WP:SOAP. This is not a forum. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 07:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't meant as flamebait, but if this Saudi prohibition is the worst thing you can think of then you obviously haven't studied Saudi Arabian "tolerance" very well. By comparison, this is actually a very mild and understandable restriction. Not that I agree with it in principle, but get some perspective. None of this belongs in the article--not because of POV issues (you can add a "controversy" section to anything, I guess), but because it is such a microscopically unimportant restriction in the tapestry of Saudi religious intolerance. --Lode Runner 00:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why does Starbucks now appear as the Mecca main article?

This is probably the result of an overzealous entry level marketing associate in Seattle. Get over yourselves!

[edit] Edit war over words Sunni and Wahhabi

Maybe we should use the word Salafi instead of Wahhabi as the later is more acceptable those belonging to this method. However the instance that Sunni should be used to describe them is inapproriate. Salafies are a small group limite to the central province of Saudi Arabia. They have more say because the Saudi King is Salafi and uses his power and money to impose his interpretation. Please dont use the word Sunni to describe your extrmist views Hassanfarooqi 20:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Truthpedia

T, do not state as a fact that the Banu Quraysh were descended from Ismail. Historians would regard Ismail as a mythical character and the presumed descent as speculation. Also, your attempts to PROVE the antiquity of Mecca by mentioning Diodorus Siculus are basically hearsay. You're quoting a two-hundred year old paraphrase of the text and saying that Gibbon was correct in his speculation that the temple mentioned by Diodorus was the Kaaba. Unless you can give a translation from the Latin of the exact wording used by Diodorus and an opinion by a modern historian that Diodorus' text refers to the Kaaba, you've got nothing. Now if you can quote some Islamic text that claims the connection, we can say that "some Muslims believe that ..." and then cite Crone against it. You're working from antique hearsay; she reads Latin. Zora 19:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Not all historians. Not even all secular historians. Some secular historians regard the bible as a historical document, and don't reject everything in it that is not confirmed by other references. Anyways, we are talking about Arab historians. I have changed wording. Regarding Gibbon, he is 200 years old. So what? We are not talking his conclusions as facts. We say "possible references" and we put hos Gibbon quotes Diodorus, then we put how Corne agrues that there is no hard evidence linking those references to the South Arabian trade to Mecca. That should be fair for both opinions. Shouldn't it?--Truthpedia 19:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

200 year old hearsay should not be considered of equal standing with modern scholarship, just as we don't treat phlogiston as a valid theory of thermodynamics. Your theory, that Diodorus Siculus mentioned the Kaaba, is notable only if there are a sufficient number of people alive today who believe that, and if you have a quote showing this. I'd guess that you aren't a classicist, and that you got the quote from some Islamic literature or website. Therefore you need to go back to your source and see if you can find a quote proving that many Muslims believe that Diodorus Siculus mentioned the Kaaba. Zora 19:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Arabs always regarded Banu Quraysh as descended from Ismail. For this reason they refered to themselves as "Arabatul Arbia" or "The real big Arabs", and they refer to Banu Quraysh as "Musta'arbia" or "Arabized Arabs". Banu Qurash are now more outside Arabia and majority of them have ceased to be Arabs, especially those who went to Central Asia, South Asia, and Far East e.g. Indonesia.

[edit] Why is the Hajj required?

I've been wondering about this. Islam is not particularly fond of the religious veneration of people or objects, yet the Hajj is required of all Muslims who are financially and physically fit to go. It's odd, since a religion like Christianity (which is big on saints, relics, holy places, and the veneration thereof) but doesn't require pilgrimage to Jerusalem or Bethlehem. I know we have several users from Saudi, so maybe you guys would know. ChildeRolandofGilead 12:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

