Talk:Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Synthesis, relevance, consensus-building

@Msubotin: You yourself stated that it shouldn't be used for Christian beliefs in your earlier comments cause you considered it unreliable. can delete the supposed Muhammad sources because they are unnecessarily long and irrelevant. The Christian informants is just an argument and is not necessarily true. The argument that Muhammad had approximate knowledge of Christianity has already been mentioned and there is no need to add the argument who his sources were or not. I am removing it and if you add it again I'll remove it again. Besides the source about Watts was removed accidentally. Neither are the exact numbering of verses important. There is other information based from Quran here too, but the exact verses haven't been cited. Similarly there are other articles who's information comes from verses from religious books but many a times they do not cite the specific verses. Reverting part of your edit and if you unnecessarily add it again, then it will be removed. Now stop behaving like a master of this article who thinks he has the only rigjt to decide what goes in or not. KahnJohn27 (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: As I explained yesterday, you misinterpreted those earlier comments of mine you refer to. On the cited page, Robinson argues that hypotheses based on use of the word "gospel" are unnecessary. Watt makes no such hypothesis and Robinson doesn't address Watt's arguments, so making it seem like he's arguing against Watt is a misrepresentation of sources. The number of verses Robinson refers to in the earlier passage are cited right there in his text, and they let the reader consult the verses he's talking about without having to fish the numbers of from the source. The relevance of the passage about Muhammad's informants is not about whether his knowledge was approximative. Its relevance to the paragraph is as part of assessing the relationship of the Quran to the likely specifics of his knowledge, and its relevance to the section is to attest the apparent diversity of the Christian community in Mecca. I don't consider myself a one-person consensus like you seem to. If even one of the other two involved editors or a moderator sides with you regarding the passage about Muhammad's informants, I would have no problem with its removal. But trying to impose your sole opinion by brute force is not how Wikipedia works. This is precisely what "behaving like a master of the article" means, and I don't see why you should be allowed to run roughshod over consensus-building procedures. Msubotin (talk) 22:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@Msubotin: Let me make something clear here. A consensus cannot add or remove whatever it wants especially something that is related and relevant and sourced. Robinson's argument against the hypothesis is relevant to this article. Now about the number of verses if someone wants to read then they can easily look up the source and read it.

"The relevance of the passage about Muhammad's informants is not about whether his knowledge was approximative. Its relevance to the paragraph is as part of assessing the relationship of the Quran to the likely specifics of his knowledge, and its relevance to the section is to attest the apparent diversity of the Christian community in Mecca."

The only thing your section does is record the names of people who had knowledge about Christianity in Mecca and knew Muhammad. That's all it does. So yes I see it as completely irrelevant.

And about brute forcing, you've been trying to impose and sneak in your views either through brute force or back-hand tactics and been wasting time since the beginning. And when I try to stop you, you blame me for unfair conduct.

Wikipedia isn't a place where anyone has to appease to what you feel is ok or not. Now I will not tolerate any more of your time wasting just to inforce your POV. If you try to add any more POV edits again I will instantly remove them. Now I suggest you move on. KahnJohn27 (talk) 01:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear all, just catching up with this debate. This is a page on Religion in Arabia, and we have to focus on what we know about it. So, going into too much criticism of Quran is counterproductive. It becomes WP:COATRACK. I agree with KahnJohn27 that there is too much criticism of Quran's knowledge of Christianity (even after his paring down) and too little information about the Arab Christianity itself. If the contrary scholars know anything more about what was believed, let us focus on it instead of shooting down Quran. (And KahnJohn27, I am surprised that you are still not properly intending your posts after all these days!) - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I think the material sheds light on the nature of the Quran as a historical source on the subject rather than "shooting it down". Why would mentioning the forms of Christianity Muhammad was likely to have had contact with discredit the Quran as a source? I also think the passage from Robinson about "gospel" (without the synthesis) would be useful, because it's about theories that have been proposed about what gospels were available in the Hejaz. However, like I said, I have no problem yielding on a concern shared by multiple editors. Thanks for chiming in, and I hope you can drop in more often to help with consensus building Msubotin (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, "shooting down" may be a wrong phrase, but what I mean is that there is a lot more critical analysis of Quran than warranted with regard to it being an authentic source of information (or not). I think it is enough to say that scholars don't find it authentic and give an example or two of such scholars. I will check the gospel info. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@Msubotin: The material is just an argument on it's historicity not a clear cut proof of it. That is why inserting too many of such arguments is "unnecessarily prolonging" the paragraph that strays too far from the topic. This article isn't about the nature of Quran as a historical source, it's about religions in pre-Islamic Arabia. Especially this article isn't about argumenta for what forms of Christianity or which persons with knowledge of Christianity Muhammad may have had contact with. As for the "gospels" part that could be relevant but again it is another argument based on the interpreation of Quran. If it should be added then sources of other scholars should be used as the main purpose of Robinson's comment on it is to dispute it. But back to the main point. Adding more and more arguments to it is unnecessarily prolonging it and counter-productive and is straying too far from the topic. KahnJohn27 (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Well, at the moment we have roughly four different takes on what the Quran reveals about Christianity in Arabia at the time: 1) per Robinson and others, possibly a good deal; 2) per Eliade, approximative understanding, partly of apparently non-Arabian rites, so not much; 3) per Watt, details that may be surmised by close analysis Muhammad's life; 4) per Griffith et al, nothing but for a different reason. If the paragraph is somewhat long and complex, I think it's because so is the subject and the scholarship on it. I also think that putting it all together in a hyperlinked summary is good public service Msubotin (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Msubotin: Yeah I think general summaries are ok as long as they are actual summaries of multiple authors, aren't just mere repetitions of the author's statement and don't elongate the paragraph more unnecessarily. Also I'll like to point out these mistakes in your comment:

"2) per Eliade, approximative understanding, partly of apparently non-Arabian rites, so not much;"

Eildae never says it was non-Arabian. She's talking about Monophysite rites and Monophysite was the largest branch of Christianity in Arabia.

"3) per Watt, details that may be surmised by close analysis Muhammad's life;"

He also argues that these verses might be attacking Christian heresies rather than orthodox beliefs.

Also in the final I'll like to say again the subject of the article isn't about Quran and it's historicity and interpretations. So adding more and more unnecessary arguments and interpretations makes the paragraph stray too far from the topic and unnecessarily elongates the paragraph with needless irrelevant text. KahnJohn27 (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

But you kicked all this off with this edit - you're edit summary even refers to a verse of the Quran. If we're going to make a statement about Christianity based ultimately on the Quran then that will inevitably bring in a discussion on the historicity of the Quran. But to be honest, this issue of the "divine triad" is clearly not a significant aspect of Arabian Christianity and it's taking up too big a proportion of the section on Christianity. What does everyone think about slimming it down to this:

Neal Robinson, based on verses in the Quran, believes that some Arab Christians may have held unorthodox beliefs such as the worshipping of a divine triad of God the father, Jesus the Son and Mary the Mother, but other scholars, notably Mircea Eliade, William Montgomery Watt, G.R. Hawting and Sidney H. Griffith, cast doubt on the historicity or reliability of such references in the Quran.

