Talk:Kaaba/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

photo of the former door?

The Ottoman-era door of the Kaaba (built ca. 1635, replaced ca. 1947) is currently on a U.S. tour. Perhaps someone can get a freely licensed high-quality photo of it at one of the stops? It's possible none of them will allow photography, but perhaps worth a try. --Delirium (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

image

What on earth is this? It is presented as the Black Stone but it doesn't look like a stone (or anything else), it doesn't have a source, and it looks nothing like the drawing at Black Stone. Besides that, even if it is genuine, the poor image quality makes it worse than useless. Zero^talk 09:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It's an image of "Lord Ra Riaz Gohar Shahi" that apparently miraculously appears on the black stone. It seems he's visible on the moon too [1] [2]. Paul B (talk) 11:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I should add that it is the stone, but the photo has been brightened. Here are some other images [3] [4]. Paul B (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. All of this means the image is not appropriate here. I'm deleting it. Zero^talk 02:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

That Image again and Again

This image will always cause a problem. Would it not be better to replace it with one which carries the same meaning but is respectful of Muslim traditions? B/c when i see the rationale and its necessity in the article it does not seem to balance the constant objections it brings to Wikipedia. This thing about Wikipedia not censoring is also not true. Because the image of JFK post-Lee Harvey encounter is censored, dead bodies, porn and sex related items are also censored. Another less controversial image can be used. --Inayity (talk) 13:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

A lot of porn and sex-related stuff is pretty clearly not censored. Removing this does seem to me to be censorship. If we start to edit our articles according to religious beliefs, where do we stop? Do we say if a religion has N number of adherents, we will remove anything that upsets that religion? The same argument being used to remove this image is used to insist that PBUH should be used, or that 'Holy Bible' should be the way to refer to the Bible. As for dead bodies, are you going to argue for the removal of File:Victim of Indians - NARA - 517708.jpg from the articles that use it? We have a lot of images of dead bodies. Dougweller (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yuck didn't see those dead bodies before, certainly did not see any porn images either (I did look). I do not have a problem with your argument, but in this particular case its inclusion is not that critical. And I at times feel it is there just to prove a point. There are other articles where it might be central. I agree the inclusion of PBUH would clearly be a problem. And there is no way we could edit anything according to beliefs. At some stage something offends someone. But at the same time I remember with Gaddafi they wanted to put a picture of his corpse, and that was just political to degrade the man. --Inayity (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a religious website and it does not respect the Islamic dogmas but it will let wrong information reside on it's servers. What good is knowledge if it's not true and blasphemous. Ferraribauer (talk) 07:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

But there is no "wrong information". Paul B (talk) 07:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I think there may be an issue of undue weight. To have this image in a short section about "Muhammad era" gives the impression that Muslims commonly depict their prophet or that this is a typical representation of that event; both are "wrong" so to speak. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 08:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

This a somewhat eccentric argument. This is one of the most famous events in the history of the black stone, so one image hardly gives undue weight to it. The second part of the argument is irrelevant. This is not an article about images in Muslim cultures. Firstly, you can't tell from looking at the image whether or not it was made by a Muslim. Secondly, the extrapolation could be made of any image (e.g. Goya's picture of a man having his genitals cut off creates the impression that the Spanish commonly represent people being mutilated). It's just not a reasonable extrapolation. Paul B (talk) 08:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the Kaaba, not the black stone. So your first point further affirms the undue weight issue. The dating and Arabic-sounding name in the caption gives the impression that it was done by Muslims. Furthermore, its inclusion in a short section about "Muhammad era" (and the only section about "Muhammad") suggests that it is notable or a typical representation; both are not true. The example you gave is a painting that is not part of any article on the English WP. I'm not sure how it can possibly be used as example of due/undue weight. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 09:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hardly. There is currently one image of the black stone, which is a crucial part of the Kaaba, and this is it. The picture also depicts the kaaba itself, behind the figures. These arguments are clearly sophistical. Muhammad's personal significance to the Kaaba can also hardly be underestimated, so by your logic of weight we should have more images of him, and maybe some of Abraham too. The Goya example is a print, not a painting. It is on the Goya page, so your last sentence is both wrong and would be utterly irrelevant even if it were true, since I was making a point about the logic of an argument. There is no rule that images should be either notable or typical, though it is in fact notable and is typical of its era. Paul B (talk) 10:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

