Wikipedia

Talk:Abrahamic religions/Archive 4

< Talk:Abrahamic religions
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Smkolins in topic previous moments of consensus
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Time to archive?

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

The last new archive of this talk page took place about a year ago, and the last manual archive, in July, manually added to that long Archive2. I'd like to start using either MiszaBot or ClueBot to automatically weed out old discussions regularly. Everyone OK with this? Anyone have a preference on which bot to use? Parameters for aging to archive? Dovid (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea. Pace is a question I don't have an easy answer for - something more often than 1/yr? I don't have a pref on which bot. Smkolins (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I would go for about 6 weeks. How about this?
{{autoarchivingnotice|bot=MiszaBot|age=45|small=yes|dounreplied=yes}}
{{archives|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|age=45}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| archive = Talk:Abrahamic Religions/Archives %(counter)d
| algo = old(45d)
| counter = 2
| maxarchivesize = 50K
| minthreadsleft = 5
| minthreadstoarchive = 4
| archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}}
}}

This will age anything over 45 days old (6.5 weeks, 1.5 months). It will always leave at least 5 discussions on the active page, and will not bother to archive unless there are at least 4 old discussions (headings) that can be archived at once. It will only break for an additional archive page when the current archive page is at least 50k in size. There will be a notice at the top of the page indicating that we archive, and having links to the archives. Each archive page will contain a small navigation section to jump among the archive pages. Dovid (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Worth a shot. I'd say go for it. Smkolins (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree, go for it Daniel De Mol (talk) 08:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, I tried to set it up, but it appears to not be working. Anyone want to take a look at it and fix it? Dovid (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Overview

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"The different religions, and some of the branches within the same basic religion, have been in bitter conflict with each other to the extent of war and bloodshed." is being changed to, "At times and in various locations the different religions, and some of the branches within the same basic religion, have been in bitter conflict with each other to the extent of war and bloodshed." This makes it clearer that the history of Abrahamic religion has not been one of constant conflict at all times across all geographical locations. Daniel De Mol (talk) 08:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Violent conflicts

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Between Abrahamic religions and Non-adherents

"The Inquisition, mentioned above, also targeted non-believers and many accused of atheism lost their livelihoods or their lives" is being changed to "The Catholic Inquisition, mentioned above, also targeted non-believers in Catholic orthodoxy and many accused of atheism (regardless of what they professed) lost their livelihoods or their lives"
1. The Inquisition was a Catholic Inquisition.
2. I'm not sure whether it targeted many people who were actual atheists, so far as I know the people it accused of atheism where actually believers, and since wikipedia articles are not the place for speculating on whether or not a person who professed belief in God was actually an atheist, if "non-believers" be insufficiently elaborated upon to imply that atheists were targeted then it will definitely require the citation of a scholarly source.
Daniel De Mol (talk) 12:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

"The colonization of North America by the Conquistadors was done in the name of revealed monotheism." is being changed to "The colonization of North America by the Conquistadors was done in the name of Catholicism."
1. Although I appreciate the subtle acknowledgement that monotheism is revealed in the way the sentence was priorly worded, it needs to be changed due to statements 2 and 3 below.
2. Because Trinitheism does not equal monotheism.
3. Because if the person who wrote this is so unable to diffrentiate between different groups under one central doctrine then let them go and ammend all the communism and atheism articles to say that 70 million people were killed in the name of atheism.
Daniel De Mol (talk) 12:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Also some references to violence from non Abrahamic groups towards Abrahamic religions such as Communism would be in order here as well to keep it all balanced. Daniel De Mol (talk) 12:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Is the Bahai faith often - or sometimes - considered an Abrahamic religion?

Latest comment: 13 years ago30 comments7 people in discussion

I don't know. But the first citation on this subject in the article, Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Religion, says it is sometimes.

Additional sources asserting it is cannot be compiled to prove it is often, that's a synthesis: Original Research.

We have a reference stating it is sometimes. To replace sometimes with often, we sources stating it is often, rather than other sources stating it is.

Additionally, piling on references, some of which are obscure or tangential, is known as citation clutter. We don't need tons of references to the subjects, including references to catalogs, and sources without page numbers. We need quality rather than quantity.

The article currently states Bahai is sometimes, and this statement is well sourced. That is to say, it appears to be from an academic source rather than a blog or a religious website

Please provide two (no more, no less) reliable sources that state the word often rather than sometimes, and I will be perfectly content to let it stand.

As I said, I have no personal opinion on the subject, I am simply asking we follow the rules.

Aquib (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I know its not easy to please you, but i have added 37 references just to keep you happy. If you revert me again, i will add another 50 references, and so on. Happy new year. Someone65 (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Someone65, I confess I do not look forward to plowing through your 37 citations to see which ones actually state the Baha'i Faith is often considered an Abrahamic religion. As a courtesy to myself, as well as the other affected editors, would you be so kind as to furnish two (2) of the best quality sources among the 37, so I can verify them? Thanks -Aquib (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It may be instructive to keep in mind that this article has been the subject of intense editing at various times - the whole structure has been redone at least twice in the last year. At times the major re-write has entirely stripped out the Baha'i Faith and at other times has placed it in complete parallel form with Judaism, Christianity and Islam. I too thought that a single high quality reference would satisfy editors that the Baha'i Faith simply belongs in the article. However that was not the case. Numerous sources were cited as a result and third party editors were involved as well as admins. The situation has been relatively stable for almost six months now. I'd appreciate editors respecting this history. All that being said I favor Aquib's clear reliance on what the reference actually says which is "sometimes" and simply adding more references does change "sometimes". But please note this is like a microcosm of the earlier arguments and both sides were then, and I beleive are now, trying to do well for the article but I underscore the point of contributing, and rules, is to make good articles. I think we would be well to keep that clearly in mind. Rules by themselves do not make good articles and neither does unedited contributions. We need both. Smkolins (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your patient and thoughtful explanation. I understand the situation, and I support your position as well. I will try again to explain the principles involved to the other editor. Best regards, -Aquib (talk) 04:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
So can't we just return to the status quo, which has been stable for some time now? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 04:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
If you are asking me, Carl, I would happily support returning to the state of the article before Someone65's edits - ie the 12/28 CDT version. Provided other long-time contributors to the article agree as well. That was, in fact, my original intention. Thanks -Aquib (talk) 04:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not arguing for or against changing sometimes or often as I don't think it's really important, and I agree with the current structuring of the page, with the Baha'i Faith mention being a small part of the article (and it has to remain small based on WP:UNDUE), but it is funny that one source that uses sometimes is enough to overrule many other sources that just say is. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 05:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
That was the point I tried to make many times in the past. Smkolins (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
It's a good point, assuming there are a couple of quality sources to support it. I can't easily tell from the citation dump that's currently in the article. We need the best quality sources: academic material published on a university press. And unless the sources are accessible online, I would need page numbers and access to my library, which is closed until January 3rd.-Aquib (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Do we even have RSs which say Bahai is not an Abrahamic religion? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it is clear that it is Abrahamic when the founder of the religion calls it that. Some academics label it as Abrahamic, and others don;t mention it either way. I haven;t seen any references that dispute it being Abrahamic in origin. This dispute seems to be by an editor who was quoting a source (the first citation) that says "A group of religions that recognize Abraham as a patriarch. This includes Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Sometimes, the Baha'i World Faith is included in this list." Of course, this says that Baha'i is Abrahamic, and that sometimes some people list it as such, and sometimes they do not. It is not disputing whether it is or not. As the other references also support that it is Abrahamic, this is really just a misread of a citation by one editor. Atom (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