What does everyone think? (By the way, KahnJohn27, Eliade - who is a he not a she - specifically refers to the monphysite church in Abyssinia, not Arabia.)DeCausa (talk) 09:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that kind of text is all that is required. Let us keep the focus on Arab religion rather than other matters. Most lay readers of this article just want to know what the Arabs believed in, and once we point out that it is uncertain, the matter is closed.

On another note, may I suggest all the editors to stick to WP:BRD. When it is correctly followed, there would be one edit, one revert and a bunch of discussion. Then it would be easy for other editors to get involved and provide their input. All of you are doing a great job in improving this article. Please be proud of it! - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: @Kautilya3: I think of it as ok. As for Eildae I thought he (I know he is a male, but his first name appears feminine and it sometimes gets me confused) was talking about "Monophysite Church of Abyssinia" as a whole sect of Ethipopian Monophysitism not Monophysitism "in Abyssinia". I could be misunderstanding. However Watt's name while in one argument he disputes this argument, in another he also gives another argument in support of this saying these verses are about heretic non-orthodox beliefs. Watts should be mentioned as one who gives arguments both in support and opposition. KahnJohn27 (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: Where does Watt say that? The sentence currently in the article ("Watt argues that the verses criticizing Christian doctrines in the Quran are attacking Christian heresies like tritheism and physical sonship of Jesus, rather than orthodox Christianity") is cited to page 320 of Muhammad in Medina (have the references got mixed up and it's the wrong citation?) which doesn't say anything like that. On page 320, Watt discusses how uninformed Muhammad is on basic Christian doctrines and then says "The blame for this state of affairs probably rests on those Christians with whom Muhammad and his Companions were in contact, who may themselves have had little appreciation of the doctrines mentioned". Heresies aren't mentioned. DeCausa (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: @Kautilya3: @KahnJohn27: I would prefer to keep the additional details for interested readers, but I don't mind trimming down some of them if the consensus swings in that direction, as it seems to. However, I think DeCausa's proposal pares it down a bit too much. I would propose the following Neal Robinson, based on verses in the Quran, believes that some Arab Christians may have held unorthodox beliefs such as the worshipping of a divine triad of God the father, Jesus the Son and Mary the Mother. Furthermore, there is evidence that unorthodox groups such as the Collyridians, whose adherents worshiped Mary, were present in Arabia, and it has been proposed that the Qur'an refers to their beliefs. However, other scholars, notably Mircea Eliade, William Montgomery Watt, G.R. Hawting and Sidney H. Griffith, cast doubt on the historicity or reliability of such references in the Quran. If we want to mention Watt's thesis, we should be careful not to make seem to claim that those beliefs can be reliably attributed to informants within the Arabian peninsula. The additional details from the book I've added were meant in part to clarify his view on this point. Msubotin (talk) 13:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: You clearly aren't properly checking the sources again. There is another source directly besides "Muhammad at Medina". Scriptural Polemics by Mun'im Sirry where this argument of Watts has been mentioned. I'm surprised how you don't know this especially since the source and it's content has been mentioned a few times earlier on the talk page itself. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: I haven't been reading the thread lately - I lost interest. Page 320 of Muhammad in Medina is therefore an incorrect citation for that sentence and should be deleted. I didn't bother checking the Sirry citation because the author isn't Watt and I assumed it wasn't relevant. It's not good practice to specifically refer to an author in the text and then cite another author as a second-hand source for what the first author said. Unless someone produces the Watt article referred to, I don't think it's good enough to override what we actually have from Watt. Also there's no reference to "like tritheism and physical sonship of Jesus" in the passage on Watt in Sirry, so that should come out. DeCausa (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: There's nothing against using another author for sourcing statement of another author. Also I think you haven't noticed that Sirri is also the one used to source tge statements of Sidney H. Griffith, GR. Hawting and Gabriel Reynolds. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: I'm not sure we want to mention Watt's thesis, but we if keep its summary in its current state, we need both refs: Sirry to source the general claim, and the book to source the detail that he considered Quranic criticism of "sonship" to be criticism of the unorthodox "physical sonship", but you're correct that I had the wrong page: it's 318, not 320. We don't have to keep this detail. Msubotin (talk) 13:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: Also you aren't properly checking the verses here. The "triethism and physical somship of Jesus" is from the Muhammad at Medina" pg. 320 and it was added by User:Msubotin. This is why Watt's Muhammad at Medina is there alongside Sirri's source. Here's the quote saying about tritheism and physical sonship of Jesus:

The dating of these passages in criticism of the Christians is uncertain. Part of the difficulty is that we do not know how far the Muslims were acquainted with Christian beliefs prior to the conquest of Mecca. They may not have realized that views resembling those mentioned were held by Christians ; or they may have thought that such views were the aberrations of a minority, and that the great body of Christians regarded Jesus merely as a prophet. In a sense, indeed, it is true that the doctrines refuted by the Qur'an, namely those of tritheism and of the physical sonship of Jesus, are aberrations and not Christian orthodoxy. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: You've got the wrong page: that's 318 not 320. It was 320 that was cited, not 318 hence I didn't see it on the cited page. DeCausa (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: Oh yes sorry for that slip up, I just read it in text format where page number wasn't given. I've read it again this time in PDF format. But you've removed content from the paragraph again that too based on your own views without even caring to discuss. This is exactly the kind of behaviour I complained about earlier which forced me to revert your edits earlier. KahnJohn27 (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Look, ever since I've come across you at this page you've never seemed to get the hang of WP:BRD. The way it's supposed to work is that normally an edit doesn't require prior discussion. However, if it's reverted, then the reverter opens a thread and the original editor doesn't revert but he and the reverter then discuss it. The article remains as it was before the edit was made until agreement/consensus is reached. Sometimes, though, where it's controversial or complicated or a long-term issue it's better to agree it on the talk page before making an edit. So, here we have a case in point. I made a tidy-up edit. I'm not maling a major change, and to me, it wssn't controversial. If you or Msubotin don't like it you are free to revert and tell me why on the talk page. I won't revert it back. In fact, what needs to happen here is that it's not a straightforward revert but my edit should be probably be amended/partially reverted. The change in sentence order and some of the shortening is probably right but the citation needs to be amended and the naming of the specific heresies restored. Through that process we'd reach a better overall outcome. The proposal below is an example where prior agreement is needed. I won't simply make tge edit because it's big change which is, I know, a different approach to that previously taken by you and Msubotin. Do you see the difference. If we can agree this modus operandi we'll all feel this a more productive process. Can we agree that we'll follow WP:BRD in this way? DeCausa (talk) 08:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: I completely get it but you forget that the thing is you at the beginning you just didn't enter an edit but even after I reverted it you kept adding it back by reverting again and again. And concerning your latest edit it is clear from your own summary that you that you removed it based even though the line of "triethism and physical sonship of Jesus" concerns the paragraph. Not only also cite it not being in "Sirry's source" as a reason to remove it even though you directly knew it was cited using Watt's "Muhammad at Medina". Besides the part about triethism and physical sonship of Jesus was deleted earlier as well not by you however. The whole paragraph is the point of discussion in case you forgot. It seems you are again reverting to your old behaviour that started the edit warring in first place. I suggest you try to be cooperative and focus on improving the article through discussion rather than simply going off on your own and doing what you feel like doing. KahnJohn27 (talk) 11:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I didn't know it was in Watt because I looked at the cited page 320, not the uncited page 318 (which I only looked at subsequently). Most of the rest of your paragraph I don't even know what you are trying to say. I will however comment on your first, penultimate and last sentences (as you have asked me not to post on your talk page) but after that I will make no other reply whatever your response is.

