Talk:Mecca

Template:FAOL Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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:

• Archive01 (Sept. 2003 to Dec. 2004)
• Archive02 (Jan 2005 to July 2007)

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

---

Spelling

I've tried to clean up the very messy and POV section about the spelling. This section has had a good pounding by two sides who displayed an almost fanatical zeal to stamp out one spelling in favour of the other. That was a year or so ago and I hope it's now calmed down enough to tidy this up and try to make it more NPOV. Still needs work (News orgs, notably BBC and others in coverage of the Haj) are now tending towards 'Makkah'. THat needs to be reflected and referenced. If you have strong feelings on spelling, please discuss here and let's not have a repetition of the historical edit war :) Anjouli 10:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As for renaming the article, I think that's going to come eventually, but probably not yet. There is a noticeable swing towards 'Makkah' but it's just starting. Please don't use Google searches as justification unless you can filter out lower-case 'mecca' (impossible I think) and any pages more than a year old. Anjouli 18:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Time to rename the article as Makkah

It's time to rename the article, the same way that the Bombay article became Mumbai. (And Bombay was not even all that offensive, unlike linking the holiest site in Islam with a gambling organization).

The main argument raised against this has been common use: major organizations and Google counts. Most organizations now use Makkah. (See Anjuli post above and other references in the article.

Makkah is now most common on Google:

1) Google mecca -bingo = 2,320,000 2) Google makkah = 2,160,000

but most sites using Makkah also reference mecca: e.g. Makkah(Mecca)

So how many of these are there?

3) Google makkah mecca = 175,000

subtract these from 1) 2,320,000 - 175,000 = 2,145,000

so Makkah beats Mecca by 2,160,000 - 2,145,000 = 15,000

Not much, but Mecca beat Makkah 10 to 1 a year ago. It's definitely shifting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.101.244.6 (talk • contribs)

• oppose this has been discussed heavily. Mecca is better. Google results do not determine what is more notable for wikipedia standards.--Sefringle^Talk 19:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting how a Google count has been used by the pro 'Mecca' lobby to defend their position for so long, but now that the Google count is tending towards 'Makkah', it seems "Google results do not determine what is more notable". Fine. In that case we have to go with usage by major organizations, news organizations, governments etc. which all as per Anjouli post above clearly favour 'Makkah' as per refs in article and in archive. It's time to change, despite87.101.244.10 17:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC) the Islamophobia.

You aren't going to get consensus by accusing the opposition of being islamophobes. Please provide evidence, but this has been discussed heavily, and I doubt there will be any consensus to change the title.--Sefringle^Talk 03:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't see any opinion to the contrary. I have referenced evidence that Makkah is now more common on Google and is used by governments and major organizations and that 'Mecca' is offensive to Muslims. Do you have any verifiable references NOT to change it? NB I'm discussing this and am not trying to force a change. If anyone objects, let's talk about it.87.101.240.6 11:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I'm supposed to just take your word for it? We do not determine the more proper name based on google results. Consensus is to keep it as Mecca. See Talk:Mecca/Archive02#Poll: Spelling of Mecca / Makkah.--Sefringle^Talk 02:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"Makkah" is used as the transliteration of "Mecca" in Saudi Arabia, and, given that Makkah is in Saudi Arabia, it seems proper to use that as the article title (no matter what your political feelings regarding the Saudis is — I just thought I'd pre-empt arguments about that). And "Makkah" is a better approximation of the sound of مَكَّة, anyway. Murraytheb (talk) 07:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Early archiving

Why has entire June talk been archived before end of June? The last of those discussions was not closed and was still ongoing. I suspect a hidden agenda and have accordingly reopened the discussion on the current talk page as per guidelines on archive page. 87.101.244.10 17:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

1880 or 2001

Image:Kaba.jpg

The picture said that it is from 1880 until I saw it is shooted in 2001.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.82.63.101 (talk • contribs).