And here we go with an editor stripping it out entirely again. This is what lead to the list of references in the first place. In a version my earlier (circa september 2010) I detailed very specific references including pages numbers where needed as well as references where leaving the religion out of the category was criticized. I've never seen an RS stating it shouldn't be considered Abrahamic. Smkolins (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Then let's just say it's Abrahamic, and leave it at that. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I would like to suggest another alternative. Completely remove these "sometimes" sentences from the lead and the beginning of the Baha'i Faith section. The appearance of the section on the Baha'i Faith in the article under discussion implies it is an Abrahamic religion, as it does for the other religions mentioned in the article. We have lots of general references to the effect it is Abrahamic. There is no contradicting source I have seen. The reference using the word sometimes is not necessarily authoritative.
The best sources I have at hand for this question are Hodgson's Venture of Islam and Lewis' Jews of Islam. While they are not specific on this point, the Abrahamic orientation of Baha'i Faith is implicit in their mentions of the subject. Both authors identify the origins of this religion as "Islamic", if I may paraphrase for purposes of discussion. Lewis p 20, Hodgson V3 p 305-306.
The Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Religion is a tertiary work written by a generalist for a publisher of topical encyclopedias. It is generally reliable, but not definitive in a matter such as this.
Among the ~37 citations supplied in regards to this question, none are for top-tier sources -unless someone wants to work out the details. They are tertiary, nonspecific, non-academic and/or not peer reviewed. The generally support the assertion the Baha'i Faith is Abrahamic.
  • One exception is International Social Science Review, a peer reviewed journal. However, I cannot find a bio for the author - Adam Berry. Others are tantalizing, but have problems.
  • Lubar Institute nails the question, but has no author. In addition, Lubar's web page contradicts Hodgson and Lewis by using controversial terminology - leading to an implication of bias or unfamiliarity with the subject matter. "Shooting from the hip", in this instance.
  • The UN Human Rights Council agenda is topical but nonspecific. It is useful and interesting but does not cite an authority on the specific question. The specific question we are trying to answer is not considered per se.
So, from my perspective, removing the sentences would seem to be a reasonable option. Just a suggestion.
Aquib (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


Perhaps something like a sentence "Another religion listed as Abrahamic is the Bahá'í Faith." As for references perhaps consider:

((legal/government))

  • Flow, Christian B.; Nolan, Rachel B. (November 16, 2006). "Go Forth From Your Country" (PDF). The Harvard Crimson. Retrieved September 19, 2009.
  • * "Abrahamic religions". Authorities & Vocabularies. The Library of Congress. Retrieved September 19, 2009.

((academic))

((criticism of exclusion by academic or government agency))

Smkolins, The Children of Abraham : Judaism, Christianity, Islam by Peters should be all you need. This is a gold standard text, and it will trump The Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Religion. Google books won't let us "look inside", but the 2004 printing is available at my library, and the page count matches the 2006 edition. I can try to drop by Monday evening and get us a quote from the text along with a page number. Aquib (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I found eleven new references you might consider as "academic or peer reviewed";

Someone65 (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Someone95 - believe it or not I've seen most or all of them. They are all either use the Abrahamic characterization outside of a formal religious context or are so close to being Baha'i sources that they are not independent. I agree with Aquib that the (two volumes of) The Children of Abraham : Judaism, Christianity, Islam by Peters should be enough to substantiate the issue - however both were primarily published in French, not English. The Publisher mentions publishing in other languages including English but I've yet to find one in any media or situation. I have found English language reviews or comments about the project but none outside of Baha'i journals that are easy to access. We had a little debate about using it in the English Wikipedia about it and for a time it did indeed serve. But, well, it's not been stable over a period of even a year yet. But it has improved in most respects compared to the last few years before where the Baha'i content was regularly stripped and we had to re-hash this all again. Now there seems to be a broad consensus among wikipedia editors, if not systematically every editor, that the religion belongs in the article, just not on par with the more well known three. I also added the ethnographic section to bump up the diversity but the citations for that also got tied up with the broader editing that went on - I've pulled some of them back. But to help quell the issue I also tend to extend the discussion with more references rather than presume one "strong" one will quite the issue. The one's I highlighted have generally been felt to be strong - plus the Lubar institute though it has it's weakness. Smkolins (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Smkolins, I dropped by the library at lunch today and spent about 20 minutes looking through Peters' The Children of Abraham. The 2004 edition doesn't seem to mention the Baha'i Faith: not in the index, the forwards or anywhere I can see in the first few chapters. The 2006 version is not available to me. -Aquib (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC).
I see what's going on. I thought you meant the "Fils de Abraham" book but you are referring to the REVIEW of the Peter's book that I posted as a possible citation. Follow the link. It goes to the online REVIEW of the book. This was published in a professional library journal that is not itself available online (but is the substance of the reference). This review was used commonly as a published review of the Peter's book - see Google Books and pricecow for example. Smkolins (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, OK I understand. Well, sorry, I thought I had nailed it down. Best regards -Aquib (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone agree that the word sometimes needs to be removed? All references claim Bahai is abrahamic and none claim the contrary, as i stated earlier here. Someone65 (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 04:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Just to state the matter more carefully; every reference found to date that mentions the Baha'i Faith says it is Abrahamic, but not all references mention the religion including some of the most significant. But neither do they mention various other regional/ethnographic religions seemingly clearly related as well though of only local importance. I de-emphasize the reference that say "sometimes" in favor of the strongest references above, drop the word sometimes in the lead and in the Baha'i section say that various individual religions, legal, governmental and academic authorities state it is Abrahamic. Something like that. Smkolins (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Aquib (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
If u guys are wondering why I filled it with references, the Bahai section has been removed several times last year. Thats why.Someone65 (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I just un-filled it, because a single fact doesn't need that many supporting refs. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd appreciate your memory of this SarekOfVulcan. Smkolins (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
SarekOfVulcan, i hope you know that 3 people (besides me) have agreed that the word sometimes should be removed, and User:Jeff3000 also objected to it, but you just reverted this consensus edit. I will reinsert the sentence proposed by Smkolins without adding any more refs. Someone65 (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Early Judaism

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The section that discusses early Judaism currently states,

"In that period its religion was identical with that of its neighbours"

I have seen this claim before, but I have never seen a factual--or even a scholarly--basis for making it. It is, as far as I can tell, a minority belief amongst intellectuals.

"it was polytheistic,[citation needed]"

I'm wondering how one is supposed to know that? Not only is this claim not sourced, I'm wondering what discovery or knowledge would prompt a source to make such a claim? I'm sure it would be possible to find some book somewhere that makes the claim, but I would like to know the basis for them to make the claim.

If I need to point to a counter-claim, I can point to the Bible. Indeed, I could even point to "National Geographic," which has published many articles on Abraham over the years, one of which specifically states that Abraham followed one God. That is the unique aspect of Abraham's faith: he came from a polytheistic culture, but broke away to worship just one God. Polytheism occasionally crept into Jewish life after Abraham lived, but it wasn't significant until after the civil war split the kingdom. Polytheism in Israel permanently died within 200 years, after the Babylonian captivity. So, out of 2500 years or so before the birth of Jesus, parts of Israel were significantly polytheistic for about 200 years.

"temple-based,[citation needed]"

Early Judaism did not have a temple, according to the Bible. That makes sense, for a people who were nomadic would not be likely to erect permanent structures. The Temple wasn't built until Solomon's reign, about 1500 years after Abraham lived. The earliest Jews worshiped at open altars, and the later early Jews worshiped at open altars in front of tents dedicated to housing the ark of the covenant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pooua (talk • contribs) 17:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. WP:Be bold in editing. --FaktneviM (talk) 11:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Islam was founded by Muhammad in the 7th century CE upon the teachings in the Qur'an.

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This is severely mistakes by wikipedia, kindly look in to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.123.91.149 (talk) 11:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Could You state where is bad claim placed, please? I can´t find sentence, which You criticized. Thx. --FaktneviM (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
There is the sentece, "Islam was founded by Muhammad in the 7th century CE upon the teachings in the Qur'an." already in the lead section of the article. --FaktneviM (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What religion did the Abrahamic religion evolve from?