My comment is this. What you have said is absurd. You started editing this article on 28 April 2015 by trying to remove references to Allah. You removed it, I reverted you, you tried to introduce a modified version of your changes[1], I reverted you[2]. Now here's where it went wrong. (And remember you are the one wanting to make a change to the long-standing consensus version of the article.) You had opened up a thread (and all credit to you for that) but instead of waiting for consensus agreement as you should have done per WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS for your changes you ploughed on and reverted again[3]. I reverted you and you'll see in my edit summary I'm asking you to observe WP:BRD[4], but you revert again[5]. Now a third editor joins in and takes out your addition [6] - and now you revert him too![7], the third editor reverts you again (asking in his edit summary that you observe WP:BRD) [8] but you just go ahead and make the edit you want.[9]. This is now 14 May, and the third editor and I give up and leave you to it - you've won by the persistency of your edit-warring and you've secured no agreement or consensus with anyone else in the thread on the talk page. This isn't isolated behaviour. You did it again when we next meet in August: I revert a change you made[10], but instead of leaving it until agreement is reached on the talk page per WP:BRD you revert again[11], I revert you and ask in the edit summary for you to observe WP:BRD [12] but you don't wait for agreement on the talk page you revert again [13] and off we go.... This is how we first met and how you've proceeded fairly consistently for the last 6 months. So, forgive me if your comments above make me laugh out loud. As I say I'm not going to enter into any further discussion on this and this is my last comment on it whatever your response (if any). DeCausa (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh so basically what your comment means to say that just because I had reverted edits and edit-warred (which you did as well) earlier at the article page it's ok for you to edit-war on it as well. As far as I remember I removed the edits because it was added about Allah being as definitely Meccan god that too despite it being based on interprations of Quran. You could have simply discussed. Is there anything wrong in that? And coming back to now, you kept reverting and adding your own edits instead of discussing it out first. So who's responsible? Besides I already told you the correct page number of Watt's source before you made your edit removing Watt's statement about "triethism and physical sonship of Jesus". But anyway respond or don't respond, you've already shown your callous uncooperative behaviour and you blame and complaint about others. KahnJohn27 (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

Just to re-boot this, are we agreed that we can substitute the existing paragraph with Msubotin's suggestion:

Neal Robinson, based on verses in the Quran, believes that some Arab Christians may have held unorthodox beliefs such as the worshipping of a divine triad of God the father, Jesus the Son and Mary the Mother. Furthermore, there is evidence that unorthodox groups such as the Collyridians, whose adherents worshiped Mary, were present in Arabia, and it has been proposed that the Qur'an refers to their beliefs. However, other scholars, notably Mircea Eliade, William Montgomery Watt, G.R. Hawting and Sidney H. Griffith, cast doubt on the historicity or reliability of such references in the Quran.

I'm happy with that. Views? DeCausa (talk) 15:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Looks fine to me. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: Where's Watt other thesis about the doctrines being heretic and non-Orthodox? KahnJohn27 (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Since DeCausa and Kautilya3 haven't taken up this question, which seems like an objection to excluding a statement on Watt's views, I'll go ahead and recap my concerns on it, which they may not have seen. If we don't specify how Watt thought those criticisms were related to actual beliefs in Arabia or elsewhere, it would at best not be directly relevant to the subject, and at worst incorrectly imply a particular position on it. However, if we include those additional details I added to clarify it (that he wasn't sure whether they reflected informants inside or outside Arabia, and whether the informants may not have, so to speak, got mixed up about their own or someone else's catechism), but remove details for the other authors, I think it would be WP:UNDUE. What do the others think? Msubotin (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to the full Watt piece where this is expressed or is it just based on the snippet in Sirry? If it's the latter, it's not clear from how the snippet is quoted that Watt's argument is that Muhammad was attacking Christian heresies in general or whether it is in reference to heresies that specjfically existed in Arabia. Only the latter would be relevant to this article. If we only have access to Watt's point via the Sirry snippet then that's not enough to change the above proposed wording in my opinion. DeCausa (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Here's an online version of the 1967 article cited in Sirry, behind a paywall [[14]]. At the moment, we have just Sirry and some indications of Watt's uncertainty that I scraped together from "Muhammad at Medina". It seems unlikely that Watt had unearthed major new revelations in the 10 years after the book was published. Msubotin (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Msubotin: @DeCausa: As it doesn't specifically mention "Arabian Christians", I will propose adding Watt's statement as it is in Sirry's source. I am saying this because it is relevant regardless of whether it's about Arabian or not. If it is about Arabian Chriistianity then well it is about Arabian Christianity, if it's about in general then that means it isn't about Arabian Christians atleast not specifically. KahnJohn27 (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the three of us have had a fair shot at trying to convince each other, and there are still unresolved concerns for both including and excluding this passage, both with and without the additional details we have in there now. I'd love to get Kautilya3's input on this. Msubotin (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

As I have already said before, we shouldn't go into why scholars think Quran's account of Arab Christianity is not authentic. If they have any positive information about Arab Christianity, we can include it. If KahnJohn27 wants to propose any wording that has such positive information, I am happy to look at it. But otherwise the above wording is good to go. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: What wording are you talking about? I'm saying Watt's other thesis about it being condemnation of heretic beliefs rather than orthodox ones should be included (it isn't about Quran's account being authentic or not). It should be added. KahnJohn27 (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to add it if it's about Christianity in general rather than Arabian Christianity in particular. Otherwise we'd just cut and paste the Christianity article into the section. DeCausa (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: That's your own POV. If it's about Christianity in general then it'll fit within the frame that the verse isn't talking about Arabic Christianity atleast not in particular. So yes if it's about Christianity in general, even then it's still completely relevant. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: And if you're concerned about length then it isn't something to worry about. Watts argues that these verses attack heretic Christian beliefs rather than orthodox ones, including triethism and physical sonship of Jesus. It probably ain't even the length of the article's line. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you're trying to say. Just doesn't make any sense. If it's a generalised comment about Christianity rather than specifically Arabian Christianity, it's not relevant to this article. Maybe someone else can make sense of your point. DeCausa (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: Please propose your wording just like DeCausa did. Otherwise, this debate will go on and on without reaching anywhere. Let us make progress! - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: It ain't really difficult what I'm trying to say so I don't get how you don't understand it. But still I'll repeat it anyway. If it is about Christianity in general, then that means Watts means the Quranic verse aren't about Arabian Christianity. But as we've seen from Sirry and Robinson, there probably were some heretic beliefs among some Arabs. Anyway, as I've already said even if it ain't about Arabian Christians in particular, it is still relevant. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Already kind of proposed the wording for it. I believe this wording will be ok as it is short and straight to point:

Watts argues that these verses are an attack on heretical Christian beliefs rather than orthodox ones, including triethism and physical sonship of Jesus. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: Where do you suggest putting it in the proposed paragraph? Msubotin (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Msubotin: In the end of the para as adding it in-between will make it confusing because people might think he is making contradictory statements in tge arguments. Also I'll recommend adding the word Additionally before it to make it clear that is a different argument than the one where Watts argues of it not being reliable about Arab Christians. KahnJohn27 (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: Thanks, just wanted to be sure. This is not as bad as placing it earlier, but it still looks like WP:SYNTHESIS to me. We say there is some evidence of heretical beliefs in Arabia. Then we say that Watt thought the Quran criticizes heretical beliefs. That seems to imply that he's referring to the same beliefs, but from what we've seen so far, he makes no such connection. However, this is almost moot. Like DeCausa, I just can't see how this sentence is relevant to the article as part of this new abridged paragraph. Perhaps those verses referred to what Muhammad had heard in Syria; perhaps to information brought back by those who fled across the Red Sea; perhaps it reflected only limited grasp of doctrinal issues on the part of the informants. In the book Watt is aware of all those options and doesn't dismiss any of them. As worthy as his thesis is of general interest, it doesn't seem to make a positive contribution in this context. Msubotin (talk) 05:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Msunotin: Nothing you say really makes sense and your reasons for not inserting it aren't justifiable. How is it a synthesis when the quotes is directly as it is in the sources? Besides the statement nowhere seems to imply that he is referring to the same beliefs in Arabia as Robinson's (who calls them aberrations). Anyone can differentiate that it is a different statement from Robinson's and usn't referring to the same beliefs especially with the triethism and physical sonship of Jesus. But even if you believe the argument will be implying that to same beluefs, then that isn't a rational reason as there is no rule prohibiting from a statement being added even though people migjt not understand what it really means. Also as I've already said many times even if it is about Christianity in general it is still related as that will mean the verses aren't talking about Arabian Christianity at least not in particular. It's just a simple short clear statement. KahnJohn27 (talk) 06:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

KahnJohn27, The only positive information your sentence is giving about the Arab religion is to brand it as "heretical." It has already been said that they were unorthodox beliefs. Why isn't that enough? Note that the Quranic verses are not under discussion. If Watt has information about orthodox Christianity being practised, we can include that. Does he? - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I agree. The problem with the pieces from Watt is that there is no evidence Watt is referring specifically to Arabian Christianity. He's discussing what the Quran/Muhammad has to say about Christianity in general - but that could be about Christianity from anywhere. For example, Eliade surmises here it's about Christianity from Abyssinia, at least the worship of Mary aspect. DeCausa (talk) 10:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilua3: The information never branded Arab Christianity as "heretical" atleast not completely. It's talking about different Christian sects. As Watts makes this assertion he should be listed. KahnJohn27 (talk) 10:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: And that's why I said it is still related even if it refers to Christianity in general or even from somewhere else. Because that will mean Watts is arguing that these verses aren't about Arabian Christianity. KahnJohn27 (talk) 10:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh I see. That's WP:OR. Watt isn't saying they're not about Arabian Christianity and he's isn't saying they are about Arabian Christianity. He's not discussing it one way or other. That's why it's irrelevant. DeCausa (talk) 11:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

If Watt says that the Quranic verses are not about Arab Christianity, that can be mentioned. But only that. No mention of "heresy." It is not Wikipedia's job to brand anything heretical. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: @DeCausa: @Kautilya3: We seem to be going around in circles. How about we use the wording at the top of this section and put all the other details we currently have in this paragraph into a footnote? That way we sketch out the views of each author on "historicity and reliability, etc" for interested readers but without going off on a tangent in the main body of the article. Btw, Kautilya3, "heresies" is the term Sirry attributes to Watt, who uses it himself at least on the first page of the relevant article [[15]]. Msubotin (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed. Good idea. DeCausa (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

That is fine. But note that WP:COATRACK applies to footnotes as well. Any material that is not directly relevant to the topic will get deleted eventually. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: My understanding of WP:COATRACK is that it's about focus and balance of the article as a whole. Note that the guidelines for action [[16]] recommend removing content only in cases of "bias and opinion". Footnotes, which I don't see mentioned there, are a standard tool for addressing focus concerns. Msubotin (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

What I mean by COATRACK are the symptoms indicated there: This may be because an article writer has given more text to the background of their topic rather than the topic itself. It also may have been edited to make a point about one or more tangential subjects. The nominal subject is treated as if it were an empty coat-rack, and is obscured by the "coats". The existence of a "hook" in a given article is not a good reason to "hang" irrelevant and biased material there. Of course, how seriously people take this depends on the amount of COATRACK material and the length to which it goes off-topic. If the proposed footnote merely talks about the Quranic views of Arab Christianity and the scholarly views on it, it may be fine. But the debates above don't give me a great deal confidence. Please keep the focus on the topic at all times. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: It isn't OR, it's just a common sense. The actual OR is yours cause you didn't provide any real sensical reason as to how it's irrelevant. The only reason you're putting is that it does not contain the word "Arabic". KahnJohn27 (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed: User:Msubotin, I agree with your latest proposal. I hope the other editors agree as well so we can get on quickly with amending the paragraph. KahnJohn27 (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Based on the above, I believe there are some reservations, but no hard opposition, so I've changed the page. Thanks, everyone! Msubotin (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Msubotin: I agree with the recent modifying of the photograph. However there is a problem. Although me and DeCausa had made okayed it, User: Kautilya3 hadn't made his position on it clear. You should have waited for his vote. KahnJohn27 (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: Kautilya3's response began with "That is fine. But note...", which I took as a reluctant agreement. If I was wrong about that, we can discuss it more. Msubotin (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, it looks good! - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Msubotin: I notice that but he doesn't just seem to be reluctant, he expressed doubts about its relevance. It looks more of a cautious approach then an agreement. His position didn't seem to be clear atleast not completely, so you should have waited for his vote. But he has made his position clear now anyway so it isn't a big deal. KahnJohn27 (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Msubotin. Good solution. DeCausa (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Bahrain/Zoroastrianism