Looks like a photograph taken in 2001 of a poster showing the Kaaba in 1880. → AA ^(talk) — 09:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Although the Arabic text on the photo (which looks like an overstamp) says 1880, the buildings around the Kaba more closely resemble the site around the turn of the century. It's probably later than 1880. 212.71.37.89 15:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"Bakkah" and "buka'"

The word Bakkah can be derived in Arabic from the root ba-ka-ka, is written in Arabic بكّة, and is transliterated bakkah. On the other hand; the word that means "he who cries much" derives from the root ba-ka-ya, is written in Arabic as بكّاء, and is transliterated bakkā'.

Based on the above, suggesting any relation between the two words is misleading since there is none (at least within the Arabic language). I've removed the discussion of Arabic examples in the section related to the word "Bakkah" without removing any other arguments for the "weeping" interpretation. -- AMSA83 14:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Makkah or Mecca

I know there was a consensus at Talk:Mecca/Archive02#Spelling in title and within article and Talk:Mecca/Archive02#Poll: Spelling of Mecca / Makkah but that (other than a couple of comments) two years ago. I'm not bothered what spelling is used but it should be consistant. Either the article is moved to Makkah and all non-quote instances of Mecca changed or it stays here and all non-quote instances of Makkah be changed. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I say we stay with consensus, which is Mecca.--Sefringle^Talk 04:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I prefer Mecca too. When I'm doing research in libraries and flipping through indexes, the spelling of "Mecca" is by far the predominant spelling. I also did a search of "World newspapers, 2000-2007" to see what they're using, and the 98%+ favorite is "Mecca" followed by "Makkah" (1%) and then "Makka" (.1%). --Elonka 01:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd vote 'Makkah'. I'm an Arabist and study the area professionally, and I'd say it now dominates by far, certainly in the last year or two. I can't reproduce the results given above for "World Newspapers". Seems quite the contrary to me. Also it's a bit of a nonsense having 'Mecca' as the capital of 'Makkah Province' - and the province has always been 'Makkah Province' - no other spelling exists. Diplomatic and government use is invariably 'Makkah'. Some papers go the other way (particularly in the US), but most have changed over. Also it's not quite the same as Mumbai/Bombay as Mecca is actually considered grossly offensive by some. But I'm not pushing my view and happy to go with the majority of eds as always. I think the article will end up getting renamed, but not sure if the time is quite yet. Anjouli 20:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no trouble with Makkah Province, but for the city, I'd like to see proof that the majority of English-language papers are using "Makkah" before we should change the article title. When I did a quick spotcheck at http://news.google.com, "Mecca" was more common than "Makkah", about 3500:200. If/when world newspapers switch over to a spelling of "Makkah", we can swap the Wikipedia article over, but the guidelines at Wikipedia are to follow mainstream usage, not lead it. --Elonka 04:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I see a very strong swing towards Makkah, but it's perhaps not gone far enough yet to justify a change. I think it will happen at some point, but perhaps not yet. Just as a matter of interest, googling on +mecca -bingo (regular Google, not Google News) gives 2,380,000. Googling on "mecca for" (uses like a mecca for tourists) gives 1,140,000. Subtract that from the non-bingo mecca usage and you get 1,240,000. Google on makkah gives 1,910,000; which puts it way in the lead. I'm not saying that is justification to change the title, but it's interesting.Anjouli 16:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The Origin of the Name Meccah

Thanks to Wikipedia, my thoughts are being confirmed about the real origin of the name of Mecca. The following story tells about Micah as living near the House of the Lord (the Kaabah). If we read the book of Judges as mentioned in the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micah%27s_Idol

we realize that it is not a coincidence that the Port of Laith on the Red Sea south of Juddah, with Juddah the famous port city and Micah the silver idol maker, are gathered in one region.

The Saudi historians pronounce the name of Jeddah as Juddah which, in the Semitic languages, cannot be written other than JDDH. Of course, the Modern Hebrew would consider it as being Judah, or Judea. As for Micah, the old hebrew presented it as MKH and therefore, transfigurated into Micah. In addition, the name of Mecca has never been fairly explained as of its origin. Every time historians talk about the origin of the name they refer to the mention, in the Roman and Greek records, of a township in Arabia called Macoraba. That’s all. No other reference is made for the name of Mecca.