But the Goya image is not being used in a general article or a section about Spanish art. If it were, then it would be subject to undue weight and it would be reasonable to ask whether its theme/style is representative of Spanish art, or not. I'm just asking this same questions with regards to this image, which I find both uncommon and untypical to represent the "Muhammad era". As a side point, an actual photograph of the black stone in the "Pre-Islamic" section would be more informative (since the black stone belonged to the pre-Islamic and pre-Muhammad era). Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 13:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand your argument. Are you seriously saying that the black stone is irrelevant to the "Muhammad era"? You seem to be suggesting that this being stated as being from a Persian work " gives the impression that it was done by Muslims". The problem with the caption is that it doesn't make it clear that it was done by a Muslim. So you are asking us to remove the image because it was done by a Muslim? It's obviously notable although as Paul says that's not actually relevant. Being uncommon or even unique doesn't make it in any way WP:UNDUE. Dougweller (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the black stone is not relevant. I'm just saying that a photo of the black stone would be more encyclopedic/informative than this image. My concerns about this image is as follows: First, plenty of sources suggest that the settings and Kaaba shown is from the Ilkhanate era, thus I don't see how it is informative in a section about Kaaba in the "Muhammad era". Second, its history and authorship is full of controversies: Rashid al-Din was accused of a fake conversion to Islam, was known for being clueless on Islam, and was buried as a Jewish man -- see his EI2 article. I'm not sure why we're "advertising" this controversial work/man in an irrelevant article. Third, adding this image to a small section would make one think that it was made by a Muslim or that it represents a Muslim tradition of depicting the "Muhammad era" (i.e., a majority view), which is not true or disputed (per my 2nd point). Fourth, it also gives more weight than necessary to one event in a small section (an image is worth a 1000 words :) ). Finally, being uncommon or rare makes it a minority view, which is directly related to WP:UNDUE. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 18:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The utter irrelevance of this paragraph is remarkable. I respect editors who say that we should not have images of Muhammad because it is, in their view, improper for religious reasons. These are honest assertions about the reason for wanting the image removed, but your arguments are just unintelligible. We are not advertising any controversial work or person, any more than we are "advertising" the various artists, patrons, art galleries etc who depicted Moses in the many pictures in that article. Muhammad's "endorsement" of the black stone and of its use in the Kaaba is just about one of the most significant events there is in the history of the building. If Muhammad had said "get rid of it", it would be as lost and forgotten as the statue of Hubal. The event depicted is just about as important and as central to the history of the building and its significance as it is possible to get. And an image being rare does not make it a "minority view" because images are not opinions. There are many people, events, objects etc in history of which only a single image actually exists. That would not justify the bizarre argument that the only existing portrait of someone should be excluded from their article because it is rare. p.s. Rashid al-Din wasn't "buried as a Jewish man". He was buried as a Muslim. Paul B (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

A major assertion on your part is thinking that the event depicted was an "endorsement", even though it happened years before the first revelation. The fact that you're making these wrong or minority view assumptions is exactly why this event shouldn't be given this much weight. Also, contrary to your "images are not opinions", plenty of sources place the work of Rashid al-Din within a Buddhist context and suggest that his depictions have the additional purpose of expressing sectarian views. This clearly makes them subject to WP:DUE, as their purpose was promoting certain ideologies and opinions (including which events should be considered significant). See Elverskog, Johan (2010). Buddhism and Islam on the Silk Road. University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 167. ISBN 9780812242379.. And this is not an issue of "existing portrait of someone should be excluded from their article", as you incompetently claimed, this is about a short section in the Kaaba article. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 00:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, WP:DUE explicitly make note of images: "This applies not only to article text, but to images, ...". Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 20:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The Kaaba was built by Prophet Adam and later rebuilt by Prophet Abraham

The Kaaba was FIRST built by Prophet Adam and later rebuilt by Prophet Abraham. If Wiki could correct this error, please - would be great.

References:

http://www.al-islam.org/story-of-the-holy-kaaba-and-its-people-shabbar/kaaba-house-allah http://thefaithinislam.freeservers.com/catalog.html http://www.missionislam.com/knowledge/kaaba.htm http://www.everymuslim.co.za/index.php/articles-menu/hajj-umrah-menu/34-cat-makkah-and-its-virtues/515-the-kaaba-history-and-re-construction http://www.islamforamal.com/Home/additonal-information/construction-of-kaaba http://www.vanguardngr.com/2011/10/the-story-of-kaaba-2/

on and on and on

True, but only according to some traditions. In any case, I've tried to add something to the article and found out that the page can only be edited by "admins". Never seen that level of protection before. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 19:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