I accidently saved this edit before completing the edit summary. 2 sources cited refer to Bahrain. One definitely uses Bahrain in the modern sense i.e. the island. The other does not explain whether it uses it in that way or the older sense i.e. including the Gulf coast of Arabia as well as the island. The third source just speaks of eastern Arabia. I don't that this should translate to stating Bahrain pipelinked to eastern Arabia. There's a WP:EGG problem with that plus it's not clear that is what the sources mean. Hence my edit, in my opinion, better reflects the sources. DeCausa (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: Well I guess I understand but Bahrain is the name of Eastern Arabia. If you are unsure about the Bahrain being used in lead, then it should simply be changed to Eastern Arabia as the region includes the whole modern country of Bahrain and none of the sources cite Zorastrianism in Persian Gulf. Also Persian Gulf isn't a region, it's a body of water. KahnJohn27 (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Persian Gulf region is normal parlance for eastern Arabia, Bahrain and other places but no matter I've changed it to Eastern Arabia and Bahrain. Bahrain now means the island and the change kf meaning means WP:EGG applies for our readers. DeCausa (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I also prefer the use of "East(ern)" when there is doubt. The fact that "Bahrain" used to have a different meaning in the antiquity isn't common knowledge, so the lay reader is likely to be confused by that usage (I was, at least). The "gulf region" sometimes refers to a wider region. In the lead, one could just say "eastern and southern parts", or something like that. Msubotin (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah ok I thought your term "Persian Gulf region" was talking about the gulf itself, not the countries surrounding it. Anyway though thanks for adding Eastern Arabia instead of it, however I've made a modification and changed "Eastern Arabia and Bahrain" to "Eastern Arabia including modern-day Bahrain" as modern-day Bahrain is a part of Eastern Arabia. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The last comment was from me, msubotin, butting in. If we can describe the islands of Bahrain as part of Eastern Arabia (I think we can), do we need to specify it further? Msubotin (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Msubotin: Bahrain's islands are a part of Eastern Arabia and have been since antiquity, so yes we can describe them as part of Eastern Arabia. Besides about specifying it further, I've already added "modern-day Bahrain" to make it clear that Bahrain is the modern country of Bahrain. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: Right, I'm just saying the phrase "Eastern Arabia including modern-day Bahrain" doesn't seem to convey any more information than the shorter phrase "Eastern Arabia", unless you think that some people may not include islands under the name of Arabia (which could be the case -- I don't know). Anyway, this isn't a major issue, so I won't harp on it further. Msubotin (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Two of the sources refer to Bahrain, and from the context they mean the island. The third makes a very brief mention of eastern Arabia. I think the reality is that the island of Baharain was the focal point and is worth highlighting. Also eastern Arabia doesn't necessarily mean the islands and could refer to just the peninsula itself. On balance, I think the way KahnJohn27 has now described it is the most informative option which is closes to the sources. DeCausa (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Msubotin: The term being used here before wasn't Eastern Arabia but Eastern Arabia and Bahrain which DeCausa had added. I changed Eastern Arabia and Bahrain to Eastern Arabia including modern-day Bahrain because Bahrain is part of Eastern Arabia. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. To be clear, my main concern here is keeping the lead concise and proportional per WP:LEAD. Please take a look at my version. Msubotin (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing on gods and deities

I didn't delete any potentially salvageable text, but I noticed that the sourcing for these sections has much room for improvement. Msubotin (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Changed "Polytheism" to "Native religions"

I've changed the name of the section "Polytheism" to "Native religions". This is because polytheism involves worship of deities, however in beliefs like fetishism, totemism and ancestor worship, deities aren't worshipped atleast not always so they can't be classed under polytheism. KahnJohn27 (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense Msubotin (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I understand but "native" has unfortunate, slightly racist connotations in contemporary English. It could be "indigenous", but actaully there is a debate about how indigenous they were and to what extent there was borrowing from the Fertile Crescent. I've changed it to "Polytheism and indigenous beliefs" to try to cover all the bases. DeCausa (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

"Not in source"

@KahnJohn27: If you can't find other recent additions in the link, please don't delete them and let me know here. Some of them seem to be pointing to the wrong online version of the book. And some of them just aren't in preview. Thanks. Msubotin (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that User:Msubotin, you didn't cite the correct page number and the information wasn't available for preview so I thought it wasn't in source and you had either sourced the wrong info or added the wrong source. KahnJohn27 (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: No problem. The page number is ok, but it was confusing to have it in the hyperlink since the page isn't displayed. I'll check to see if some of the material from Zeitlin that's not in the preview is available online from the original authors. I've also bought Peters' book, which I'll be looking at next. It looks like some of the citations from the Book of Idols can be sourced from there. Msubotin (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Msubotin: You should source the exact page number where you picked the text from. Public accessiblity for a source isn't a requirement so it doesn't matter if it's available for preview or not. KahnJohn27 (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: Hmm, are you seeing page 29 without this passage? I'm reading on Kindle, so I can't always tell the page numbers, but it seems to be on page 29 based on the table of contents. Perhaps one should cite Kindle "location" number instead in cases like these. Msubotin (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Msubotin: The page number should be accurate as it is in the book, not from Kindle or anything else. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

It's coming together

@Msubotin: @KahnJohn27: I'm done for today. It's heading in the right direction I think. Thanks for both your efforts...and no cross words! DeCausa (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, very nice progress. Great work, guys. Msubotin (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: @Msubotin: Honestly it's very long. Not that there's anything really wrong. But the Polytheism and indigeneous beliefs section is way too long especially compared to other sections. I suggest moving Religion of Mecca, Nabataean religion, Bedouin religion out of it. Let Polytheism and indigeneous beliefs section consist of Background and belief systems and Allah so it becomes basically a sum up of polytheism and indigenous beliefs. KahnJohn27 (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's much of an issue but you could have Polytheism: overview followed by the regional sections at the top level. The only problem with that ins that each would have to have "Polytheism" in it to distinguish it from Christianity etc. I.e. "Religion in Mecca" would look like it would have to cover all religions so it would have to be "Polytheism in Mecca". Could look repetitive/messy. DeCausa (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

As long at it's easily navigable through the Contents box, I don't see a problem with its length, and it seems to be logically organized. Anyway, this whole section is still shorter than the inventory of deities on the German version. Msubotin (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, my preference would be to keep the current organisation. DeCausa (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Midianites

I've taken out the section on Midianites on the basis of WP:UNDUE. The first paragraph was based on the Quran and Genenesis - not good. The second paragraph was about one site. It may be that they are worth one sentence in an "Other north Arabian beliefs" after Nabateans, but not more. DeCausa (talk) 08:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I would support adding a sentence on this, but we need to verify at least one secondary source. The whole section was pasted from Midian and the citations are not online. Was any other material pasted into this article without knowing what the cited sources actually say? I'm not sure there is a policy against this, but it doesn't strike me as a good practice. Msubotin (talk) 13:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: Your justification that it was only based on Quran and Genesis is what I will again call removing based on POV. There's nothing wrong with having based in the Quran and Torah as they especially Torah can be considered primary sources especially since they are the few sources about Midians available. If you want you could have that replaced with secondary sources instead of deleting the whole paragraph. Also there's no rule against a paragraph being about one site and it is long especially since it contains info about Medianite religious practice. But still I can shorten it. Also the entire knowledge about Meccan religion is actually derived from early Islamic sources. Why don't we delete that as well? Last of all I don't understand how you can claim that it's sources aren't online as a reason for removing it. Your actions have no justifications. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Msubotin: And User:Msubotin, the reason I copy-pasted it from another article is because it'll make no sense to go search for Midanite religion when sourced material for it is already there just like I did with Qedarite religion. There's no rule against it. Not only sources aren't required to be online or to be verified by you, they do not need to be accessible or verified by the public. Even if it can't be freely accessed and verified, it can still be used. Should I cite the policy if you don't know about this? If you want to I can. There's nothing against it. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: You're right that copying material within Wikipedia is allowed, but the policy requires an attribution in the edit summary WP:CWW Msubotin (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Msubotin: Yes but it only requires an attribution that it was copied from "here" in an edit summary which I forgot to as I was busy adding to the article. But I'll add it this time that is if DeCausa agrees to let it be added and doesn't remove it simply because some of the first para is based on Torah and Quran and the second paragraph is about just one site. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: I refer you to WP:OR: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." All the references in the first paragraph on Midianites were to primary sources, except the one for the phrase "The Midianites may have worshiped Yahweh". That's against WP:OR regardless of whether it's copied or not. Msubotin (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah well I just copied it so I guess I didn't notice but it's only one line. Besides I didn't analyze or interpret anything so I wasn't the one who did the OR. Could have removed that but the deletion of the entire section, that isn't justifiable. KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• We need to be careful about WP:PRIMARY on this article. The maximum we (and I mean "we" - how scholars in secondary sources is an entirely different matter) should use the Quran or the Bible is to say "the Quarn says xyx" or "the Bible says xyz". But we shouldn't address a whole topic based on that alone. We need a secondary source to thoroughly cover a topic before we address it (and it doesn't matter that the secondary source relies on the Quran or the Bible - they are supposed to do the interpretation of secondary sources). If a secondary source covers a topic may supplement it with specific text from the Quran or the Bible - but they should only ever be used to illustrate a point in a factual way if it has already been made in a secondary source. The problem with the Midianites section as it was was that it was reliant on direct cites to the Quran and the Bible as the principal sources for the existence of these peolple. If secondary sources do that, that's fine, but we can't do that. DeCausa (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposal on Midianites