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Does any know the answer to this? When you look at older religions like the Greeks or Romans you have accurate time lines and what religions they evolved from even going so far back to hunter gather type societies that worshiped the Sun and the Moon. Is there any information out there that shows what gods and beliefs evolved into the Abrahamic God and the time lines involved or is it because there are still so many people around who believe in those Religions and believe they are real that any info that did show the evolution of these religions are simply ignored or suppressed? Tcla75 (talk) 10:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:FORUM FaktneviM (talk) 08:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
My guess is that Moses was initiated into the Egyptian mysteries, and this is where much of it originates. It's logical if you follow the story of Moses.220.239.201.211 (talk) 08:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead on Islamic beliefs

Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

There had been some edits on the sentences about Islamic beliefs in lead involving some editors including me sparked from this edit. In my last edit I re-rephrased these in a way to remove non NPOV clauses except for what is expressed as belief. Anyway, this paragraph is not to assert general NPOV but is to state particular beliefs. We can NOT afford to write as Muslims believes or as Catholic Church says or as per Rabbinic sources in every sentences and overwhelm the reader. » nafSadh did say 16:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

@65.186.196.115: "on the basis of" do not mean on "on the authority of" SORRY!
  • When you write “Islamic beliefs included... Muhammad, whose teachings were used as a basis of the Islamic holy book, the Qur'an” it simply means: “Muslims believe that Qur'an is written by Muhammad”
  • When you start a sentence with “Some belief includes” you certainly express nothing other than the POV of that belief.
  • When it is encyclopedia, we do also have to write down POVs (by denoting this is that POV)
  • nonMuslim POV is essentially not equal to generic NPOV.
I hope all editors might understand » nafSadh did say 16:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • It wasn't written in such a manner as to present it as a belief - (and beliefs shouldn't be going in the introduction of the article - they should be going in their respective faith-headings further down the page in any case - that's why the article has headings: if it didn't, the introduction would be the entire article as Muslims, Christians, Jews, Baha'is, and sundry else moved their personal beliefs in to the introduction) - it was written as fact, and in poor English to boot. And, no, the wording doesn't imply that Muslims believe that Mohammed wrote the Koran: that's something for the Islam section of the article. The introduction is written by the theoretical impartial observer, who will not admit to Moses writing the Pentateuch by the verbal command of God in 1440 BC any more than the Koran being a Holy Book of Perfection sitting up in Paradise with Allah that has never been altered or revised and has strong textual witnesses. It doesn't mean that Orthodox Jews or Muslims don't believe the aforementioned, respectively, but that they are not widely-held viewpoints in the scholarly community, or in the communities outside of their specific faith-groups.

If one insists on the revision as you had it, I must also insist that a thorough exposition of the inspiration of the Prophets, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the purity of the current text, and the infallibility of the autographs be included in the introduction's mention of the Christian Bible. Neutral point of view also means contended with and presenting the neutral, or widely-accepted (i.e. cite-able, and not from an Islamic apologetics site) viewpoint: this means that on articles about the Pentateuch, they will not start with "Moses wrote Genesis directly as it was dictated to him by God in 1440 BC..." - that's a sectarian view, not a neutral view. NPOV isn't just about representing all possible viewpoints, of which there are as many as viewers. As far as the Koran goes, there's no non-Muslim on the face of the planet that believes it is the literal word of God and that Mohammed was taught by the Koran instead of the other way around: it is a minority, sectarian view that is only backed up by partisan sources, and would find no support amongst any Western, or non-Islamic, scholars (the syllogism itself - that the Koran is divine - is begging the question/denying the antecedent). This is like an article on Evolution by Natural Selection, or Astronomy, or Geology: the first words can't be, "Evolutionism is a hoax perpetrated by the atheistic scientific establishment, and it is false because the Bible says, "In the beginning God created...and on the sixth day he created Man," no matter how many people believe that to be true: what is followed is the scholarly consensus, which would say, "The scientific consensus is that geology has provided irrefutable evidence that the world is a little over four and a half billion years old..."

I see it has been correctly reverted to the original version before either the Muslim (it's obvious) or I edited it. As the saying goes, I was trying to polish a turd. The original version is far more neutral, and of correct professional and encyclopaedic tone, than either of ours were. I was the one who originally edited the section on "Monotheism" months ago (as 75.190.XXX.XXX) to give representation to the Jewish and Islamic and non-Trinitarian views (if you look at the revision, it gave no point of view other than the Christian one, and then said, "Jews and Muslims disagree with this"), even though I myself am a Trinitarian Christian - Wikipedia isn't a place to try to force my theology on the reader, but a place where the reader can learn about the religions in an objective sense (in this case, the NPOV is best represented by the non-partisan or mainstream scholarly consensus [i.e. not Ahmed Deedat, Zakir Naik, Pat Robinson nor the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or the Pope of Rome] or the theoretical weak agnostic), unclouded by sectarian and denominational doctrine and beliefs. And in any case, even in the proper section, under the proper heading, beliefs should not be referred to or implied as fact - indeed, they must clearly be marked otherwise, outside of articles such as "tawhid" or "tahrif" or "trinitarianism" or "substitionary atonement" - or else the page is clouded, obscured, and denigrated with bunches of conflicting "facts", the encyclopaedia loses its encyclopaedic and professional tone and begins to read like a couple of apologetics books from different religions with the pages cut out, shuffled, and re-bound in to a single edition. 65.186.196.115 (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

your last few edits (following mine) are better than what you did on the one before. Good work! It is more comprehensive and neutral for all three major religions. And I enjoyed reading the whole LARGE paragraph. Why don't you start maintaining an account?
But, what seems to be a problem to me is, it is overly detailed for intro.
I'm a fundamentalist (meaning I adhere only to Qur'an and Sunnah) Muslim but am also a strong adherent to Wikipedia Policy of NPOV.
What you have added on the comment before is already what I believe as my editorial POV.
When you worked on my previous partial quick fix with summary interpreting on basis of as "on the authority of the Quran" tempted me to over-react on talk! sorry for the offense. But, I managed to throw away the POV part and was looking forward to some addition on Judaic part. » nafSadh did say 18:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
OH! I still disagree with you on the wording and argue that, wording CAN imply that Muslims believe that Mohammed wrote the Qur'an
For reducing the length of intro, I suggest removing have moved parenthesized notes to footnotes section » nafSadh did say 18:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The lede was too long, and does have too much detail, particularly regarding things like names for God, details of Trinity, etc. As another example, while the Samaritans have historical significance, there are perhaps 700 of them in the world, so they certainly don't belong in the lede of this article, which barely mentions them elsewhere. I've tried to clean it up, and combined what were 7 paragraphs into 4. Jayjg (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The article looks better now - no offense taken at Mr Nafs, none implied. If any offense was seen, I am a forceful, brusque individual devoid of the normal social graces and too highly idealistic: this has nothing to do with anything but my native personality itself. I believed the detail to be necessary (as it's how I would like the article to read if I was myself, having never heard of Wikipedia, stumbling across it and reading it), but, I'm a professional academic, so I may not represent either the mainstream Joe Public or the Wikipedia policy or consensus. What does matter is the introduction seems to be much more neutral now. I will be going over it with a fine-tooth comb shortly to see if there are any additional revisions that are required, but through the collaborative editing, it seems that most bias in favour of or against any specific religion, or even theism itself, has been removed: the introduction looks much more like it was written by the "theoretical impartial observer" or "weak agnostic" that I mentioned above, than written by the partisans of several religions smashing their theologies together. Good work.
I have been editing Wikipedia since 2005 or 2006 and never got an account - I always figured by getting an account I would lose too many of my edits and talk pages, etc., but since I have recently moved and received a new IP address (65.x.x.x instead of 75.190.x.x) I may take you up on that offer and register. I'll take a vote on it. All in favour of my registration? All in favour of my continuing as four blocks of decimal digits? Yea, Nay respectively. 65.186.196.115 (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I think you should get a userid, there are many advantages to having one. Jayjg (talk) 04:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I got an account (65.x.x.x/75.190.x.x), as signed below: is there any way to transfer/merge my edits, &c. from my numerical accounts to this named one? JohnChrysostom (talk) 08:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there isn't. Jayjg (talk) 08:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), not the founder of Islam..He was the last and final messenger..

