Talk:Destruction of early Islamic heritage sites in Saudi Arabia

POV title?

I think that the title of this article is misleading and promotes for a POV. I think it needs to be changed, I will sleep on it and try to come up with a more relevant title, but i don't think that this title is correct. Yamanam (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Links

Looks to me like several names in the article deserve links and lack them. It's OK to link something that does not yet have an article, as long as it should have one. - Jmabel | Talk 19:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• I've actually found quite a few that do have articles, and linked those. - Jmabel | Talk 21:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Why this "see also"?

Why is there a "see also" to Excavations of Al-Aqsa Mosque? Seems tendentious to me. Al-Aqsa Mosque does not date back to this period, and no one is destroying it (although there are certainly a few millennialist Jews and perhaps Christians who would like to). The only tie I see - and the one that makes me consider it a tendentious inclusion - is that some Muslims, according to the article, hold Jews responsible for what is happening in Mecca and Medina, and the Al-Aqsa Mosque is in territory controlled (illegally annexed, in my view, but that is neither here nor there) by Israel.

If we are going to include that, it would be no more (and no less) tendentious to include Buddhas of Bamyan. I say don't include either one. - Jmabel | Talk 21:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It was added by Yamanam after I linked this page to it. I think Al-Aqsa is considered a early Islamic site by dint of the fable of Muhammed's flying horse ride there. When the site was later captured by the Muslims after Muhammed died, some Muslims identified the Jewish holy site as the "furthest mosque" mentioned in the Koran to where Muhammed had been teleported. While the link may be unnecessary as you have indicated, I do think that mention of the destruction of the Al-Aqsa by an earthquake in 746 and another in 1033 would be in order. Thanks for your additions too! Chesdovi (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed in terms of the earthquake, etc. My point was precisely that the present Al-Aqsa mosque, which some Muslims feel the Israeli gov't is not sufficiently respecting, does not come from this period. - Jmabel | Talk 04:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both of you, and I respect your opinions, but I think I need to explain some points for you guys (Jmabel and Chesdovi:

• The article speaks about SITES and as far as I am concerned the word "site" means (place, location, area) and the Place, Location, Area, and/or SITE of Al-Aqsa mosque is believed to be under "destruction".
• As far as I am concerned the only holy "building" in Islam is Kaaba the the other 2 holy places are more related to the "Site" not the "building". So I beleive from Islamic perspective the "Site" of the Al-Aqsa mosque is considerd to be a HOLY place therefor "destruction" aimed to that "site" is considered to be a "destruction" of a holy symbol of Islam.
• One might ask how can we destruct a LAND and the answer is: as far as there is any building on a holy land of Islam and this building happened to be a mosque for instance then, supposedly, the building is as sacred as the "Site" it self, and any destruction of the building is considered a destruction of the site.
• I am Muslim and I live every day hearing, reading, seeing "CLAIMS" about the "Jewish Conspiracy", and I will tell u one thing: I've NEVER heard about a relation between this "CLAIMED" conspiracy and the destructions of Islamic sites in Mecca or Medina. I think Chesdovi that Citation is needed here from a neutral/trusted resource as per Wikipedia's policies.
• I think that there are a lot of things need to be changed in this article, and I did change some but Chesdovi deleted my changes for some reason. Anyways, as soon as I have some time I'll work on this article to make it more neutral. I mean I am Muslim and almost everything mentioned in the article is correct, but the article describes the facts in a very misleading way (inadvertently of course) and doesn't show the reality of the destruction. Yamanam (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Addition to this article