@KahnJohn27: @DeCausa: Since we seem to be converging on an agreement, let me try a proposal that involves compression of the properly sourced text with a wikilink pointing to more details: The religion of the Midianites may have involved worship of Yahweh. An Egyptian temple of Hathor at Timna continued to be used during the Midianite occupation of the site; the Midianites transformed it into a desert tent-shrine and may have been making offerings to Hathor.. We could combine that with the Qedarite section into "Other religions". Msubotin (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy with that with the right citations. However, I disagree on the section heading - I'll open a separate thread on the article structure to discuss that. DeCausa (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Based on this source, I've tweaked the woprding and added it as follows:

The Midianites, a people referred to in the Book of Genesis and located in north-western Arabia, may have worshipped Yahweh.[71] Indeed, some scholars believe that Yahweh was originally a Midianite god and that he was subsequently adopted by the Israelites.[71] An Egyptian temple of Hathor continued to be used during the Midianite occupation of the site, although images of Hathor were defaced suggesting Midianite opposition.[71] They transformed it into a desert tent-shrine set up with a copper sculpture of a snake.[71]

This source seems to be clear that Hathor was unlikely to have been worshipped. I haven't been able to compare it to Rothenberg piece which is offline - but this source seems pretty clear. DeCausa (talk) 11:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: I was away for a while. But did you just exclude the Rothenberg source because it isn't online? A source doesn't have to publicly accessible to others to be included. Not only that you are making assumptions about the source you included like "this source seems pretty clear that Hathor wasn't worshipped." That is clearly your own POV with which you have added about Midianites. It is an argument abd the name of the scholar of your source who made this claim must be included in the article to specidy that this is an argument or a claim by that scholar. KahnJohn27 (talk) 12:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Please stop bandying around the term "POV". You're misusing it - it doesn't equal WP:OR, which is what I think you mean. The source I refer to above says that the images of Hathor were defaced indicating opposition to the image. I haven't excluded the Rothenberg source because it's offline, but because I can't check it I can't reconcile it with this source. As the Rothenberg piece was 1972 and as the McLaughlin source was 2012, I've guessed - and it is only a guess - that interpretations have moved on over the last 40 years. But if you have the rothenberg source to hand, please go ahead and reconcile the two. I think it would help if you didn't turn every discussion into WP:BATTLE. DeCausa (talk) 12:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Role and representation of Allah in Mecca

@KahnJohn27: This is an important observation on Meccan religion made by two sources with sterling credentials. I used the more circumspect wording by Zeitlin rather than the stronger one by Peters. If you'd like to highlight a debate in the field, feel free to balance that with other sources who dispute this, but otherwise the revert appears based on your personal assessment of primary sources, and we can't use that to veto inclusion of sourced material, especially in an article mostly based on historians' guesswork. Msubotin (talk) 02:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Msubotin: Well not actually all of it's guesswork, quite a good amount of it is based on real inscriptions and material. Adding more and more speculations is just getting foolish, credentials or not. This article already contains many speculations so let's not try adding more and more especially of something never known to exist like an icon of Allah. KahnJohn27 (talk) 02:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: I would agree with you if we were talking about a tangential topic, but this one is important, as evidenced by the prominent place given to it in all the discussions of Meccan religion I've come across. I also expect that most readers will want to know about the role of Allah in Meccan religion and whether there was an idol of him in the Kaaba. Not mentioning it at all would be to deny the reader an account of scholarly opinion on it. As far I can tell, my formulation is a fair and concise summary of scholarly consensus. If you have concerns about WP:UNDUE or WP:SYNTHESIS, I'm ready to hear them. I believe we also disagree in our assessment of primary sources, but we shouldn't really be discussing that here. Msubotin (talk) 03:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Msubotin: Not really, it's not important. Allah in Mecca and Allah's role is itself speculated. So speculating something like an idol of someone who is speculated to be there and whose idol is never known to have existed is ridiculous, irrelevant and WP:UNDUE regardless of who the speculator is. Even if you'll want to add it, it should be kept under the section of "Allah" because it concerns such things and speculations about Allah and "Religion in Mecca" is about Meccan gods who are certainly known to have existed. However, the problem is it's still undue as it's speculation about a speculation. The last thing this article needs is more speculation. I was about to add speculations from an author just a little more than an hour earlier in the Qedarite religion. However I didn't because not only they were speculations, they were speculations without any historical facts or evidence at all. I'm frankly tired of adding speculations as they provide no real historicity, just more arguments. So no there isn't going to be any agreement from me about adding any more speculations. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: We have to follow Wikipedia policies. If you think this is WP:UNDUE (and from the above I suspect you may have forgotten what the policy refers to), then you have to explain how it is WP:UNDUE. I can change the wording to reflect a spectrum of views. I'll let others weigh in on relevance and importance. For now, I'll just address one point from your reply: no details of Meccan cults are "certainly" known. Check the primary sources. Berkey's skeptical take on Allah cited in the article explicitly cites Crone's early theory (which she doesn't subscribe to anymore herself), according to which all of early Muslim history is a later fiction. According to that view, not a single word in this section is credible. Msubotin (talk) 04:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Msubotin: Early Muslim hostory is the only source of info about Meccan religion. And basically if Berkley and Crone think that it's fiction then it's again another speculation. And basically you trying to insist over what us again another POV about it being crucial and drag on this article and over speculation just so you could add it and satisfy yourself is ridiculous. More speculation about speculation is completely undue and basically this article has enough speculations. It's already inflated by them. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: Well, if you think that one historian's view is inadmissible because it's not shared by you and another historian, then we'll need to escalate WP:DR. Let's hear from DeCausa next, and I assume you don't mind consulting Kautilya. Msubotin (talk) 04:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

For reference, this is the edit in question: [[17]] Msubotin (talk) 04:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Msubotin: Oh great so now you want to start another argument after the last long one ended and that too this tine over a speculation about a speculation. Now I'm going to have more of my time wasted and this argument is going to go on just because of what you want to have inserted, no offence. This is just back-handed forcing. And I think these historians' opinion is inadmissible because it is undue, irrelevant and pure speculation. I think it's really easy to get. KahnJohn27 (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'm afraide KahnJohn27 has reverted to his WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS position which is the basis to his objections to references to Allah which I debated with him inthreads earlier this year. If reliable sources are saying it we need to reflect it here even if you think they are wrong KahnJohn27. I agree with Msubotin on this. I did a survey of sources earlier, and the role of Allah is acepted by most sources in fact - it's the minority view to challenge. Groundhog day. DeCausa (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure why we are back in the old debate. WP:NPOV means that all scholarly views should be represented. WP:UNDUE means that some view has been given a disproportionate prominence. I don't see that happening here. An entire section that precedes this one has stated the views of Allah that the Arabs might have had. This sentence is saying that he wasn't represented as an idol. What is the problem with that? To call it a "speculation," we have to cite reliable sources that call it a speculation. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the subsequent posts explain why we are back at the old debate. Most sources don't question the worship of Allah as much as KahnJohn27nthinks they should. He's raising to prominence those that do to his satisfaction. Those that don't (i.e most) he rejects. That's WP:UNDUE. DeCausa (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: @Kautilya3: No I'm trying to have more speculations stopped from being added. I am afraid we are back again to what Msubotin and DeCausa want added. And Kauyilya3 they themselves say it is specukations. They use the word "Even though it appears Allah was worshipped in Mecca". Not only that the entire source about Allah is speculation without any primary source. It is completely undue. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