One of the main aspects of the pilgrimage is to instill in the pilgrims a sense of historical importance of the places they visit - the Kaaba is, according to traditional Islamic belief, the first place to be built to worship a unique creator. The acts of the pilgrimage (the Hajj riruals) are performed to give pilgrims direct experience of important aspects of their religion (for example, the stoning of the devil ritual). The Hajj also gives a sense of unity to the religion - people from many creeds and countries coming to the same place to worship. I hope this sheds some light on your question. Cheers. MP (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Slightly expanding on this - Every "ritual" in Hajj comes from history - the Kaba itself was built by Ibrahim and his son, under Hijr Ismail (the small semi circle next to the Kaba) has 24 prophets buried underneath it, the Tawaf was first done by Ibrahim, the Sa'e (walking between Safa and Marwa) was first done by Hagar (Ibrahim's wife), the standing at Arafat was where Adam and Eve met after 200 years of wondering the earth, the stoning of the devil comes from Ibrahim (and Hagar, and Ismail, their son). It is also a duty that man owes god, to prove that they are all the same, regardless of race or gender or what language they speak, and to prove that they are willing to leave behind their material wealth, and their family (it is strongly recommended to do a will before you depart for Hajj). Pzycoman 20:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Malcom X's experience at Mecca would summarize it. That's where he stopped hating white people. It is a sense of unity, people from all over the world, from different nationalities and cultures, come together. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 07:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is not an article about the sects and their beleifs

What is this statement doing here? The Salafi Islam that dominates Saudi Arabia views all veneration of shrines and graves as bid'a, shirk, and idolatry, and hence approves and encourages the demolition of such structures.

That fact is extremely relevant to the city of Mecca, where old shrines and historical sites are being bulldozed and replaced by freeways and skyscrapers. The beliefs that lead to this behavior are relevant. Zora 18:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As per the title, I added a few sections that need to be expanded. This is not an article about Islamic beliefs or Mecca's importance to Muslims. It is an article about the city. If you know anything about how the city functions please replace the "sectstubs" with imformation.--Sefringle 00:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation help

The proper way to name the city has been a subject of argument for some time now. It seems a bit ironic to me that whichever way it is spelled I probably would not pronounce the name as the residents themselves pronounce it, or even get close. And then there are all the other words that appear in newscasts. People all seem to have their own ways of matching English speech sounds to the commonly accepted spellings. Is there a pronunciation guide (recordings) somewhere? P0M 01:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

As a native Christian Brit who lives near there I can confirm that Saudis pronounce it somehting like 'Muqa'. Western expats tend more towards 'Makkah'. That's just pronunciation and I'm not arguing for spelling it Makkah - although that seems to be gaining ground slightly. Hard to say if it has taken over as most searches on 'Mecca' throw up a lot of non-city meanings ('a Mecca for tourists' etc.) Sort of hand counting them, it's hard to say.
Thanks for the information. An acquaintance of mine from Pakistan is named Zaki, pronounced "zuh-kee" so it looks like the vowel value is consistent across a fairly wide range of Arabic speakers.
It might be very useful to have recordings of basic sound combinations of Arabic on Wikipedia somewhere. IPA is a very inadequate instrument for representing actual pronunciations. P0M 17:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Pakistanis do not speak Arabic. Pakistan's languages are Indo-Aryan, not semitic. Major difference in vowels. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 07:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for improvement

It would be nice if we had more pictures of Mecca, particularly pictures of the city outside of the mosque. They would be beneficial for this article--Sefringle 03:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zora's rewrite

Various editors had been inserting a lot of material re the Hajj, reworking the Bakkah section, and rewriting history in a pious Muslim vein. I secularized the article extensively. The article on the Hajj is the place to write about the Hajj, not here. Zora 06:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zora's edits

I copyedited the section on the seizure of the mosque, trying to make it "blander". I removed a garbled personal opinion re the reason that non-Muslims aren't allowed in Mecca, and an unreferenced assertion that any non-Muslims who managed to make it into the city would be executed. The 18th and 19th century records show that non-Muslim travelers in the Hijaz sometimes faced death at the hands of rioting crowds and that the authorities rescued them from the vigilantes. There are no records of any executions in the 18th and 19th centuries, so far as I know, and none in the 20th century. People keep adding this claim and I've never seen any references or proof. Zora 09:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fact tag after Muslim conquest of Mecca