This article is of a sensitive nature, therefor, additions made thereof should be done with extreme cautious. For instance, it is against the whole SUNNI doctrine to venerate any historical site not mentioned in Quran or Hadith, not only Wahhabi doctrine, this is one. Two, Shia are different, in many terms, from Sunni, so whatever they consider right/wrong, is not NECESSARILY to be right/wrong from sunni perspective (I am not telling who is correct, shia or sunni, I am only stating the facts). Yamanam (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I note your changes, but please cite sources for the Sunni viewpoint on this matter. I have only found this view to be held by Wahhabis. Chesdovi (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, as a matter of fact, Wahhabi is a faction of Sunni. Nevertheless, I'll look up a source from Sunni perspective prohibiting venerating such sites. Yamanam (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Here you go, I found this source that speaks about clergy in Saudi Arabia (Wahhabi) and refering to them as Sunni 1. By the way, is it ok to cite from Arabic resources in English Wikipedia? Yamanam (talk) 20:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It was noted that Wahhbism was a faction of Sunni, but you remoived this line? Chesdovi (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You have reworded the paragraph so it reads that veneration of graves is against Sunni doctrine. I have found an artciel on Sunninews.com entitled Wahabi/Saudi Goverment destroying Islamic heritage? It seems Sunnis are also alarmed at the destruction carried out by the Wahhabi Sunnis? Chesdovi (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Yamanam, I have proceeded with changes. Please discuss any problems you have here as usual. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Chesdovi, with all due respect, you have no knowledge whatsoever about Islam. What I am seeing that on one hand, you have an idea, and on the other hand, you are trying you best to collect sources (reliable or not relaiable) to prove your idea. I mean, first of all, u don't know the difference between Shia and Sunni, secondly, you don't know the difference between Wahabbi and Sunni, nevertheless, you are trying your best to change and add as much as information in this article. How come that Wahhabi are Muslims and disdain certain Islamic sites that are related to Prophet Mohammad, peace be upon him? do you think that Chortkov hates sites related to Prophet Moses, peace be upon him????????? what Wahhabi disdain is VENERATION of those sites, and if Muslims didn't start worshiping those sites, then Wahhabis wouldn't have destructed those sites! This is very simple to be understood to any person who holds the smallest amount of knowledge about Islam. Just one question and please answer frankly, are you trying to prove your POV? becasue this is what i strated to notice! One more thing, would you like me to start editing Chortkov article? and add any information I find thereto? whether those info are correct or not? because it is so easy to do so. I am not saying that you shouldn't edit this article, on the contrary, but please cite ONLY RELIABLE SOURCES. Wish you all the best. Yamanam (talk) 16:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what POV you think I am tryibg to push here. The article makes it very clear that the problem Wahhabis have with the existence of tombs and the such is that they fear worship at such sites would infringe on the pure monotheism of Islam. Besides, I think they are some deeper things at play here. The Saudis could curtail veneration at such sites. Why do they insist on destroying them? Chesdovi (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

A difference between general Sunni and Wahhabi?

I reproduce here quotations from reliable sources that would point to a difference in opinion between general Sunni and Wahhabi on the veneration of graves, etc. It seems that mainstream Sunnis can tolerate pilgrimage to holy sites. On the other hand, Wahhabis take a radical position on the subject.

The following singles out Salafis, not Sunnis in general, for the destruction and stifling of veneration activity:

"Celebrating publicly the birthday of the Prophet Muhammed is strictly forbidden since it conflicts with Salafi doctrine, a measure that also affects most of the Sunni population of Medina who, along with the Shia, are forced to celebrate the joyful occasion in private. The Salafi pay little heed to the preservation of historical sites. Many Shia and Sunni Muslims speak with nostalgia of a time before the destruction of this rich heritage of the history of Islam, particularly during the development and expansion of the Haram. Salafis also prohibit as bida (innovation) such practices as visiting graves and mausoleums. Thus, there have historically been problems with the Shia over visiting the graves of the Ahl al-Bayt at al-Baqi and holding prayers there. Indeed, all domes over the graves were destroyed by the Salafi zealots (the Ikhwan) during the 1924-25 assault, and remain reduced to rubble, distinguished only by one unmarked stone on each grave for men and two stones for women." -The Most Learned of the Shi’a p. 249.

"Many Sunnis honour the tombs and shrines of saints, and they have often become popular places of pilgrimage, in which women play a notable part. But some authors, such as Ibn Taymiyah, condemned popular reverence for saints and visits to their tombs; this antipathy is felt among the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia and their followers." A-Z of Islam, Daily Telegraph

"Sunni veneration of the Prophet, the family of the Prophet, and of later Muslim martyrs and saints developed either in parallel with or in reaction to Shi’i pilgrimage and worship at the tombs of the family of Ali. In the eleventh century a mausoleum and school in the memory of Abu Hanifa, the founder of the Hanafi school of law, was reconstructed in Baghdad. In 1176 the Ayyubid dynasty rebuilt the college and tomb of al-Shafi’i in Cairo." A History of Islamic Societies p. 176.