Briefly, the entire Juddah area is linked to Laith harbor and Mecca where in the deep past, before the Arabs were a pronounced nation, it was a prosperous country of trade and agriculture. At that time Arabia was an Israelite country and up to a large extent, the Israelites were Arabs among Arabs speaking old Arabic. By the time of Moses, there was no Arabic as spoken in the Koran. The old Arabic was what was frozen in time in the scrolls until after the Deportation, to be read and written by the Rabbis of Babylon. In the mean time, Arabic was evolving through the centuries to crystallize and clean-up from hiatuses and odd pronunciations with poetry and oral tradition. That is how Arabic had become a separate language from “Hebrew”. “Hebrew” is the old Arabic unfolded in Babylon after centuries of deep sleep inside the scrolls.

In other words, Arabism emerged after the Israelites had disappeared from the scope of Mecca (Perhaps after Tiglath-pileser III in 733/732 BC deported them to Babylon). This is my theory which involves the search for Babylonian traces in Saudi Arabia. Otherwise we can consider that Arabism has never been inexistent even during the Israelite era in Arabia, but only was eclipsed by the more intense and active tradition of the Israelite life there.

Dan has never been a city or a town. It was a tribe living in Laith, a harbor city south of Juddah on the Red Sea. The "Peoples of the Sea" as mentioned in the funeral stella of Merneptah in Egypt mentioned the Denen among the eight peoples listed in his victory story. The Denen are hard to be considered as being the Dan of the Bible. The other names mentioned in that stella are hard to explain but the name PLST is closer than any of them to be the Falashat of Ethiopia. The entire story of the Bible people converges towards the Red Sea not the Mediterranean sea.Noureddine 17:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The explanation is that Micah (Should be Makkah) was an Israelite living in the Bethel area (The ancient House of God, as founded by Abraham). He was a famous figure in that area as a Grand Rabbi. People gave a name to the area from his name, just like his grand father Juddah gave his name to the harbor city of Juddah on the Red Sea. I do not agree with the local Arabian explanation to the name of Juddah as being the "Grand Mother of all Arabs", as they say.Noureddine 12:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Remember that King Josiah (of Judah) was the son of Amon and Jedidah. Please log on Josiah and see.

I must just jump in and say that as an Arabist who has lived in Jeddah for decades, the local Saudi pronunciation in nothing like "Juddah". Not getting into phonetic symbols, it's between "jedda" and "jidda", perhaps a little closer to "jedda". (Mecca on the other hand is certainly "makka".) Anjouli 16:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Anjouli: The fact that you are right does not change anything. It is the reading of the old Hebrew that should be corrected to whatever the real pronunciation of Jeddah is. In Hebrew the writing is JDDH without any vowels. Besides, I found the "Juddah" term in a book dedicated to Juddah in Arabic and written by a Saudi historian. It is an important volume that I invite you to look for it in the local Saudi libraries. Please forgive my memory about the author's name but also you can find the variations of the name's pronunciation on Wikipedia itself. Just search for Jeddah and see. Remember that any name in history is subject to change across the centuries, from one generation to another and from one era to another. By the way: Mecca is the "English" lettering and in hebrew Micah is MKH (without vowels) and it should be pronounced Makkah exactly like Arabs pronounce it. This is my stand and opinion. Respecfully, [[User:[Noureddine]] 02:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Noureddine. My only beef was with "The Saudi historians pronounce the name of Jeddah as Juddah". Seems you meant spell, not pronounce. I'd also question that, since Saudi historians obviously tend to write in Arabic and spell it جدة (Hebrew ג'דה). The only academics I know who regularly spell it Juddah are Malaysians, and I agree their pronunciation does sound a bit like that. عيد مبارك Anjouli 20:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Anjouli again. I have changed my username introduction to reflect what I am after in my writings. I would be honored if you read the new text. Comparative philology can reveal a great deal of hidden meanings behind the convetional history taken for givens. Perhaps some day the warrying nations would give it a second thought as to what are they doing, if it makes sense following their current convictions. Noureddine 21:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Non-Muslims in Makkah

