Was Kaaba initially a Shiva temple?

Yes there is strong evidence that Kaaba was Shiva Temple with different understanding. According to old Hindu scriptures this place is sacred and worshiped due to its future events. One particular event was birth of Ali here. Ali played a key role in the establishment of Islam. There is clear evidence that people from Indi used to visit this place and worship there. One historical person was Rattan Hindi. who went there when Prophet Muhammad was a child and that 30 years later when he claimed his prophethood. Rattan was a Punjabi.

The referred theories are good for spinning the masses in terms of material world. Genuine seekers of truth should orient themselves towards God and seek him rather than worrying about these theories.

Similar popular venomous theory is spun on Hindus using the Aryan theory, which does not exist.

It is a fact that Hinduism extended up to today's Iran and might have some influence in today's middle east. Middle east during those times had scant population and technically it was not possible to build temples in those referred areas of today's Saudi Arabia, for key temples were always built in populated areas of those days.

To conclude, the referred theory does not hold water, other than Internet forums.

I think, if we put Hinduism and Islam aside, and try to find a link we can find some thing. I think, in pre Islamic era there can be a connection (not ownership) that is historically been depicted wrongly. That link is mistaken and has been claimed that a Hindu king was an emperor when he wasn't. They never crossed the mountains of West (Balochistan, Iran), but trade routes were there.

We learned in our history that before Islam, Mecca was a trade hub. Most of the caravans came to this city to buy and sell goods. It is possible that a Gold dish or a dish was given as offering to the 360 Idols of Kaaba at that time. But remember, since the birth of Ibrahim (RA) there were no idols. He destroyed all of them including the three big idols. Islam came later. I don't find any claim of land over Kaaba to be true. Yes there can be a link, as there were other links from all over Arabian Peninsula and beyond.

We cannot provide conclusive evidence against this as of now because:

1. Kaaba is the holy place of Muslims and non-muslims are not allowed to enter. Hence it would be impossible for non-muslims to verify the above claims without visiting the site.
2. Kaaba is currently the holy place of Muslims and finding an answer will involve repercussions for world peace. Even though the truth must come out as soon as possible.
3. Shiva linga's description does not match with the description of the Kaaba black stone.

Reference: Quora link

Denying everything P.N. Oak said with proof is rediculous . there are sanskrit inscriptions n Kaaba still present . The depression in a Mosque is in the shape of a perfect Linga - only its concave & linga's convex. Revolving enmass produce -ve energy whereas in temples it is clockwise . The Prophet's Uncle was a Idol carver & Muhammed worked & traded under him . when he was shunted out of Medina , his target was to conquer Mecca with a reciprocating religion . The rituals inside the kaaba's certainly in vedic style . Hence there's truth and connection between the Kaaba & Shiva linga

Indologist Koenraad Elst clarifies this in his blog:

The incurable Hindu fondness for PN Oak

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 2010

...

As for the Kaaba being a Shiva temple, this is untrue but it has a serious kernel of truth. Typologically it was of course Pagan “idol” temple. Muslims recognized Hinduism as essentially the same kind of idol-worship as the native Arab religion. The Kaaba’s presiding deity was the moon-god Hubal, similar to Shiva in that the latter is depicted as carrying the moon on his head. His three goddesses Al-Lat, Uzza and Manat, were believed by the Muslims to have taken refuge in the Somnath (Shiva) temple on the Gujarat coast. This is the reason why more than any other, that particular Hindu temple was singled out for destruction upon destruction.

Paganism has thrown up similar deities in widely separated parts of the globe. The Arabs could easily think up a moon god and a triple goddess without ever having heard of Shiva and his Parvati, Durga and Kali. And if at all there was a Hindu influence at work here, it can easily be explained through the well-attested trade contacts rather than through a fairy-tale of King Vikram.

A more in-depth analysis of this topic can be found in Sita Ram Goel's Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them? (Vol. 2) where the author concludes by saying:

There is no evidence as yet that the pre-Islamic Arabs were Hindus, or bore Hindu names, or knew the Atharvaveda, or were guided by Brahmanas. The Janam Sākhī seems to have preserved the Hindu refugee version of what happened in Arabia after the advent of Islam. It is on record in Muslim histories that Hindus resident in lands invaded by Islam had to run for their lives. The same thing had happened in the Roman Empire after it was taken over by Christianity.

The common people everywhere are prone to interpret events in the language of their own culture. It may be that by the time the story reached Guru Nanak, or perhaps much earlier, the Kaaba had become a Shiva temple in the eyes of Hindus, and the principal idol there a Shiva-linga. The pagan priests who presided in the Kaaba became Brahmanas, and the Quran a perversion of the Atharvaveda. What is quite obvious is that the Hindus, resident or present, in Arabia did not relish the revolution that had upturned Arabia's ancient religion, and imposed a new belief-system by means of brute force. The image of the Prophet and his followers formed by Hindus at that time was more than confirmed by their subsequent experience of Islam in their own homeland. They had no reason to revise the story which has persisted till today, in spite of the herculean efforts made by a whole state apparatus to proclaim the Prophet as 'a great religious teacher', and to whitewash Islam into 'a noble faith'. In any case, the subject needs serious investigation by scholars in the field.

Kaaba has nothing to do with Hinduism.

Claims made by P.N. Oak:

1. Vikramadithya's Empire extended up-to Arabia. He built a Shiva temple there.

2. IN Sayar-Ul-Okul page No. 315, the author praised Vikramadithya.

3. Gold dish of King Vikramadithya found inside Kaaba

Actual:

1. Vikramadithya's Empire never extended Up-to Arabia. Bhavishya Purana says about his empire here:

Meaning:

In the west the other bank of the Sindhu River; in the South the Setu; Badarinarayana in the Himalayas formed the North limit and the city of Kapilavastu, the boundary in the East. These were the limits of Vikramaditya's Empire.

2.There is no such thing called Sayar-Ul-Okul. It is a lie made by P.N.Oak. If this is available, the PDF of Sayar-Ul-Okul can be found online.

3.No inscriptions of Vikramadithya found in Kaaba.

It was circulated by pagans because they believed that all planetary deities(7) revolving around the Earth.Muslims would say like it was circulated by Abraham.

Cheraman Perumal was a saivite Saint, he was one among 63 Nayanmars. He lived in late 8th century and early 9th century, who couldn't meet founder of Islam

Kabaleeswarar Temple was built in 7th century AD. But the name Kaaba was given to it much before 7th century AD.

They not only worshiped Allat, Aluzza and Manat, they worshiped them along with other many deities.