“In theory Sunni Islam does not allow for the cultivation of sacred sites built around mere mortals...But in actual practice, Sunni Muslims, too, have historically developed and attended to hundreds of such holy places throughout the Muslim world.” Seven Doors to Islam, p. 66.

We can see that action taken against tombs and other historic mosques and sites did not occur under Sunnis in general. In fact, it floursihed. Destruction only happened under the extreme Salafis or Wahhabis. Indeed, it was the Ottoman Empire of the moderate Sunni Hanafi school, which renovated the baqi after its first destruction. Chesdovi (talk) 00:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Beleive me the subject is not as easy as you think (Diff between Sunni and Wahhabi in reagrd to destroying such sites): First, Wahhabi are in princible the follower of Mohammad Abdelwahab, who is known among Sunni people as the renovator/corrector of Muslims and the one who brought Muslims back to the real laws of Islam (more or less), so, what the ottoman empire and the hanafi followers (SUNNI) used to beleive back then, was not as correct as you think from a SUNNI point of view. Second, you shouldn't quote from Shia sites in articles for Sunni sites, without putting it loud and clear that this is the POV of the shia, what you are doing is mixing both opinions together which is misleading to the reader. SUNNI scholars, all Sunni scholars, DO NOT tolarate piligrims to such sites, find me ONE relaible artilce who say the contrary, don't make your conclusions about events took place in the 19th century. Yamanam (talk) 03:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is "ONE relaible artilce" which says that Sunni DO tolarate piligrims to such sites:

Two Sunni sects venerate two different shrines apparently for two of Imam Moussa's sons who were both named Mohamed. One exists in Samra and the other in Anbar. The Shi'a venerates a third shrine for another son also named Mohamed. The Shi'a also visit two shrines that are located amidst a majority of Sunnis who look after the shrines in Samara: the shrine of Imam 'Ali Al Hadi and the shrine of Imam AL Hassan Al 'Askari from the twelve imams." The Iraqi shrines and State Support, by Asharq Al-Awsat, Assyria Times.

From this passage we see that 1) Some Sunni do venerate shrines and 2) they look after shrines knowing that Shia come there for pilgrimage.

Please explain why only sites have been destroyed by the Sunni in Saudi Arabia, but not in any other Sunni Muslim country? Chesdovi (talk) 12:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

See Chesdovi, first, the source is relaible, but is the author of the article a Sunni scholar?? The answer is, as far as I am concerned, no, you need to get this information: "Sunni are ALLOWED (more or less) to visit shrines" quoted from a Sunni scholar, at that point, it would be a different story. Second, in the same article, does the author quote Sunni scholar when he refers to Sunni visiting certain shrines? No, I didn't notice that (I skimmed through the article maybe I missed parts of it) he is only desribing that there are some Sunni fractions who would do such visits, once again, Muslims acts are one thing, and Islamic teaching, rules, and or law are another thing.

• This page is not about the islamic view on the matter, but what has and is happening in REAL life! Chesdovi (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Concerning your question: Please explain why only sites have been destroyed by the Sunni in Saudi Arabia, but not in any other Sunni Muslim country? it is a very good question, and it is valid, the answer would be, Saudi Arabi is one of the very few countries who applies the Islamic law, they cut off the hand of the thief, they use death punishment for MARRIED Muslims who commit adultery, AND they destroy places (any places) that certain Muslims (whether Sunni or Shia) venerate, because it is prohibted in Islam. Yamanam (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Well, you have answered the question yourself. The reason why SA behaves the way it does it b/c it implements a strict version of Sunni Islam, meaning Wahhabism. Other Muslim countries are more moderate, amd therefore this article highlights that the destruction is taking place due to the Wahhabi influence in SA. Why you insist on changing every mention of the word Wahhabi to Sunni, I really don't know. Would you as a Sunni encourage the destruction of ancient tombs and mosques? As it seems there is no major outcry from Muslims at the Saudi actions, Muslims in general must praise this type of callous vandalism. If Israel were to level the tombs of Muhammeds companions in Palestine, I presumme the reaction would be the same - silence? There is no need for the Sunni/Shia split in the article. This is not about the difference of opinions on the issue of grave veneration, it merely is providing background. I will merge them and try to reword it so you find it acceptable. Regards, Chesdovi (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Sunnis are not followers of Wahhabism, it's a heretic cult: "Orthodox Sunni scholars oppose Wahhabism