The part of this article that says: "people of other faiths are forbidden from entering the city" is false. In fact, a true Muslim belief, as stated in the Holy Koran, specifically talks about encouraging other faiths to visit their lands and see their customs. A true Muslim will always oppen their home to anyone, as well as a city. The Koran states that if you are a Muslim, you must never descount or look down on other religions. Therefore, this sentence should be removed and someone who knows what they are talking about should write the articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.78.92 (talk) 01:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to distinguish here between Saudi practice and Islamic law. In a sense, both eds are right. The Saudis do make it very hard for non-Muslims to go to Makkah. There is even a big sign on the Makkah Expressway to stop non-Muslims. However it is in theory possible to get permission to visit, and the Saudis have certainly permitted non-Muslims (usually technical specialists) to enter when it suited them. The classi case was during the Makkah seige when French military contractors went in and broke the seige. Anjouli 17:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

refimprove tag

The tag is here because half the article is still unreferenced, specificly the history section, the tourism section, and the non-muslims section is mostly, if not completely unsourced. Yahel Guhan 04:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific? The History section looks well-sourced to me, but if you have concerns about specific statements, please add {{fact}} tags and I'll see what I can dig up.  :) --Elonka 05:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"Meccan influence was the primary binding force in Arabia in the late sixth century." - that sounds dubious. I realize that it's sourced to Lapidus, but does he really say that with certainty? Considering how much violent warfare the Meccans and Medinans engaged in in order to subjugate the Peninsula after Muhammad, that seems doubtful. There were also numerous tribal confederations that held no regard whatsoever for Mecca. Maybe this statement should be modified so that it doesn't sound so unequivocal. -- Slacker 01:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup, that's what he said. Though if you can find a source that contradicts, I have no trouble with toning it down. My understanding of the context, is that it was a "relatively" strong binding force. In other words, there wasn't much binding the tribes of Arabia together, but if there was one binding force among them, it was Mecca. That doesn't mean that they'd kowtow to Meccans, but it did mean that anywhere you went on the peninsula, Mecca was probably the most famous spot, and was the place that was most likely to have been visited by any particular member of any tribe. Then again, the influence that Mecca had, was that it was the central repository of the totems of each of the tribes. So when Muhammad decided to shuffle things around, yes, it doesn't surprise me that there was resistance. Or in other words, both Lapidus's statement, and your own concerns, are both correct. --Elonka 01:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

==Deletion of entire Muhammad section?==

I know you're supposed to be bold when editing, but I can see that this would be hugely controversial. However, the section is entirely based on belief and not verifiable fact. Its relevance is questionable given that the article is about a place, not a belief system. At least it could be altered to say 'Muslims believe...' rather than stating opinion as fact.

SteveRamone 21:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Lock the article

People are vandalising this article too much lock it 78.144.25.152 (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Who was sacrified?