So you want to censor reliable sources because you think they are speculations? - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: No I'm not censoring anything, I don't thin they should be added because they are irrelevant and undue. Also I don't just "think" they are speculations. The sources themselves know and specify they are speculations. And basically are we going to add that something did not exist when it is never known to have existed in history? And not only when we already know thing which it is about (Allah) is primarily based on interpretations and speculations of a religious book? KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid that is WP:OR. Undue means that we give something more prominence than the sources themselves did. That is not the case here. I think the paragraph should be added back. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: @DeCausa: @KahnJohn27: I'm not sure what the policy says should happen when one editor doesn't manage to convince other editors about legitimacy of his objection, nor vice versa about its illegitimacy, as seems to be the case here. Where do we go from here? Msubotin (talk) 13:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Msubotin: This is ridiculous but anyway I'll still take it into consideration and allow it to be added. I'll add it back myself but it should be added under the "Allah" section as the "Religion in Mecca" is about Meccan deities known to exist with certainty and facts about them. Also I recommend adding the name of scholars in the statement to show it is their opinion. I hope beyond this no more speculations of authors are added. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

(ec) A genuine content dispute can be taken to WP:DRN. But, in this case, KahnJohn27 is merely misinterpreting policy, making it appear as if it is a content dispute. If there are knowledgeable admins that operate in this area, they can be approached for guidance. But otherwise, I recommend DRN. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

There are no sources that make a serious argument that Allah didn't exist in some form in Arabian religions. Most assert it as simply being the case, some others express it more cautiously. But almost all writing on Arabian deities is "speculation" because information is limited. We should not give the impression that certain specific scholars assert that Allah was prsent in pre-Islamic Arabia thereby giving the impression that it is a minority point of view. It isn't and it would breach WP:NPOV to do so. DeCausa (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: Regarding the placement, I believe it fits better under Mecca, because it's specifically about that city (being the chief deity of a city or shrine is not the same as being the supreme deity in a pantheon), though it will probably fit better after the first paragraph. Regarding the rest, the level of speculativeness of this statement is no more than rest of the section. We can't cherry pick material based on WP:OR. Again, no Meccan deities are "known to exist" or have been worshipped there except through early Muslim sources, and all assessments of their historicity is opinion. I will include a disclaimer at the end of the section, linking to the article describing the seminal work of the "skeptical" perspective on these sources. It includes an extensive discussion of its level of acceptance within the field, which we can't possibly reflect here adequately by using this or that turn of phrase. Msubotin (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: You are back to the same thing again. The information about Arabian deities doesn't just consist of speculations. Quite a good amount of it is based on actual written records (inscriptions, texts), idols and artefacts. However there is absolutely no record or artefact that says Allah was a pre-Islamic god and nome of the scholars cite such a proof. And all scholars don't share the same view Allah was a Meccan god. So removing something like some scholars or the name of scholars gives the impression that all scholars hold this view which is the actual POV. So basically my proposal of adding name of scholars to Msubotin's statement is sensible. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Msubotin: Allah wasn't the chief deity, he is speculated to be the chief deity of Mecca just like he is speculated to have existed before Islam. Also the earlier Islamic sources are the only primary sources about Meccan gods so your claim that Meccan gods did not exist except im earlier Islamic sources is non-sensible and irrelevant. Also a good amount of info about the Meccan gods is definitive from the earlier Islamic sources. However none of the Islamic sources mention that Allah was a god. Your statement about his role and representation is itself stated to be speculation. The article about "Religion in Mecca" is about gods known to have certainly existed (even if in earlier Islamic sources). However the info about Allah is speculation and as such belongs in the Allah section which completely consists of speculation. Your statement about role and representation of Allah in Mecca in actual contributes nothing to this article except more speculation in article with many speculations. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Structure of the "Polytheism and indigenous beliefs" section

Let's agree a logical structure for this. I didn't think we had a random list of cultures and their beliefs - at least not until Qedarites and Midianites was added. I think what we had was:

• an introductory overview sub-section
• each region (potentially) surveyed - although admitedly only South Arabia was actually done.
• three "special cases" separately listed: Mecca, Nabateans and Bedouin.

That seems to me highly logical. We should stick with the regional analysis plus the three exceptions. I think we should have a "Northern Arabia" sub-section and put Qeddarites, Midianites in that. I'm not aware of what's involved yet, but an eastern Arabia/Gulf section would be good as well. A Hejaz section would be logical but I suspect there would be too much overlap with Mecca to make it worthwhile. If we don't do it on a regional basis we'll have a never- ending shopping list of greater and lesser cultures. So, why the exceptions of just the three I mention. Two reasons: (1) Mecca and Nabatea are more prominent/notable than the rest. Mecca because of Islam; Nabatea because it is the preeminently notable Arab civilization. (2) by definition, the Bedouin are not reduceable to a region, and they are in a separate category to the settled religiins. Views? DeCausa (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. We may also reorder them. The one on Bedouins seems to be talking primarily about Bedouins of the Hejaz (and probably Nejd), at least in places. Even though that may not be sufficiently clear to restrict it to a specific region, I would suggest putting it right after Mecca because of the cross-references in the text. Msubotin (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC

@DeCausa: @Msubotin: I do not disagree with your structuring of the article but are you two allergic to waiting for opinions of others first before making changes? I notice you didn't even wait for me or User:Kautilya3 to voice their opinion and went ahead with your changes to the Midianites and restructuring of this article. Do you two have a problem with listening to others' opinions first? KahnJohn27 (talk) 12:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

It was already structured like that. I added the Midianites so the section couldn't be headed Qedarites. And now I've added some text on Eastern Arabia, what else would I have headed as? We don't need to consult on every edit. No doubt it would be reverted if someone really objects. DeCausa (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: You made a proposal and it wasn't approved by everyone. You don't need to discuss every edit but yiu should those of which there is doubt. Neither anyone has to revert an edit if they have objections to it. Instead of simply adding your edits when you wish and not caring what others think, discuss them. KahnJohn27 (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Digest from "Islamic History: A Framework for Inquiry"

Following Kautilya's example, I've made a short digest from this book by R. Stephen Humphreys for others who may be interested in methodological disputes surrounding early Islamic history. The book is a kind of advanced textbook for budding (or armchair) historians in this field. The first chapter gives an overview of inventories of primary sources. The second chapter discusses some of the issues we've been trying to come to grips with here. It's about early Islamic rather than pre-Islamic history, but -- with the exception of the role of the Quran --the issues are similar. I'm skipping a lot of discussion of monographs and specifics, while trying to preserve Humphreys' wording except for purposes of compression. Hope this is of some interest.