After Prabhakar Vardhan’s death in 605 and Harsha died in the year 647 prophet Muhammad was about 570 CE in the Arabian city of Mecca,came to Kaaba and told this is the holy place for Muslim but that is the holy place Hindu for before prophet Muhammad Hindu are born in 200 AD think it is the how holy place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.111.218.42 (talk) 10:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 March 2014

115.111.218.42 (talk) 10:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC) Kaaba is the Hindu place Kaaba is no as kabbalinshwara shiva temple was build my 530 AD. According to the Chinese Pilgrim Xuanzang, who visited his kingdom in 636,the first historical poetic work in Sanskrit language, The Priyadarsika appears to be the earliest of Harsha's plays. It and the Ratnavali deal with the amorous adventures of the king Vatsa, his queen Vasavadatta, and newcomers to the royal harem. Both plays borrow from the earlier works of Bhasa and Kalidasa (especially the latter's Malavikagnimitra) and are based ultimately on material in the collection Brhatkatha. These plays lack thematic novelty but sustain interest through brisk dialogue. Both are frequently cited by later writers on dramatic theory and technique.

Harsha's Nagananda is his most important play. It is, in fact, a singular creation in Sanskrit drama. This five-act drama draws again on the Brhatkatha for the substance of its first three acts. In them, the hero, Jimutavahana, Prince of the Vidyadharas, meets and marries the Siddha princess Malayavati. To that point, the romance of the fairy prince and princess is quite conventional.

The mood of the play changes sharply in the fourth act. Jimutavahana discovers mounds of skeletons which evidence the daily sacrifice of serpents to the celestial bird Garuda. The hero resolves to offer his own body so that the serpents may be spared (a type of resolution very familiar in Buddhist literature). At the drama's conclusion it is the non-Buddhist goddess Gauri, however, who restores the bodhisattva, Jimutavahana, to life. In this attractive and moving drama, Harsha combined Buddhist and "Hindu" themes adroitly and uniquely, and through it one sees clearly his artistic and political genius,Harsha died in the year 647.Muslim are starting entering to India Kaaba and other place link road Afghanistan is also the Hindu place in this way they start ruling india

Not done: Sorry, but you need to cite reliable sources for any claims you add to Wikipedia that might be contested by another editor. Please see the verifiability policy, and the help page about citing sources. Please reactivate this request when your proposed edits have suitable sources. Also, please make sure that there is a consensus among the other editors of the article to add your content. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Pre-Islamic use of the Kaaba

References from Ibn Ishaq have been added with secondary source data on pre-Islamic worship of the Kaaba.Cpsoper (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC) An editor has removed several well referenced sections and an illustration, and again. Cpsoper (talk) 15:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC) See footnote 2 p.85 for verification 'the feminine form...' etc. The last edit reverted.Cpsoper (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't remove any illustrations, so you're probably confusing me with another editor? In any case, the part I removed was not well referenced. Actually it misrepresents the source as given because Ibn Ishaq didn't claim that "the Ka'aba was itself previously addressed as a female deity". There is only a note by Guillaume concerning language usage in a single incident. Guillaume's assessment shouldn't be attributed to Ibn Ishaq. As a side note, Guillaume's translation is not considered reliable by some historians, and his knowledge of the Arabic language (or lack thereof) has been criticized. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 21:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, the note above had referred to a previous anonymous editor (see history), not your own. The Arabic is Ibn Ishaq's and that indicates reference to a female deity. I you have a better translation available please allude to it.Cpsoper (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you quote the part where Ibn Ishaq claims that "the Ka'aba was itself previously addressed as a female deity"? Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 19:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

In describing the demolition of the temple, specifically identified as the Ka'ba (sic), Al Walid says, 'O God, do not Thou (f.s.) be afraid'. Rarely in Sirat ar Rasul is the Kaaba so addressed directly, are there any instances where it is addressed as male? Alas I spent time searching through the Cairo book fairs for a copy of the Arabic text in vain.Cpsoper (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I have access to the Cairo edition (al-Saqqa et al), presumably the same text translated by Guillaume per his introduction (p.xli). The Arabic phrase used (p. 195) is "Allahumma lam turaʿ" (tr. "O God, it was not startled".). There is a note at the bottom of the same page explaining that the pronoun refers to the Ka'ba (n.5). Also, a second explanation is given in the body of the text: "Ibn Hisham said: some say 'lam nuzagh'" [tr. "we were not led astray"]. I'm not sure why this second explanation is missing from Guillaume. As you can see, the source does not explicitly mention a "female deity", which seems to be just a far-fetched interpretation. And the fact that there is a different wording of that same incident suggests that we should not give it more weight than necessary. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