I end this article with a selected list of orthodox Sunni scholars who have refuted Wahhabism and warned Muslims from its poison. The list of scholars, along with names of their books and related information, is quoted from the orthodox Sunni scholar Muhammad Hisham Kabbani[12]:

...

Dahlan, al-Sayyid Ahmad ibn Zayni (d. 1304/1886). Mufti of Mecca and Shaykh al-Islam (highest religious authority in the Ottoman jurisdiction) for the Hijaz region: al-Durar al-saniyyah fi al-radd ala al-Wahhabiyyah ["The Pure Pearls in Answering the Wahhabis"] pub. Egypt 1319 & 1347 H; Fitnat al-Wahhabiyyah ["The Wahhabi Fitna"]; Khulasat al-Kalam fi bayan Umara' al-Balad al-Haram ["The Summation Concerning the Leaders of the Sacrosanct Country"], a history of the Wahhabi fitna in Najd and the Hijaz.

al-Dajwi, Hamd Allah: al-Basa'ir li Munkiri al-tawassul ka amthal Muhd. Ibn `Abdul Wahhab ["The Evident Proofs Against Those Who Deny the Seeking of Intercession Like Muhammad Ibn `Abdul Wahhab"].

Shaykh al-Islam Dawud ibn Sulayman al-Baghdadi al-Hanafi (1815-1881 CE): al-Minha al-Wahbiyya fi radd al-Wahhabiyya ["The Divine Dispensation Concerning the Wahhabi Deviation"]; Ashadd al-Jihad fi Ibtal Da`wa al-Ijtihad ["The Most Violent Jihad in Proving False Those Who Falsely Claim Ijtihad"].

....

Al-Kabbani, Muhammad Hisham, Encyclopedia of Islamic Doctrine, vol. 1-7, As-Sunnah Foundation of America, 1998. _____, Islamic Beliefs and Doctrine According to Ahl as-Sunna - A Repudiation of "Salafi" Innovations, ASFA, 1996. _____, Innovation and True Belief: the Celebration of Mawlid According to the Qur'an and Sunna and the Scholars of Islam, ASFA, 1995. _____, Salafi Movement Unveiled, ASFA, 1997.

... Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab al-Najdi, `Allama al-Shaykh Sulayman, elder brother of Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab: al-Sawa'iq al-Ilahiyya fi al-radd 'ala al-Wahhabiyya ["Divine Lightnings in Answering the Wahhabis"]. Ed. Ibrahim Muhammad al-Batawi. Cairo: Dar al-insan, 1987. Offset reprint by Waqf Ikhlas, Istanbul: Hakikat Kitabevi, 1994. Prefaces by Shaykh Muhammad ibn Sulayman al-Kurdi al-Shafi`i and Shaykh Muhammad Hayyan al-Sindi (Muhammad Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab's shaykh) to the effect that Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab is "dall mudill" ("misguided and misguiding").

... Ibn `Afaliq al-Hanbali, Muhammad Ibn `Abdul Rahman: Tahakkum al-muqallidin bi man idda`a tajdid al-din [Sarcasm of the muqallids against the false claimants to the Renewal of Religion]. A very comprehensive book refuting the Wahhabi heresy and posting questions which Ibn `Abdul Wahhab and his followers were unable to answer for the most part. ..." http://www.sunnah.org/articles/Wahhabiarticleedit.htm Streamfortyseven (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Another thing