The questions about the name Abraham are innumerable, who was Abraham or who were the Abraham figures, is it advisable to consider the figure singular? How about the transmission of a story (legend) through the ages? Has the story been altered, modified, stylized, during the telling from one generation to another? How can we be sure that the Abraham who was born (Commonly thought) in the 19th century BC is the same as the one who lived in the Mecca Area? How can we be sure that Abramu is the same as Abraham or Ephrem or Ephraim or even Ibrahim of the Arabs? So how many faces are there behind the mask? The name itself "Ibrahim" suggests a God name because of the "I" prefix, which means the "God of...". This rimes with Itzhac, Itzrael, Ismael, etc... a current verbal tradition in Arabia. The name Itzhac itself generated the verb "Tzaha-Dhaha" which means "sacrify" in Arabic. Tradition when "told" from one generation to another, creates a new "term" in a living language, where an event generates a verb. The most important holiday in Arabia is the pilgrimage to Makkah, centuries before Islam. In this pilgrimage, the sacrifice "story" is repeated on the "mount of mercy", which in Arabic is literally "Har-Ra'fat" or simply Arafat. In the Hebrew tradition this mount is called Moriah, which recalls the name of "Marwah" in the Mecca area. The big Sacrifice holiday is then the Ad-ha holiday. This is the holiday that repeats the Sacrifice by Abraham to his son Itzhac. Therefore, Arabs who may think (without proof) that it was Ismael who was offered as scrifice, the name of that big holiday "Atz-ha" proves that it was Itzhac who was sacrificed. The name Tzah-ha (Dah-ha) in Arabic also means "Sacrify at Dawn". The term Dawn is also derived from the "Sacrifice Tradition". The sheep sacrifice in the Hajj Islamic tradition also must happen before sunrise which means at Dawn. The history of Arabia must be re-written on the basis that the theater of all the Biblical events was Arabia. The Arabian tradition seems to be more coherent and clear than the biblical stories. The Bible stories are interpreted as deciphered from the old Hebrew, which is unclear while the Arabian oral stories are linked together in a way that makes sense. Let us analyse the pilgrimage holiday in Mecca. This pilgrimage has a unique name: Hajj. Arabs have never questioned the etymology of this term: Is it a noun, a verb or a gerund? The name derived from this event in Arabic is simply "hajjeej" which means the dense crowd. It is also pronounced "Ajeej" with "'Ayn". Some tribes in the Hijaz region in Arabia still pronounce the "'ayn" consonant as "Ha" (as in Hayat) and also the "J" as "Ye". Therefore the term Hajj can lead us to the term "'Aii". People who never lived with the local tribes in Hijaz may never belive it but Moslems who recall the hadith about the Calif who corrected a Koran reader committing the same permutation, these Moslems easily admit the above pronunciation glitch. Furthermore, in the Mecca area, the Misfilah quarter is an area that reminds us the Macvilah caverns of the Torah. in addition, Abraham, after he buried his wife Sarah, headed south towards the road of Shor: Jabal Thawr is a few miles south of Makkah. If the prophet Muhammad honored a place called the Namra Shrine, it is because the name recalls an ancient honorable figure mentioned in the Torah: Mambra. If all these facts and names are gathered in one single area, they are worth being considered for investigation. I personally do not believe the Moslem tradition saying that Abraham was buried in Palestine, unless we consider the eternal Arabian migrations of his descendants from Makkah to Palestine. The Kaabah in the Arabian tradition is the Old House of God, which in Arabic is literally Bethel or Beit El. According to the Koran, it was the "first house ever built for people worship", a version that coincides with the overall story of Abraham in Arabia. Respectfully, Noureddine (talk) 02:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Common sense correction.

Prior to Mohammed, there were no moslems.... and prior to Mohammed, the majority of arabs were polytheists and would have had no reason to face Jerusalem. Only the Jews have continually faced toward Jerusalem when they pray.

"Another major change was that prior to Muhammad, Muslims had faced towards Jerusalem in their daily prayers, but Muhammad changed this practice and required everyone to face towards the Kaaba of Mecca instead." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.208.79 (talk) 11:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Please accept my correction: The initial direction of prayers prior to Makkah direction is unknown, but for sure it was not towards Palestine at all. Masjid al-Kiblatain indicated the initial Kiblah that was towards the East of Madina, not Palestine. This is one of the mysteries of Islamic history that appears to be unbelievable but true. There are also some ancient pre-islamic mosques in Gassim that were directed towards Riyadh as a matter of fact. And to tell you the untold truth, Islam did not start with Muhammad. The Prophet only brought it back to life after it was distorted with idolatry and with the dust of time and neglect. Muhammad resurrected Islam and corrected its path and practice with the written Word of God. Islam was the initial religion of Ibrahim who gave the name of Muslims to the people of Arabia (The Holy Kuran). Noureddine (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Qur'an 9:28

I just wrote: "People of the Book would usually not be regarded as pagans." Now, since I've only been studying Islam seriously for about a month, could someone confirm that I'm right about that? It seems from other translations (e.g. Arberry and Abdel-Haleem) that this verse is talking about polytheists or idolators... Evercat (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)