That's helpful, I have modified the text to indicate the comment comes from Guillaume's understanding of ibn Ishaq, and given the controversy removed the expression 'deity', although per the first variant text you report it is the female 'god' who is reassured before the demolition. 'Lam tura' is 'do not fear' (f.s.).Cpsoper (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Interior dimensions

The article says "sides measuring 11.03 m (36.2 ft) by 12.86 m (42.2 ft).[11][12] ... The interior walls, measuring 13 m (43 ft) by 9 m (30 ft)" How can there be an interior wall of 13 m when the longest exterior wall is 12.86 m? how thick are the walls? JPLeonard (talk) 06:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

P.S. The technical drawing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaaba#mediaviewer/File:Kaaba-plan.svg has the interior walls at 10.15 by 8.24 m and the outside as 12.04 x 10.18, indicating the walls are almost 1 meter thick. "The sides" measurement noted above may include the sill. JPLeonard (talk) 06:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The photographs depicting prophet Mohammed from articles found on Wikipedia must be removed.

Removal of Photos depicting Prophet Mohammed (SAS)

There are a few articles on Wikipedia including Kaaba, which show the images of Prophet Mohammed where as such must not be the case. It is strictly forbidden in Islam to do so. It's a wrong doing for which Allah will punish severely. It's very disturbing and hurting to Muslim world. I request Wikipedia to remove these photos immediately. Thank You!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferraribauer (talk • contribs) 12:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

See the section Talk:Kaaba#Image_of_Mohammed above and the archives of the talk page. Paul B (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a religious website and it does not respect the Islamic dogmas. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 09:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I totally get the importance of not censoring content, the facts remain however. Muslims find it insulting and the image remains in the public domain either way. An appropriate resolution I would think is to blur the face in the thumbnail only, as is done in other such antiquities, but still allowing the unaltered image to appear in full when clicked on. Even indicating that the image(in its original form) is available in the caption bellow the thumbnail. In this way, in compromise, I feel it would please both sides to this discussion. While still holding to the integrity of Wikipedia's uncensored nature. I see this as being a reasonable compromise considering the fact that said image could be found in any case, with out Wikipedia, so a person desiring to see the image can see it in its entirety if they choose to. At the same time the offending factor of the image would be out of the view of those who do not which to see it. Wikipedia only facilitates the fast and easy viewing of the image, a single click would certainly not hinder anyone in rapid viewing if such is desired. Only my simple opinion, with hope that it may settle this matter.MasterGeta(talk)comment added 01:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like to agree with the above mentioned comment suggesting a compromise on the image of the Prophet. Perhaps the article should start with a warning saying some content could be offensive to some religious denominations. If blurring the article in the thumbnail is not feasible we could try describing, in the image caption, such a warning. AN example of such a statement could be like "viewer discretion is advised, this image may contain offensive content to some religious groups"

It isn't strictly against Wikipedia policy to have such a warning, but it is contrary to practice and content guidelines. Zero^talk 10:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is it haaram to have image or picture of the prophet? How come then that Muslims takes pictures of photos of themselves in marriage or other events? Isnt that haraam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.120.182.123 (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Architecture

"The Kaaba stands upon a 250 cm (98 in) marble base that projects outwards about 35 cm (14 in)"

These measures are practically impossible!!! The door ('2' on the drawing) is 2.13 meters high from the ground. How could it be possible to have a marble "base" 2.5 meters high???

Should the base be the "gutter" ('4' on the drawing) and in this case probably 25cm x 35cm are the correct measures. Unfortunately 25x35 cm seem too short for the gutter as it can be seen on the picture of Kiswah page. File/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Kaaba_%281910%29-2.jpg The gutter seems larger: at least 50x50cm comparing the man standing next to the wall under the door. And if I calculate the measures of the gutter from data showing on the drawing with dimensions, then it results to be 67.5 cm at one wall or 56 cm at another. (11.53-10.18 /2 ; 13.16-12.04 /2)

However the man is standing on something which could be a base. but it does not seem to be marble, and in this case it is probably 2.5 x 35 cm. The reference for these measures (Wensinck, A. J; Ka`ba. Encyclopaedia of Islam IV p. 317) are not available to me to check, and also I did not find any authentic english www references about the base or the gutter which could clarify the measures. (It is also unknown where the dimension data on the drawing originated. Very likely it is a scanned pilgrimage leaflet page))