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Nomansem (talk) 06:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)MENTIONED BELOW ARE THE MAILS SENT BY ME...

As Salam Alai Kum Brother, Nafsadh I do not know why you are reverting and re editing my post in ABRAHAMIC RELIGION in the Wikipedia. Are you not aware of the universal fact that Prophet Mohammed (PBUH)was not the founder but the last and final messenger of GOD. Why then post information which is not authentic and do not match the Holy Qur'an. If other reasons/cause then please justify and ellaborate.


Dude..

What do you mean by how to deal with Islamic Articles…??? I agree with the fact that that we need to act slowly and effectively but you are stating untrue facts.. Moving slowly and effectively does not justify that you can state absurd and illogical facts in your article..

NO where does the Wikipedia policy states that you mention points which are untrue.

I am new to Wikipedia so do not know how can I talk to you in WP, I don’t want to hide behind a bunker and attack on your article, I am openly protesting against it.

Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) is the last and final messenger of ISLAM, not the founder of ISLAM. If you are ignorant about the fact then I am mentioning some links below, please go through them and edit your article, or I will have to take befitted action against the stated fact.

http://www.institutealislam.com/comparative-study-between-islam-and-hinduism-by-dr-zakir-naik/ CHECK UNDER THE TOPIC MISCONCEPTION ABOUT ISLAM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDDEyJ-YsFg

The Qura’an mentions “When truth is heard against falsehood, falsehood perishes because falsehood is by its nature bound to perish”

Therefore, brother spread Truth not falsehood.

Dear,

I am figuring out as to how can I talk on the page. I also don’t believe in sending personal mails, the moment I learn how to chat on WP, I’ll post all the mails on it. I think you do not believe in the Qur’an and the Hadith, Insha Allah I will quote you certain verse of the Qur’an which state that Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) was the last and final messenger and not the founder of Islam.

I will remain as enthusiastic as I am, it’s sad to see that Muslims themselves are maligning their religion, I do not care about the topic and POV or NPOV, I simply want you to change the information about Prophet Mohammed (PBUH). He is not the founder of Islam, if you think he is, then please I would request you to cite reliable source, rather than just stating what you feel like.

Nobody asked you to believe in ZN, you always can verify it from the scriptures. The Qur’an is the authentic source, be logical, do not try to justify points which are not true.

Thanks, you did not disclose my replies. & plz try to put a sign after you post on talk. » nafSadh did say 15:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Every scholarly source, every historian, without exception, states that Muhammad was the founder of Islam (unless a few, such as Crone and Cook, attribute it to Umar or Uthman), just as Moses founded Judaism and Jesus Christ founded Christianity (although there's more debate about that than there is about Muhammad). Don't you see the circularity of your thinking? I'm a Muslim, therefore I believe in the Koran and sunnah, the Koran and sunnah say this, therefore it is The Truth, because I am a Muslim and believe in the Koran and sunnah. NPOV is of paramount importance on Wikipedia: whether your religious beliefs coincide with the scholarly research or not, just because "Muslims believe Islam is the primordial religion doesn't make it true in any sense: see WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:SPS and urreligion. The Koran isn't a reliable source. The majority of the world believes it to be fiction, and is a reliable source only for referencing what itself says about itself, and then may still fall under "improperly uses religious texts as primary source". Islamic myths and traditions (hadith and Koran) do not an encyclopedic article make. Secondary scholarly references doth make an encyclopedia. By that logic, I can write an article called "the origin of the world", since I am a Christian, delete all articles about evolutionary biology and astrophysics, and Biblical criticism, and say, "the first chapter of Genesis says this: this is how it is", and the Bible said Moses wrote it under God's inspiration: therefore it is The Truth (even though a small majority of the world believe the OT to be true in some fashion, whether as Jews and Christians as the inspired Word of God, or as Muslims, a corrupted and superseded revelation). JohnChrysostom (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

"The first Muslim"

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the section "The significance of Abraham"/"For Muslims" says "Islam considers Abraham to be the "First Muslim" (Surah 3)" which is incorrect and cannot be found anywhere in Surah 3. The title "The First Muslim" in Quran is associated with Prophet Muhammad, see (Surah 6, verses 14,163), (Surah 39, verse 12). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.40.4 (talk) 11:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Muslims believe all prophets that came before Muhammad were Muslim and their holy scripture was later corrupted;

Mr.sam.oliver (talk) 08:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Semitic religion

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

In the definition statement, it must be stated that Abrahamic religions are "Semitic religions". They originated in Semitic peoples as well as "in" Semitic languages. The official/sacred languages of all Abrahamic religions are Semitic languages.

In making this statement, which "official/sacred" language are you claiming for Christianity??Eregli bob (talk) 08:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Abraham and all other prophets who are accepted by Judaism, Christianity or Islam, all are Semitic people too.

Therefore, not mentioning those facts will lead to a void in the meaning--76.31.238.174 (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Christianity is an Abrahamic religion, which Scripture is written in Greek, and has many sacred languages, Greek, Latin, Syriac, and vernacular. They all arose in the area we call "the Middle East" today, but in those times the area was much less homogenous, ranging from Alexandria, the height of culture, to the Hijaz, an area ruled by the types of tribes straight out of the Book of Exodus. The article already mentions in the lead the region in which religion first arose. The term "semitic religions" covers a much broader range of (mostly extinct) traditions, those of the peoples of the Levant and surrounding areas in Biblical times. JohnChrysostom (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I couldn't understand what did you mean by saying "the types of tribes" Mr. John Chrysostom. This expression is a racist one.
But your arguments are invalid. You say that the "Scripture is written in Greek, and has many sacred languages, Greek, Latin, Syriac, and vernacular" but I think you forgot that Old Testament is Hebrew. It is a Hebrew text. You also forgot that Jesus is Jewish and his disciples are Jewish. All the concepts, characters, places, etc. are Jewish (from Judaism) except trinity. I really wonder how you could miss that part?
In the other hand, at the begining you seem to reject the argument but then acknowledge it and say semitic religion "covers a much broader range of (mostly extinct) traditions."
Whatever, Abrahamic religions are "all" Semitic religions. There are non-Abrahamic Semitic religions but this does not vitiate the fact that Abrahamic religions are "all" Semitic religions. Thus, I suggest putting the expression in the article and relating this article to Semitic religions.--98.196.232.128 (talk) 06:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I want this page deleted

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

This is blasphemy and if it is not deleted I will personally ask our Creator to punish those involved spreading this heinous lies.

In addition you are offending millions if not billions of people, stop this emidiately or we will no longer be able to tolerate ateists.

You got one hour before I report you.