I believe it was Selket who put a fact tag after a couple of sentences re the Muslim conquest of Mecca. I don't know anyone who doubts this. It's in thousands of books. Asking for a reference is like asking for a reference to the earth having a moon. In any case, there's a link to an article that covers the matter in depth, which should have all the references needed. It may not--I should really check, but I'm short of time. If the Conquest of Mecca article is junk, it should be fixed. Zora 06:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It's fine that it's in thousands of books. I would like to see this be a Featured Article one day, and that requires inline citations on pretty much any claim the article makes. This one seemed easy. The statement was ,"According to the Qur'ān and Muslim traditions, the city was attacked by an Ethiopian Aksumite army led by Abraha in 570, the year of Muhammad's birth. The attack was said to have been repelled by stones dropped by thousands of birds, followed by a plague. Mainstream historians dismiss most of this tradition as folklore." I do not know the Qur'an well enough to evaluate this statement. If the Qur'an states that, then it should be trivial to add a footnote with the Sura and Ayat of a particular interpretation. I'm sure someone can find the reference. If I could, I would have put the reference in myself, but I couldn't, so I tagged it.
BTW, moon cites "Moon" World Book Online Reference Center, NASA 8 times. --Selket Talk 07:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I left the tag re the Aksumite invasion; I agree that refs are needed. But the conquest of Mecca hasn't been doubted by anyone. If you know of any doubts, surely the article on the subject is the place to raise them.

It would be very hard to pick one reference to support the fact. Surely one would want to pick the most important reference -- but what would that be? There are hundreds of recent scholarly books about early Islamic history. Or do you want a primary source? Ibn Ishaq? Tabari? Zora 09:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not a priori obvious to me that "Before the time of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, Mecca was under the control of the Banu Quraish." It is also not obvious to me that (in the next paragraph) "18th and 19th century maps and pictures show a small walled city of mud-brick houses crowded around the mosque." Then, there's the date "630CE." Is there any uncertainty there? Does that date come from Islamic tradition? If so where are it's origins. If it comes from historians, 'cite one of them. I understand your concern that it would not be fair to the hundreds of books on the topic to cite just one, but a well referenced article will do just that. Note how well cited the article Nazareth is.
Before reverting my edits please see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence. The person wanting to include something has the burden of establishing verifiability. I'm not trying to burden you. If there are hundreds of books on the topic it should be easy to find one. --Selket Talk 17:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Differentiating between Muslims and Non-Muslims

Just a quick point here - if non-muslims are forbidden from entering Mecca, how does the Saudi Government define a 'muslim'? Clearly Nation of Islam members are allowed in - Malcolm X went to Mecca (I think before his conversion to conventional Islam) and some NoI beliefs are very divergent from conventional Islam e.g. that the white man is a devil created by an evil scientist called Yaqub, and that a new prophet from God appeared in 1920s Chicago. And what about Ahmadis? There are no clear cut boundaries with religions and there are always fringe groups that diverge from the mainstream - such as Jehovas Witnesses and Mormons who aren't generally considered to be Christian but are very very closely related.

As an additional point, should a young child from a non-Muslim background be allowed into Mecca, since there is a belief that all children are born muslim and 'diverge' as they grow up? And at what age would this divergence occur - presumably earlier if they were from a Hindu background than a Christian one, since only the basic concepts of God would be understood at first - various stories may be learned about Jesus but I would imagine a child would have to be fairly old to grasp the concept of the divinity of Jesus, thereby diverging from Islamic belief. So going back to my original point - should all children be admitted to Mecca, or would the Saudi government not agree with that? A bit of an academic point really since I doubt many people would want to send their children unaccompanied to Mecca.... Milvinder 21:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:TALK. The talkpage is not appropriate for these sorts of questions. Please refer to the humanities desk.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 08:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. He's a bit speculative, but the answers to his questions are relevant to the article. How do they define a "Muslim"? Are Alawis considered Muslims? Are the Druze? Are the Bahá'í? Are the Qu'ranists (the ones who deny the validity of the Hadith)? It's very relevant to the article as to whether and which sorts of Islamic "offshoots" are admitted into inner Mecca. --Lode Runner 00:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/e/c/Talk%7EMecca_41af.html"