This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Saudi Arabia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Saudi ArabiaWikipedia:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaTemplate:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaSaudi Arabia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
The contents of the Tawaf page were merged into Kaaba on 9 August 2020. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
Greetings, at the "Background" section I added a statement with cite about Zurah. I am asking here for help to verify if that is correct? If yes, I will de-orphan Zurah article. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AgisdeSparte: where in the source does it say This factor partly explains why Muslims in Western colonial empires refused to join the Ottoman Empire during World War I? This doesn't make much sense since theu were colonized and therefore, were in no position to choose what to do. M.Bitton (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
During World War I, the Ottoman Empire declared a jihad against the Triple Entente and attempted to incite uprisings among Muslims in the colonized territories, greatly alarming the colonial powers of the Triple Entente. They did everything they could to prevent this from happening, as the stakes were high, involving a potential widespread revolt in the colonies. For France, this was particularly relevant in French Algeria and Morocco. As the source states in Chapter 9, "Djihad contre Djihad": In the town of La Calle, there were similar doubts, but local figures believed that if the news was true, then the Turks "must be regarded as the slaves of the German people." In Meskania, the Turks were already accused of being "false believers" who had hypocritically used Islam. In short, although some uncertainty remained, the image of Turkey as a beacon of Islam rapidly deteriorated, and sympathy for the Arab brothers in the Levant naturally gained ground.AgisdeSparte (talk) 10:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton The source does indeed discuss Muslims turning away from the Ottoman Empire. The entire work revolves around the risk of uprisings in the colonies of the Triple Entente colonial empires, and that's precisely the essence of this passage and the overarching theme of the work. If necessary, I can provide specific references from the source to support this interpretation. AgisdeSparte (talk) 10:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't explain the WP:OR that you added to the article and the parts that you omitted while quoting from it, such as "they believed this to be a lie, invented by the press to promote hatred of Constantinople". M.Bitton (talk) 10:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct in pointing out that I didn't include the specific part you mentioned because it addressed a particular point. What I emphasized was the concluding part, which comes after the passage discussing both those who disbelieved in the burnt Kaaba and those who believed in it, in order to provide an overall summary of the author's perspective. The "in short" portion succinctly encapsulates the author's stance and serves as a conclusion. I'll quote extensively, then, if you want, that's not an issue. Those are the first lines of the chapter :
From 1914 to 1916, the supreme weapon of pan-Islamism was more of a damp squib than an atomic bomb. The colonial powers, who took pride in the loyalty of their subjects, should have shown more humility because passivity does not equate to loyalty. Despite being disappointed and disheartened, Germany maintained the belief that it could still turn the tables if the balance of power shifted. At the beginning of 1916, despite the limited successes achieved so far, Germany wanted to believe that the French and British had been humiliated at the Dardanelles, Serbia eliminated from the war theater, a British army forced to surrender at Kut-el-Amara on the road to Baghdad, and there was no longer any fear from Russia after its defeats in 1915. Finally, there were doubts about whether France, severely attacked at Verdun, would hold up. However, instead of crowning the largely unrewarded efforts of the Berlin jihadists, the year 1916 marked their complete failure. On June 10th, Sharif Hussein Ben Ali of Mecca switched to the Allied side and labeled the Turks as traitors to Islam. What's more, he himself called for a holy war to liberate Arab lands from the grip of the Ottomans. Jihad against jihad. Muslims against Muslims. The theme of pan-Islamism, the struggle of all believers against colonialists, was immediately blown apart. Germany had not realized that the Ottoman Empire could also be considered an occupying power. In essence, Arabs were no different from Europeans: religion was not the sole adhesive of their identity, and the national idea far surpassed it. With the collapse of the pan-Islamist illusion, the veil was lifted: the Great War was not a religious war. However, instead of crowning the largely unrewarded efforts of the Berlin jihadists, the year 1916 marked their complete failure. On June 10th, Sharif Hussein Ben Ali of Mecca switched to the Allied side and labeled the Turks as traitors to Islam. What's more, he himself called for a holy war to liberate Arab lands from the grip of the Ottomans. Jihad against jihad. Muslims against Muslims. The theme of pan-Islamism, the struggle of all believers against colonialists, was immediately blown apart. Germany had not realized that the Ottoman Empire could also be considered an occupying power. In essence, Arabs were no different from Europeans: religion was not the sole adhesive of their identity, and the national idea far surpassed it. With the collapse of the pan-Islamist illusion, the veil was lifted: the Great War was not a religious war.