The Prophet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.167.49.181 (talk) 11:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Lol, would you care to explain why you feel this article contains "blasphemy"?, sometimes explaining not only what you feel, but why you feel that way can help people to more specifically address an issueDaniel De Mol (talk) 08:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
This page is blasphemy, but declaring yourself a prophet and making demands on behalf of your God is not? Danikat (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I want this thread deleted, but I'm satisfied it will roll into the archive with other ignored noise. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Isma'il statement

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have extensively studied Islam and traveled multiple times to Muslim countries but have never heard the following phrse

"Isma'il, a symbol of which is every mosque"

Mr.sam.oliver (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Satanism should be added

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

FOR THE RECORD, this is not written to upset anyone, any more than if I were saying Islam should be included it it weren't already. This is suggested for accuracy. I believe Theistic Satanism (henceforth "Satanism", encompassing all denominations of Satanism and Luciferianism except La Veyan Satanism, which is adeist) should be added to this section. Speaking strictly from facts, Satanism is an Abrahamic religion, as it includes the same deities ("Yahweh/Jhvh/Jehovah" and Satan), and is an offshoot of the same source material. I might suggest it be included as part of Christianity, but as it worships their Satan instead of their Yahweh, and does not include salvation by Jesus, it doesn't really quality as strictly Christian, but because they believe in Yahweh and worship Satan (Abrahamic deities) absolutely qualifies as Abrahamic. It is part of the Abrahamic tradition, and should be included.[1]24.126.251.42 (talk) 17:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

What do reliable secondary sources say about this? Jayjg (talk) 01:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
This is a question I've asked myself before, actually. For the most part, I have to agree with the IP that those groups which worship Satan, the fallen angel of the Bible, are Biblical religions and thus Abrahamic. I have seen them included in the Judeo-Christian/Abrahamic groupings of some reference books on that basis, although I don't have any of them right in front of me now. And, clearly, the earlier forms of Satanism in the Middle Ages and the like were more or less seen as "heretical" Christianity, which tacitly says that they were "Christian" of a sort, and thus within that field. I guess the question in my eyes would be most about [[WP:WEIGHT], and in which articles such material should be placed. So, should factual Satanism be counted as a form of Christianity, and perhaps included in an article on that subject, or should it be counted as an independent strand within the Abrahamic faiths, and included in this article? I honestly don't know the answer right away, but will check the more highly regarded of the standard reference sources available to me in the next week or so and see what they say, and how they classify it. John Carter (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

List of largest Abrahamic religions in the lead

Latest comment: 11 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

I think this edit isn't constructive because contrary to the claim made in the edit summary, Druze Faith is distinct per lead of its main article (Druze) itself, and the references cited in this article. (It's distinct just like Christianity, Islam and Judaism are distinct, yet all have similarities.) Since Druze Faith was founded much earlier than Baha'i Faith, and has 1,000,000 to 2,500,000 adherents, I think Druze Faith deserves to be mentioned in the fourth place in the list of "the largest Abrahamic religions are, in chronological order" which is in the article lead. Thanks, Khestwol (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to note a relevant fact, the Druze Faith is of very limited geographical distribution so it's relavance as well as it's comparatively small size argue against a position in the lead paragraph. The Rastafari movement is alittle smaller and more geographically widespread - on par with the Druze faith. If you put the religions on some kind of scale, Christianity and Islam are clearly big in both size and distribution, then nearly next to each other are Judaism and the Baha'i Faith in both size and distribution and then the smaller and regionally limited religions like the Druze faith and Rastafari and then the smaller religions mentioned in the article. It is true that the Druze faith is old... but the way the lead is phrased it presupposes importance by size, then states them by chronology. The Druze faith is closer to the group of smaller religions than it is to the middle ones of the group. I would rather suggest the lead mention something like "the largest and most widespread religions are, in chronological order of being founded…" with the existing list of religions. This is my thought but I'm open to hearing more. Smkolins (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with your suggestion for change in wording, but I suggest to restore Druze Faith in the lead section placing it in chronological order. If the Rastafari Faith is to be added too, which had around 1,000,000 adherents in 1997 (as per its main article), it should be placed after Baha'i Faith (in sixth position) as it's founded in 1930s.
Druze Faith has adherents in Asia (Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Jordan), North America (the US and Canada), South America (Venezuela and Colombia), Europe (the UK) and Australia, as shown in the infobox of Druze. So, you seem to get the geographic distribution completely wrong as it's not of "very limited" distribution. But thanks for your suggestions, Khestwol (talk) 09:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
10 countries, and mostly by emigration out of a few countries? Is that fair to say? This compares with the shorter list where members of the religions are basically in almost every country. But let's see why others have to say. Smkolins (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Not necessarily. The infobox in the main article on Druze Faith may not be comprehensive but it shows Druze Faith has significant number of adherents who are citizens of countries located on 5 different continents. Wait, Druze exist in Africa too and there is an established "Nigerian Druze Committee". As per their website: "Druze are found in all countries of the world" (I think it's not a reliable source, but at least it shows a point of view totally opposite to yours since you stated Druze have a "very limited geographic distribution"). I think we can safely say Druze are found on all six continents (Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Europe, and Australia). Khestwol (talk) 11:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Although some sources do describe Druze as a religion, there are many sources describing Druze as a denomination, i.e. [1], [2], [3], [4]. s you can see, Druze can be described as a denomination rather than a religion. Pass a Method talk 16:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't your first quoted source[5] counts Druze as a separate religious group from both Muslims and Christians in the section "Lebanon"? Only the footnote seems to corroborate your minority view. Actually, after looking carefully, nowhere does your second source[6] describes Druze Faith as a denomination of Islam either.

Just like Baha'i Faith is a distinct religion, the predominant scholarly view is to consider Druze Faith a distinct religion, too. According to Van Der Vyver, Religious Human Rights in Global Perspective: Legal Perspectives, Volume 2, p353: "The Druze community stems from Isma'alia, an extreme sect of Shi'ite Islam, yet they are not Muslim." According to p354 of the book: "Like the Druze, the Baha'i faith originated in Islam, but disconnected itself from it." Khestwol (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Of those four, the highest quality source is the fourth one. Adherents.com is the most comrehensive religion demographic website online. It clearly lists Druze as a denomination. Pass a Method talk 18:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Which is a tertiary source, which reduces its reliability as per WP:RS which prefers secondary sources. I think two out of three secondary sources you quoted so far contradicted your own minority view! Khestwol (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
A few comments. One, adherents.com is a good source, but the claim about its comprehensiveness does not address its reliability or quality. In general, we tend to prefer the sources produced by academics, and I don't think that adherents.com is necessarily produced by academics. I note that the Encyclopedia of Religion edited by Lindsay Jones, which was produced by academics, and generally the leading specialists in the particular fields, groups its article on the Druze in the Islamic section of their "synoptic outline", as can be seen here. However, to address the matter of the general question here, the answer seems to me to be fairly straightforward. The arguments presented for the inclusion of the Druze all seem to me to be based at least somewhat on personal opinion/original research regarding the nature of the Druze. By saying that, I am not saying those opinions/OR are wrong, just noting that is what they are. I believe that there are regularly published almanacs which include in their content lists of world religions based on number of adherents. To me, the most reasonable way to proceed regarding this, and the way most in keeping with policies and guidelines, is to see whether those almanacs include the Druze as a separate grouping in their lists of world religions by number of adherents. If they do, then those almanacs, or the entity producing those lists, can be cited as the source for both the information regarding its being counted as separate and for the information regarding number of adherents. If they don't list the Druze as a separate entity, then we would seem to be possibly running against those sources of information in doing so ourselves. So, basically, the best way to proceed would seem to be to find an almanac or other reliable source on world religions by population which specifically include the Druze as a separate entity. John Carter (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Then I suggest there are two questions. One is do Druze deserve mention in the lead and do Druze deserve to be listed at all as an independent religion. For myself I say no to lead and yes to listing independently. The two questions are being convoluted because of the editors who took it out the lead and the reaction to that was the start of this discussion. To me they are different issues. There are already refs included for mentioning them independently. Mentioning them in the lead... which isn't supposed to be comprehensive but representative.... falls in not mentioning them to me. But if people want to be more exhaustive that can be ok too. Smkolins (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I should note that in no way did I myself necessarily think that the Druze, or for that matter the Bahai, are not separate religions as such. They rather clearly are seen as such by themselves and Islam. And I guess factual worship of Satan/Lucifer, to the extent that it has reliably sourced numbers for practitioners, would probably be enough to verify it as a separate "religion" as well. In all cases, the differences between them and the "mainstream" versions of their faiths are to my eyes significant enough for them to be counted as separate for our purposes. John Carter (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Now there is something of a push to get the Bahá'í Faith out of the lead section. I mention it here to see if consensus can be sustained. Notable info about the religion's presence is summarized at Bahá'í_Faith#Demographics (see citations there)