One more thing, non Muslims are not in place to judge about Islam and destruction of such sites, only Muslims are in that place, if you want to add there quotes make so and refer that this is a non-Muslim opinion, don't mix it in the content of the article. Another thing, What Muslims acts are not necessarily part of the Islamic law, otherwise, it would be safe to say that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam do NOT prohibt Adultery, depending on the fact that some followers of those religions do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamanam (talk • contribs) 03:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You are worried that only Islamic law should be presented here in regarding this issue. However, it is also important to mention the way people behave. So if contemporary Sunni doctrine forbids attachment to tombs and historic sites, the fact that many Sunni ignore this is notable. I have used the following quote to show this: “In theory Sunni Islam does not allow for the cultivation of sacred sites built around mere mortals...But in actual practice, Sunni Muslims, too, have historically developed and attended to hundreds of such holy places throughout the Muslim world.” We have sources that show that today, Sunni also visit various shrines. Chesdovi (talk) 13:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

shouldn't a few qualifiers such as some be used rather than the misleading blanket "Sunni"...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 14:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't disagree with this paragraph that you have mentioned, but as mentioned byAshley kennedy3, it would be better to same some Sunni, and I would prefer, few Muslims, too, have.... becasue this is the real case, you can surf the net, visit the Sunni countries and note that by your self. If I deleted this paragraph, i doubt doing that, then it would be by mistake, I'll check the article now and if it is deleted I'll get it back. Yamanam (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Article tidy-up

I have not forgotten about you, oh holy sites! Chesdovi (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Above discussions revisited

Can see that this has already been discussed but I feel I must add an off-topic tag to Cyprus and Jerusalem. In the case of Cyprus the inter-communal violence is more likely to be the cause of damage to a mosque. It is out of the Saudi jurisdiction and therefore the only possibility of it being suitable for the Article is if it were suspected of being perpetrated by the Saudi security services or perhaps a Wahhabist fanatic.

(I should also stress that the inter-communal violence I mentioned can mean that a Turkish-Cypriot attempted to destroy the Mosque as much as a Greek-Cypriot; there have been recent confessions in Turkey by Generals who acted as agents-provocateur .)

In the case of Jerusalem also earthquakes have even less to do with itEugene-elgato (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright vio?

The section "Under Threat" looks to be a cut and paste job from one of the article's sources [1] Bonewah (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/mecca-for-the-rich-islams-holiest-site-turning-into-vegas-2360114.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced material

It appears there was a lot of debate about the direction of this article. Considering the controversial nature of the subject, I have two suggestions which I think might placate editors and readers no matter what their views:

• 1. Information about developments of the destruction of sites should only come from mainstream media; no FrontpageMag or Muslim polemical sites.
• 2. Information regarding how Muslims view the visitation of graves should only come from English-language scholarly sources, such as Brill Publishers or McGill University. This cancels most Muslim sources, as even academic institutions in the Muslim world such as Imam Muhammad or Azhar will bring their own sectarian biases to the mix.

With the above in mind, I will remove anything which is either unsourced or sourced only by primary sources. We can then build the article back up based on the above suggestions. I hope this is found acceptable to my fellow editors. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I reject your suggestions.Wikipedia has its own policies regarding verifiable and neutral source.You can't supersede it.Only two publications can't be taken as source.Article matter is not disputed,rather very clear and simple. Shabiha (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Shabiha, the article matter is disputed as shown above. Your claim is ridiculous.

And why did you claim in your edit summary that I removed the source you put in? I removed the content because it was unsourced at the time, so how could I have removed the source? MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Shabiha, I just checked the source and half the information which you inserted isn't even mentioned in it! And why was the source inserted as a bare URL? What is this - laziness, carelessness, POV pushing or what? I'm not asking this rhetorically, I'm honestly confused here! MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Name change of article

Although the change of name from Destruction of early Islamic heritage sites to Destruction of early Islamic heritage sites in Saudi Arabia was done almost 3 months ago but somehow I noticed it today only. There would have been some or the other logic behind the move but IMHO current title is not very appropriate. My opinion is constructed due to following reasons:

• Although majority of section deals with sites located in Hejaz i.e. present day Kingdom of Saudi Arabia but atleast on section deals with earliest destruction of sites outside Hejaz i.e. in Iraqi holy cities of Karbala and Najaf by Saudi/Wahabi/Salafi menace inspired by edict given by Ibn Taymiyah,
• Recent destruction of sites outside KSA by same ideological group e.g. Al-Askari Mosque in Iraq, Uwais al-Qarni Mosque (shrines of Ammar ibn Yasir & Uwais al-Qarni) & Hujr ibn 'Adi Mosque in Syria

So, we may do following

• move the article to new namespace e.g. Destruction of early Islamic heritage sites by Wahabis or
• restore article back to the original namespace i.e. Destruction of early Islamic heritage sites or
• split article to Destruction of early Islamic heritage sites by Al Saud & Destruction of early Islamic heritage sites by Al-Qaeda terrorists and make Destruction of early Islamic heritage sites disamb list.

But I think it is better we revert back to original namespace Destruction of early Islamic heritage sites and expand it further including recent detruction outside KSA.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 10:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your thinking and feel that Destruction of early Islamic heritage sites is the best choice. Bonewah (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Then we may move the page back to Destruction of early Islamic heritage sites.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 15:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - This article specifically deals with such destruction in Saudi Arabia. Any material not about that country should simply be moved to a new article. FunkMonk (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Whats the value in creating a new article as opposed to expanding this one? Bonewah (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The same value as having Destruction of cultural heritage by ISIL separate. FunkMonk (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Which is...? I mean, if there is enough material to warrant two articles, thats fine, but im opposed to splitting the article up just for the sake of doing so. Bonewah (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The issues are rather different. One is the systematic, state-sponsored destruction of sites, the other is random acts of barbarism by vigilantes. By the way, I'm surprised we don't have an article about iconoclasm in Islam. FunkMonk (talk) 05:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Idolatry

So I take it that the issue the Saudis have is that they feel that people are paying too much attention and putting too much faith in Mohammad and his descendants, at the risk of committing idolatry? Basically the same issue as Catholics "venerating" saints and the Virgin Mary, which many people see as basically worshiping them, which can be therefore construed as idolatry?AnnaGoFast (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC) yup, for them it would be like christian seeing orthodox idols but in worse — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.155.61 (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Destruction of early Islamic heritage sites in Saudi Arabia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713063137/http://islamicamagazine.com/?p=424 to http://islamicamagazine.com/?p=424

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Whats the real reason behind this?

Is early islamic history showing different things than islamic dogma claims?

80.131.53.82 (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The ideology of Wahhabism opposes all (or almost all) secondary objects of Muslim devotion -- shrines of saints, sites associated with the life of Muhammad or other prominent early Muslims, etc. Only mosques and sites associated with the Hajj are allowed. Around 1800, the Wahhabites were notorious for their attacks on Shi`ite shrine cities -- see Wahhabi sack of Karbala... AnonMoos (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Links do not match content

This sentence " In 1803 and 1804, the Saudis captured Mecca and Medina and destroyed historical monuments and various holy Muslim sites and shrines, such as the shrine built over the tomb of Fatimah, the daughter of Muhammad, and even intended to destroy the grave of Muhammad himself as idolatrous, causing outrage throughout the Muslim world." cites three links. The first is no longer working (even the archived version comes up blank), the other two do not support this sentence. Should we remove? NutellaPancake (talk) -- Preceding undated comment added 21:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The Wahhabi attack is discussed in the Sharifate of Mecca article... AnonMoos (talk) 03:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

first is no longer working. I have fixed the problem with the citation to Irfan Ahmed's article in Issue 15 of Islamica Magazine. The Wikipedia article had two citations to it using different URLs, one of which was archived correctly, and the archive url was on the page. I have changed the format to a citation template, because that makes it more obvious to readers what link to click on.

Scribd is a site that requires registration, so web archives are unlikely to capture pages from it.

@NutellaPancake: In general, do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer (see Wikipedia:Link rot). This kind of thing also shows the benefits of having the original title of the source, the title of the publication, issue, etc. With some things, you can buy a paper copy of the publication if you know these things (though it may take time to find one).-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@GenoV84: Please note the above. If you prefer that the reference name be called "islamicamagazine.com" instead of "IM" that is fine - "islamicamagazine.com" is probably a better reference name.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)