Please correct the measures if you find authentic data. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSoos (talk • contribs) 23:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Edition II of EI, article Ka'ba by A.J. Wensinck and J. Jomier, says "The Kaʿba is built of layers of the grey-blue stone produced by the hills surrounding Mecca. It stands on a marble base (shādharwān) 10 inches high, projecting about a foot." I think this might solve the problem: 10 inches is 25cm, not 250cm. What do you think? Zero^talk 01:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for checking the reference. As I thought the correct number is 25cm then. However I think the whole basement information is oblsolete, and would be better removed. The "base" cannot be seen on any pictures, or drawings, and is completely overlayed by the "gutter". Moreover now the whole ground area is covered by marble slabs. File/http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Fz5j1blPfbM/UCYAacG0NEI/AAAAAAAAAgY/4vvZhfqDOgw/s1600/5+Brown+marbles+on+white+slope+adjecnt+to+kaaba+wall+where+first+time+syedna+Gibreal+A.S+guided+practically+how+to+offer+salat+(Prayer)+1.jpg80.98.227.94 (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Lacking history

The history section currently doesn't include even the vaguest of dates for construction, only the reconstruction by muhammed and the non-historic traditional date, is there really no reference to it before muhammed? 92.25.48.49 (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup of History Section

I've cleaned up the history section. Beforehand it was a confusing jumble of islamic traditional views and lots of orientalist comments, some of them totally irrelevant. I've separated the two into sections and merged redundant stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.66.122 (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Traditional account?

The introduction of a new section giving Muslim folklore before an encyclopedic account of the history of the Kaaba appears tendentious and needs much better justification. I have reverted a substantial section of it, including some of the removed referenced material. Cpsoper (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no independent "history" of the Kaabah, just Islamic scriptures and Islamic tradition. The only exception is Diodorus_Siculus's account which is currently mentioned in the article indirectly through another author's work. Now regarding your edit ... The section you removed is understandable as it is redundant with the material mentioned in a later section. However none of your reversions are encyclopedic history, the 360 idols and naked circumambulation lines were moved (not removed) to the tradition section since that is what they are, and they can be cited directly from Tradition literature rather than modern summaries. The comments on Fertility rites and Feminine form made no sense as they are in the article, I can't understand their purpose or what is being conveyed. I don't see a problem with a labelled section giving the Traditional account when it is all that exists, its much less tendentious than a jumble of unconnected assertions from orientalists handed out as independent history.Seeker1101 (talk) 18:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a pity your edits are anonymous, especially given your evident experience. I'm surprised you find these edits difficult to understand, it is not a question raised previously, and the references are quite plain. The idea that there it is not possible to construct an independent history of the Ka'aba, or that we must rely uncritically on Muslim sources is not encyclopaedic. Where is there precedent for dividing an account into a 'traditional' and 'independent' sections like this, as though giving them both equal authority? Cpsoper (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The section could be improved, for sure. The bit about the Kaaba being "feminine" is the fossilised remains of a compromise following an earlier debate/dispute over an addition by Cpsoper, who wanted to argue that the Kaaba was perceived at some point as a "female deity" see here. I'm far from sure it adds anything much. The sources for the other assertions in the section are not ideal, sure, but the solution to that is to improve them, not to dismissively label western scholars "orientalists" and assert that Muslim tradition is the only thing that exists, therefore it must be reiterated as fact. Paul B (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Not saying that traditional account must be given as fact just that it should be mentioned and not omitted ... infact giving it a separate heading establishes that it is the traditional view and any educated reader should know that tradition is not fact and the two should not be confused. If you have an idea for a better re-structuring to make this more obvious please share it. The feminine form bit can remain, my only point is that it seems out of context and confusing ... either someone should develop and cite a context around it or it should be removed. No other western assertions or sources were removed nor has the wording been changed to undermine them or equate them to the traditional view. Seeker1101 (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Popular culture

This article should include Kaaba in popular culture such as books, movies, music or any televised event. A section or seperate article about destruction threats should also included. (such as Grand Mosque Seizure, Ottoman era vandalisms and ISIS threats) OnurT 15:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Architecture and interior

There must be an error here: the dimensions of the interior rectangle (13 m (43 ft) by 9 m (30 ft)) do not fit within the dimensions of the exterior rectangle (11.03 m (36.2 ft) by 12.86 m (42.2 ft)). Apparently the longest side of the interior is longer than the longest side of the exterior. Hardcode57 (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kaaba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://archnet.org/library/dictionary/entry.jsp?entry_id=DIA0407

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)