- more recent estimates aim over 7 million and clearly larger than much smaller Abrahamic religions (and the number of Jews in Israel)

- sometimes second or third largest religion in a country

- second most widespread religion in the world

- consistently high in measures of rate of growth (see Major_religious_groups#Trends_in_adherence)

- if you look back in the history numerous citations, mostly newer, were listed showing its being listed as Abrahamic as well as criticism of restricting the list to three (still present in the article lower down.) The list was trimmed because numerous citations were objected to, that only a few citations was enough. I agree some sources, especially older ones, don't list the religion but many newer ones do. --Smkolins (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Monotheist Semitic Religions

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Why is it called "Abrahamic religion" rather then "Monotheist Semitic Religion"?

All mythologies are named after the ethnos which produced it. This doesn't meet NPOV.--85.104.54.249 (talk) 07:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

If everyone does it than it is expected and normal which averages out to a NPOV. And it's a meaningful recognized name of something. --Smkolins (talk) 13:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
"If everyone does it" is not an adequate answer.--85.104.54.249 (talk) 04:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME might shed light on choice of title. Bus stop (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
A policy by any other name. Thank you. --Smkolins (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Crescent

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

A symbol is not necessarily promoted by a religions adherents. Nor the Allah calligraphy nor the crescent are promoted by Islam, but it is how the are presented in several reliable sources. Pass a Method talk 22:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

and not a few flags of moslem-majority nations... --Smkolins (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
The word Allah is widely accepted as a symbol of Islam, the crescent and star are purely cultural. Someone from Ghana wouldn't recognize himself with this symbol. The crescent and star are more a national symbol, rather a religious one. Did you know that the 'Crescent and Star' may even have a pagan orign? 2.30.188.243 (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Star and crescent has it's own article ... and Talk:Religion#Image has a very active discussion area on symbols and they are using the star and crescent (though there is also discussion of other symbols and no symbols)... --Smkolins (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"Islam considers Christianity to be variously polytheistic or idolatrous."

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It sounds almost is if "Islam" is a person that thinks this. Can it be improved to prevent misunderstandings? Logictheo (talk) 11:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

order of each section varies

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

While reading this article, I noticed that depending on the section it varied between Islam/Judaism/Christian and Islam/Christian/Judaism. For the sake of neatness and uniformity, I suggest we re-organize each to be alphabetical(neutral order so as not to lend "bias" towards any), thus ordering each section Christian/Islam/Judaism. 24.187.19.109 (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There's no mention of Zoroastrianism,the religion which basically laid out almost all the tenets of the Abrahamic religions. --MightySaiyan (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

That's more or less because although it served as a basis for Abraham, it does clearly precede Abraham, and on that basis at best dubiously qualifies as being a religion which is itself springs out of Abraham's beliefs. John Carter (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Main Abrahamic Religions vs Secondary ones

Latest comment: 11 years ago38 comments5 people in discussion

there are 3 well-known main Abrahamic religions ( Judaism, Christianity and Islam ), bye some factors like number of followers, oldness and historical precedence, clear history, have a Holy book, similar Jurisprudence, Widespread acceptance by other religions, geographical origin, being official in some countries and .... there are also a dozen of secondary Abrahamic Religion which don't have most of above factors. like Mormonism, Zoroastrianism, Bahai's, Sabians and ... first I don't want to judge about which one is right or wrong, but I think the level of their importance in today's world is not the same. the others should be mention in "other Abrahamic faith" list not in the main list. --Wiki hamze (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Extensive discussion has happened at times - some have pushed for excluding the smaller religions because they were not mentioned by mainstream sources that look back centuries and more for their information. Other sources that were more accepting of recent developments openly listed other religions - most especially the Baha'i Faith but sometimes others - as well as critiquing attempts to limit the category to the three - and that though others were mentioned they were far more obscure but deserved some minimal mention. The general pattern of the "big three" mentioned in parallel through the article, the Baha'i Faith mentioned in the lead briefly and having a separate section specifically on the Baha'i Faith specifically down the page and then a more summary brief section on the less acknowledged religions would be the right balance. Since then the main article has lengthened considerably. If necessary we can go through the references on the relative importance of the Baha'i Faith or other religions again. I'd invite people to review related articles for references. For a sense of the history of the effort at compromise see talk histories for contributions in 2010. --Smkolins (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
For the statistical summary of the Baha'i Faith see Bahá'í_Faith#Demographics you will see third party sources rank the Baha'is above the number of Jews in either Israel or the US (compare the demographic info with Jewish population by country) and sometimes the second largest religion in some countries and if you review Bahá'í Faith by continent for some of the details behind the statistics as well as Persecution of Bahá'ís, Statements about the persecution of Bahá'ís, Political accusations against the Baha'i Faith, you can see further instances of when the religion was the object of significant coverage. None of this to put aside the relatively minor numbers of Baha'is in absolute terms but also to distinguish their number and presence around the world clearly distinguishable from that of more obscure religions. --Smkolins (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Mormonism is generally counted as a sub-unit of Christianity, and on that basis probably doesn't deserve special mention. Baha'is are counted as separate from Islam, so they reasonable can be included. Zoroastrianism more or less predated or is independent of Abraham, and on that basis probably doesn't qualify as "Abrahamic". No one actually seems to know who the Sabians even were, or if they were in fact a single group, which makes identifying them as Abrahamic problematic. So, honestly, although I haven't checked all the reference sources, the page as it stands looks to me fairly reasonable and balanced. John Carter (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Agreed in general adding that aside from the Baha'is the most common "Abrahamic" label I had found in previous research were the Druze though they are fewer in number and geographically largely limited for their larger populations. --Smkolins (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
first I didn't want to judge about existence, rightness or being fake of any religion. I just wanted to suggest a better organization and more clear Tree of religions. there are some region like "Sabians" ( I know they live atleast in Iran and I have met some of them. They themselves say that they follow prophet Yahha(John) ). according to their claim they are apparently Abrahamic. I am not specialist but I just guess there are a couple of others with small population. we can't list them under a huge parallel tree. according to importance I think first big one should be listed and others are placed in "other Abrahamic Religions". Bahai's is new religion. it has significant Jurisprudence differences with other abrahamic religions. I strongly believe that trying to put their name among outstanding Abrahimic religions is intentional acts which I see it has been done in many wikipedia pages by their supporters. it may be a political ill-minded acts also.--Wiki hamze (talk) 08:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
"We had a talk" is not justification for action yet. There are significant differences between all the Abrahamic religions - why do you think they have killed each other over the years? I've no problem with sabians being in the article if reliable sources can be found to support them. Obviously as they are obscure they would be in that section. As for the prominence of the Baha'is as I say there was already an agreement it deserved more status in the article than peoples like the sabians but not as much position as the "big three". But you are not acting in concert with the group opinion not least when you make accusations of "political ill-minded acts". --Smkolins (talk) 10:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Moreover embarking on a campaign to curtail the presence of the religion in articles needs to be judged on a per article basis and justifying things in a brief discussion in one place hardly warrants taking steps widely in wikipedia. Such an adventure seems out of bounds to me. --Smkolins (talk) 11:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I think you are biased toward Bahai's faith because you are a member of Bahai's Faith ( I saw your page ). I don't deny Bahai's faith but placing it among top three and dominant ( by many factores which has been mentioned beforehand in this talk ) is not acceptable. this is you that should present an acceptable argument about this. Considering Bahai's faith as a secondary but abrahamic faith like Mormonism,sabians and many others is more reasonable. I think nobody disagree for placing Judaism as an important Abrahamic religion because it is so old and back-bone of other religions. Christianity and Islam has also huge number of followers and are enough old. what about others like Bahai's? Bahai's is a new faith with few followers ( refer to circular diagram in article page for number of followers ) why it should be place at that much importance as you say? why not Mormons? I invite others to participate in this talk.--Wiki hamze (talk) 12:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
embarking on a campaign of character assassination against editors is not appropriate. wikipedia:assume good faith. As I said there was extensive discussion in 2010 by many contributors and the current general pattern is what was agreed to then. The Baha'i Faith is certainly newer than the other religions but calling it "new" is a misnomer since it is well over a century old and has been mentioned, the Baha'i Faith is clearly and distinguishably more prominent than more obscure groups - both in the literature of Abrahamic research and in general. At over 7 million the Baha'is are clearly smaller than Judaism as a whole though larger than either of its two main populations and far larger than the hundreds of thousands for several of the lesser known religions which are also relatively localized. Beyond that you have mischaracterized the discussion so far and taken it as license to start making changes in other articles. This is not balanced appropriate development of making wikipedia better. This is having an agenda. By all means lets have more people involved in the discussion. --Smkolins (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
please let us avoid an wikipedia:edit war.If you are the same user who made this edit [7] then note carefully you have been reverted by three different editors. --Smkolins (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
first please notice it is not about accepting or denying Bahai's faith. I don't deny it. anyway it exists, like Mormonism, Sabians(as I see them and live with them in my town) and many others. my talk is about why you place Bahai's among 4 top Abrahamic Religions, as I see your try to prohibit changing the pictures? by which factor you think it is this much important? ( why not mormons? why not Sabians? please answer ). Judaism has huge history, huge number of prophets, its has undeniable historical importance. it is back-bone religion for others. which outstanding factor does Bahai's faith has which you place them in same level as three others?--Wiki hamze (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