Here, the focus is on the pan-Islamist theme, the struggle of all believers against colonial powers. The passage highlights the disillusionment and ultimate failure of the pan-Islamist efforts, as seen when Sharif Hussein Ben Ali of Mecca shifted to the Allied camp and called for a holy war against the Ottoman Empire. This shift effectively undermined the pan-Islamist narrative. The text makes it clear that the central issue at hand is the question of an anti-colonial pan-Islamic revolt who was aborted in most part. One of the factors that contributed to this change of opinion, as clearly stated in the text, was the bombardment of the Kaaba, which may have triggered doubts among some but, "in short," was a factor in the shift of opinion. This is precisely what I had emphasized in my addition to the article, which was nuanced and included the word "partly," aligning with the author's statement. AgisdeSparte (talk) 10:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree because you stripped the context out of the author's statements and added your own WP:OR (that doesn't even make sense, as explained in my first comment). There is also the issue that the author is only mentioning a tiny portion of the Algerian population, while you're applying the WP:OR to the "Muslims in Western colonial empires". M.Bitton (talk) 10:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You make a valid point. Indeed, it would have been more precise to specifically discuss the Arabs of the Maghreb, as the source's introduction to this passage states, "How do the Arabs of the Maghreb react to this revolt of the Arabs of the Mashreq?" The conclusion also highlights that "Even though some uncertainty remains, the image of Turkey as a beacon of Islam rapidly deteriorated, and sympathy for the Arab brothers in the Levant naturally gained ground." This clearly indicates that despite possible doubts among some (as mentioned by the author), the degradation of the image was the prevailing sentiment.
However, you are correct in pointing out that the source in this passage only addresses the Arabs of the Maghreb in a general sense and does not cover other colonial empires, such as Muslims in India. It should be corrected in that sense, I agree. AgisdeSparte (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I had aimed to convey and draw from the source was indeed the propaganda aspect that had been employed by the Hashemites following this event. They sought to rally Muslims worldwide, a fact well-documented in Chapter 9. Additionally, there was the propaganda significance of this event for Western powers, particularly France, which utilized it to ensure that Muslims did not revolt that could also be added. This broader perspective aims to move beyond simplistic interpretations that a text lacking nuance might foster. If you feel it's best to remove the final sentence for the sake of conciseness, it doesn't pose any issue. I used it to emphasize the nuanced aspect, but its removal wouldn't detract from the main point. AgisdeSparte (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton Since the removed sentence is no longer present, that it doesn't bother me, and that you didn't appear to challenge the reality of the event happening in 1916, I took the liberty of adding sources related to the event in question and not on the passage that was disputed. AgisdeSparte (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The other sources add no value to the article (about the Kaaba and nothing else). The inclusion of the propaganda is already verging on, if not UNDUE, so let's just leave it as it is. M.Bitton (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The introductory paragraph claims the current structure was built in 683, which is contradicted in the section about its history after Muhammad, which says it has been destroyed and rebuilt multiple times since then. Is this an oversight, or is "the current structure" meant to refer to its general form and not the exact structure we have today? 129.2.192.176 (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Fix common grammar error. Date should read "AD 683" instead of "683 AD" at end of first paragraph. Dates are formatted either YYYY BC and AD YYYY, or YYYY BCE and YYYY CE. Gamwise (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, it should be "none of the above". Conventionally, we do not use the Christian notation (Anno Domini Jesu Christi) in articles about Islam or Judaism. See MOS:ERA. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another issue is that the entire article features an inconsistent date format, some places use AD while others use CE. According to MOS:BCE, the date format must be consistent throughout the article. Xoocit (talk) 11:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, not really. Mostly it uses CE for dates before or shortly after the Hijra, then AH dates thereafter (with the CE equivalent for reader convenience, same as we do with weights and measures). I found two further instances of AD notation, which I have brought into conformance. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Not done: MOS:AD says "