the other user who reverted back your changes is not me. I am waiting for your arguments --Wiki hamze (talk) 13:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

you are misdirecting or misunderstanding. You reverted me here [8] as the last edit of this moment. The other editor changed an unrelated aspect of the article. --Smkolins (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC) You have been reverted by several different editors at [9], [10], and [11]. You keep insisting the presence of the religion needs to be justified when in fact that was the consensus going back years. I do not want to participate in an edit war. I believe you have failed the Wikipedia:Edit_war#The_three-revert_rule and different editors on this page and other pages have noted your behavior. --Smkolins (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear Smkolins, I am awaiting to hear your argument to see why you think there are 4 and not 3. I have searched for awhile in internet. I think majority of people in internet believe there are three outstanding Abrahimic religions( of course beside some minor others). you can see for example this link or this link. I don't know why but obviously you are trying to place Bahai's faith in a place that obviously it shouldn't be. many people also believes that it is a branch of Islam like John Carter in above writings, you can make a picture of others Abrahamic symbols like Bahai's & Mormonism & ..., and put it beside the first picture, then I will agree with you. but not as a same level of those three.--Wiki hamze (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Aside from questions of behavior and trying to switch the argument - issues I still think important as you seem bent on examining the question from a view towards political motives - just limiting myself in google scholar for abrahamic & baha'i to "since 2012" and entries not behind pay-walls (and not including citations and patents):

(overall 87 results)

abrahamic & Druze (48 results)

abrahamic & sabean (8 results)

I don't disagree the Baha'i Faith is not habitually included in a list of Abrahamic religions - which is why the compromise was towards not keeping it in parallel with the other big three was arrived at. But it is far more often mentioned as an additional Abrahamic religion than other combinations and is of itself significantly larger, more widespread, and growing, than the other more obscure Abrahamic religions. Including it only in such a list is a disservice to the fact of how abrahamic coverage actually exists in publication.--Smkolins (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

    • please note I am not using the references to make other points - just that there are in fact reasonable numbers of cases where the Baha'i Faith is included in a list of Abrahamic religions and if you will do the searches as I have described them you will see the results as well. --Smkolins (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I have heard that bahaies have not any pray or fast like other faiths. it established by an muslim clergy. so it could not be a separate abrahamic religion. --Hagarblue (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Hagarblue you are sadly deeply misinformed. Please take the time to review the Bahá'í Faith. Prayer and fasting are core practices and your mention of muslim clergy is painful widely in error. See Persecution of Bahá'ís. The Baha'i Faith is a well established world wide religion acknowledged by non-Baha'i sources as being the fastest growing religion over a century of history and the second most widespread religion on the planet. Please please please read more. Check sources all you want. --Smkolins (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I repeat again I didn't claim that Bahai's is not a Abrahamic Religion. I do understand your respect to your beliefs. I just wanted to say that there is a huge, really huge, difference between first three one and others. not only because of number of followers but also because of long and valuable history behind them. I don't know, maybe Bahai is most growing secondary Abrahamic faith ( as you say) but there is still long long time needed to include it among those 3 one. at least they should have 5 percentage of world population or a couple of centuries in their history. I tried to explain my reasons and I hope accept I am not ill-minded toward your beliefs. if you put Bahai's name as a secondary abrahamic religion, I will not disagree. best regards--Wiki hamze (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

And you have not gotten anyone to agree with your editorial approach. Instead editors have reverted you, not just me, and you have convinced no one. --Smkolins (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
if you read only this page from start to end, you will see I have convinced some guys. it seems their knowledge is vaster than me.--Wiki hamze (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
nope - I don't see anyone but yourself. While I'm at it more citations:

more

-- again I am not calling for special treatment. Baha'is are regularly mentioned as Abrahamic and far more than others. Not on an equal footing with the other religions but previous exchanges exactly like this have come to see a useful balance at the point the article largely was. You are the one coming in insisting on changes without evidence. I'm showing evidence, as well as noting your reverting over and over again. --Smkolins (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

And Wiki hamze your edits to other articles trying to justify your approach was reverted by other editors. Here and elsewhere your approach is constantly running against the grain. See [13] and [14]. --Smkolins (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC) (sig added by Bbb23)
I live in iran which is also origin of bahaie.......is your prophet mirza hosein ali noori?? now you say he is not moslim?? and is it his photo?http://www.e-heyat.com/UploadFiles/Nama/shakhsiyatedakheli/bahayiat.jpg so he is an iranian muslim clergy who want to have new religion ... so he establish it about 100 years ago!. I have read many books about your religion. and I have some friend that they are bahaie. so I know enough about bahaie... I read a book by fazl sobhi mohtadi who is person that write aghdas with baha. he was closest person to baha.I have not any problem with your belifs but i am sure that bahaie have been born from eslam so you can not be a separate abrahamic religion. please dont want to teach me about your faith. and read more and more and more.--Hagarblue (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Then read what your own countrymen have said - http://books.google.com/books?id=J5RGlpx0j8sC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA52#v=onepage&q&f=false --Smkolins (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
dear Smkolins, Let's to start anew. I make my question clear and you answer it clear, OK?is your religion abrahamic? you say yes, I say yes. so where is the problem? is your religion independent abrahamic faith and not a branch of Islam? you probably say yes, and I definetly say yes, because all Muslims strongly deny you. so still I can't find any problem here.is your faith as importance as "big other three"? I say no, there are huge differences and I've presented my argumetns. I am waiting to read your concise and clear arguments that why you put yourself among those? are you that much historic or have that much of followers? you are growing? this is your claim, so why can't you just wait until you have 5 percentage of earth population?--Wiki hamze (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
If you want to "start anew" then revert all the changes under approach you have taken. Own your mistakes. All your edits have been under one theme and several editors in several articles have reverted you. It is obvious the Baha'i Faith is clearly more significant that every other small Abrahamic religion and previous consensus has supported the pattern you are seeking to change. That you refuse to see it seems willfully to ignore the references. There is no argument the Baha'i Faith isn't in par overall with the big three - there has never been any such contention and to claim you are correcting that is dishonest. You say - your own words - "I strongly believe that trying to put their name among outstanding Abrahimic religions is intentional acts which I see it has been done in many wikipedia pages by their supporters. it may be a political ill-minded acts also." Are you going to "start anew" with that understanding as well? The other smaller abrahamic religions are significantly smaller just as the Baha'i Faith is significantly smaller than Christianity and Islam. But the other smaller religions are also largely present in only a few places while the Baha'i Faith has been observed by non-Baha'i sources to be both growing quickly and more spread out around the world than those smaller religions many of whom are far older. Age and size are not the only determinants of significance. And though the Baha'is are small they are larger than either major center of Judaism population - and that measurement itself still larger than the other smaller Abrahamic religions. --Smkolins (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I guess you even didn't read my writings! because you are repeating something about Judaism while I gave you the answer multiple time. JUDAISM IS AN ANCIENT, OLD, BACK-BONE RELIGION WHICH MUSLIMS AND CHRISTIANS APPROVE THEM, is it clear now? what is your outstanding characteristic? ha? all other three believe that you are a fake religion. you are not comparable with those three. If you want to feel important it is better to find another way, changing the reality is not the way. your action confirm my claim about "ill-minded political acts". you are a newborn and tiny religion. how can you dare to put yourself at that level? instead of referring me to other users, who are probably your friends or yourself, please give me ARGUMENTS, I see you are avoiding this part. well well well, another matter, I am reading something about dark-side of your religion which you usually don't point it, it seem that you have no problem with gay-marriage and even brother-sister marriage. when I say 'no problem', I mean you don't make it illegal so they are free to enter your religion happily. it is a good way to attract many people, you remove the hard part of religions! while pretending to be so ethical. is this in compliant with Abrahamic religions? you yourself said something about "different habits" of Baha'i--Wiki hamze (talk) 07:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
More than anything else, echoing your first motivations and your last, the true sadness is that this level of argument and execration rises to the point where deeply unseemly acts are taken as acts of faith, to be blessed by God. --Smkolins (talk) 11:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
and I still don't see any king of arguments inside your text about why you are trying to squeeze yourself in a place that don't deserve you.--Wiki hamze (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
A few users keep adding Baha'i to the list of major Abrahamic religions in their controversial edits when it's clearly not much comparable to Judaism, Christianity and Islam (neither by the period of time it existed for, nor by the number of its adherents in the present or past). It's already in the body of the article anyway and I think it shouldn't be added to that list until there is a consensus to add it. Thanks, Khestwol (talk) 07:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Kwestwol if you will examine the history you will see "keep adding" is the wrong characterization. In 2010 an extensive discussion took place about the Baha'i Faith in the article. Several admins ultimately got involved. A balance was achieved largely represented until this situation. That balance included brief mention in the lede and then down page in a distinct section above the even more obscure religions. I and other editors have been returning the article to that condition - not simply adding the religion where it wasn't. Please review the history as well as the present citations. No one disputes that the three are universally recognized. But when a fourth is mentioned by far the most mentions are of the Baha'i Faith and other religions are more obscure and rarely mentioned. Significance is not only about age and size - and there is growth and widespread presence for example. Aside from those particulars if you follow the history carefully you you will see that the other editor came in guns blazing making changes and was reverted by multiple editors on different articles all along the same lines of practice. No evidence, just making changes. When he is reverted he points to having made his case here when the discussion had hardly begun. And now he is "yelling" at me, now calling the religion fake, and other aspects of tone that are meant to be insulting. --Smkolins (talk) 10:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I was also involved in some of the past discussions on this issue, but from what I know consensus had never reached to add Baha'i Faith to that list in the lede as a major Abrahamic religion besides Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Yet, a few users kept adding Baha'i to it although there wasn't a consensus for it. Khestwol (talk) 11:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
This is not my memory - can you direct me towards where your recollection points? I tried to review the work then and seemed to follow the same pattern (I thought the picture then was prettier but not sure what happened to it. And you are not commenting on Wiki hamse's attitude like just above this comment of yours. --Smkolins (talk) 11:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I see you enter the discussion around here at the insertion of Druze that as I read it you yourself favored. If you turn back the clock further to here you may see more what I was saying per 2010 which ended with Baha'i Faith mentioned in the lead with admins participating in the discussion and effectively ending it. That date is 6 January 2011. That version is here. There was another discussion at the time about the appropriateness of the crescent as a symbol of islam. That symbol was live on the page at that time but was later changed. I'm not trying to bring up that matter. Just saying that the Baha'i Faith was mentioned in the lead with citations and even the word "sometimes" had been removed by consensus. Which I will pause again to underscore is marked difference from how this round of issues came up.--Smkolins (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Checking that version against current there is only one difference in the mention of the religion above the section at the bottom beyond what was originally consensus - that the section on violence between abrahamic religions now includes the persecution of the Baha'is (and that I recently shrunk the section on that religion for dupe info and the like.) The persecution of the Baha'is is itself one of the more notable aspects of the religion in research (some calling it approaching genocide and its situation on several institutional watch lists) so I support that inclusion. But for purposes of consensus if that is viewed as compromising the integrity of the discussion I would move it down myself. --Smkolins (talk) 13:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The point about why mention the Baha'i Faith in the lead has been asked - aside from past consensus reached time and again I will highlight the posts where I mention specific information related to the relative predominance of the Baha'i Faith over those of the smaller religions (noting again Druze are the closest next religion which at one time was also in the lead.) See my additions here (follow up to related links please), or see the new entry on another article at Growth_of_religion#Bahá'í_Faith, here where I give a cursory review of just the references in the last couple years adding the Baha'is as a forth with brief examinations of rates of other religions mentioned, here where I added the list references. None of these have been commented on effectively. I bring these up just to show that the Baha'i Faith is often mentioned as a fourth and has some other distinguishing features of note (growth over a century, world wide presence, larger than either Jewish population center and clearly larger than other smaller religions, and whose persecution has been noted widely, a significant aspect of the article being violence among the abrahamic religions, a point a bit underscored by the latest comments from the other editor.) --Smkolins (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

previous moments of consensus

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I'd like to highlight previous moments of consensus for easy access for readers:

  1. Talk:Abrahamic_religions/Archives_3#List_of_largest_Abrahamic_religions_in_the_lead from the fall of 2012 which was settled around 4 November 2012 - alas it broke briefly Jan 2013.
  2. Talk:Abrahamic_religions/Archives_3#Is_the_Bahai_faith_often_-_or_sometimes_-_considered_an_Abrahamic_religion.3F from the fall of 2010 which was "settled" around the evening of 6 January 2011.

I tried to act in accordance with these moments of consensus. --Smkolins (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

As we can see, the first section you quote discusses whether Druze Faith should be included as a major Abrahamic religion, it's doesn't discusses Baha'i. The second one discusses whether Baha'i is even an Abrahamic religion, it was settled that yes it is. But there has never been a consensus that it's a major one comparable to the main three Abrahamic religions. Khestwol (talk) 09:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes and though I supported Druze to an extent it was to the same extent it was clear the Baha'i Faith was more prominent. But yes the main thrust of consensus occurred in the earlier conversation. --Smkolins (talk) 10:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://altreligion.about.com/od/alternativereligionsaz/a/Theistic-Satanism.htm
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abrahamic_religions/Archive_4&oldid=1142751301"