The true contemporary sources are either fragmentary or represent very specific or even eccentric perspectives. An adequate and convincing reconstruction of Islam's first centry from these materials alone is simply not possible. The Arabic narrative sources represent a rather late crystallization of a fluid oral tradition. E.g., our principal accounts of the life of Muhammad were composed in their definitive form between 750 and 850. Sources from later centuries often preserve otherwise unknown citations from early writers. Classical compilations (850-950) supplanted early texts, which ceased to be widely read and copied but continued to be available into the 13th centry. Writers of digests collected reports with isnads (transmission chains; see Hadith studies) which overlapped and sometimes contradicted each other, selecting them based on criteria of "reliability" and "suitability" which are usually unclear. Humphrey believes they were trying to act (or appear to act) as objective transmitters. To what degree these texts preserve the original form of the ancient historical tradition is one of the most controversial in Islamic studies. The bitterest controversy has been aroused by the earliest phase of historical composition, which is closely connected to the question of whether isnads represent genuine lines of transmission. Muslim scholars evolved a very elaborate science on this, but its procedures were not fully articulated until the 10th century. Even so, any modern analysis must reflect a sound knowledge of it. A number of very capable modern scholars have defended the authenticity of isnads, but the majority have regarded them with deep suspicion. The most provocative studies, which treat Islamic historiography as fiction, are those by Wansbrough and Crone. Scholars don't agree on when oral accounts were collected and written down. The question of whether our texts reflect the events of primitive Islam seems to invite extreme positions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msubotin (talk • contribs) 02:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The Daughters of Allah/Misinterpretation of F.E. Peters

I've corrected a misinterpretation by kahnJohn27 of F.E. Peters discussion of the daughters of Allah here and here. But he has reverted me. KahnJohn27 seems to think that Peters here is saying that the Quran is refuting that the Meccans believed that Allah had daughters. That's not what Peters is saying at all. Peters is saying that the Quran is addressing the Meccans and telling them that their belief in the daughters of Allah is wrong. It doesn't mean that the Meccans didn't believe in the daugters of Allah: he (Muhammad) is telling them to stop believing that they are the daughters of Allah. This is said explicitly by Peterson here: "As part of the polemic against the Meccan belief in the three goddess daughter's of Allah the Quran repeatedly asks Muhammad's opponents why, when they crave sons so much, they believe that God himself has only daughters." So, all the sources cited support a Mecan belief in the daughters of allah. DeCausa (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

And KahnJohn's edit summary in reverting me ("Already saw your reasons and they are not rational. Your wording makes it look like the Arabs definitely believed them to be daughters of Allah while there is no proof of this and neither the Quran ever calls them as daughters.") misses the point. It's not for us to determine whether 4 reliable sources correctly interpret the Quran. The fact is all 4 state that the daughters of Allah were a belief of the Meccans/Arabs. To challenge those secondary sources on the basis of an editor's own interpretation of a primary source, the Quran, is a clear case of [WP:OR]]. DeCausa (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Not a comment on substance, but a general suggestion to slow down a bit. We have so many disputes competing for our attention at once that some risk being left unresolved due to the level of distraction. Msubotin (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

This is the oldest one here and began in August. Here are the sources cited in the article:

• Jonathan Porter Berkey (2003). The Formation of Islam: Religion and Society in the Near East, 600-1800. Cambridge University Press. p. 42. ISBN 978-0-521-58813-3.
• Neal Robinson (5 November 2013). Islam: A Concise Introduction. Routledge. p. 75. ISBN 978-1-136-81773-1.
• Francis E. Peters (1994). Muhammad and the Origins of Islam. SUNY Press. p. 110. ISBN 978-0-7914-1875-8.</
• Daniel C. Peterson (26 February 2007). Muhammad, Prophet of God. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 46. ISBN 978-0-8028-0754-0.

DeCausa (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: You ommit the most important detail of your edits. Your edits removed the fact that Allah being a Meccan god and having daughters were simply opinions based on interpretations of Quran and turned those statement into a fact portraying that Allah was definitely a Meccan god and Arabs definitely believed that he had daughters even though there is no historical proof of this. This is simply another attempt by you to impose your belief that Allah was definitely a Meccan god and had daughters. However, we have went round and round this and these are simply opinions and interpretations. Even if all the sources share the same opinon, they can't be presented as a fact. That is improper synthesis and malforming of the information from sources. Also FE Peters says that the Quran establishes that they weren't daughters of Allah and if God had any children they would be sons. It alsl goes on to say that they were angels malformed into females. The statement of Quran refuting the idea that Allah had any children is correct and as per Peters' opinion. KahnJohn27 (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

That's simply untrue. This is what the above sources actually say, rather than your interpretation:

Berkey: "Several hundred Arabian deities are known from the Muslim sources the most prominent of which were those identified by the Arabs as the "three daughters of Allah" – Manat, Allat and al-Uzza..."

Robinson: "He [Allah] was not, in their [Arab pagans'] view the sole deity for they ascribed daughters to him, including the goddesses Allat, Manat, and al-Uzza."

Peters: "the other popular deities of the Meccans and their neighbours, the so-called daughters of Allah were named al-Lat, Manat, and al-Uzza."

Peters: "Allah has begotten? But they are surely liars! Would he choose daughters rather than sons? Quran 37:149-153) It is in this way that the Quran establishes that the three goddesses were not the 'daughters of Allah'.."

Peterson: "As part of the polemic against the Meccan belief in the three goddess daughter's of Allah the Quran repeatedly asks Muhammad's opponents why, when they crave sons so much, they believe that God himself has only daughters."

So, where is the source refuting that the Meccans believed in the daughters of Allah? DeCausa (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: You just proved the point that these opinions are based on the interpretations and speculations of Quran (which never calls the three godessess as daughters of Allah nor it says it is referring to Meccans or anyone else in particular) not actual historical proof. And in fact this article's full of speculations. And you presented these speculations as a fact. Besides Peters uses the word "so-called" and says it establishes that they weren't the daughters of Allah from which it is clear that he doesn't believe that they were daughters of Allah. Also the verse 37:150 between 148-153 is also there which wasn't available in the preview. "Or did We create the angels as females while they were witnesses?" Again you're up to your old usual POV of presenting it as that Allah was definitely a Meccan god and had children while in actual these are nothing more than opinions based on interpretations and deliberately remove the words specifying this thing. And this is improper self-made synthesis and misleading and malforming of the content of the source. KahnJohn27 (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Also try to re-read the Berkey source. The "daughters of Allah" is specifically highlighted with inverted commas which isn't done if someone is certain about something. And the first footnote of the page says what exactly they were is difficult to say. So I have to say the sources you presented themself cast doubts on such claims. KahnJohn27 (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I think DeCausa's understanding of Peters is correct. But Peters is a scholar of Islam, whereas we are interested in pre-Islam. So Peters is UNDUE here. All he can tell us is what the Muslim tradition believed about the pre-Islamic religion. But the Muslim tradition is unreliable. Berkey is the only source that has any weight, and the footnote 5 says what the Goddesses were is difficult to say. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I don't agree with this. Berkley's discussion of this question seems to be based on primary research by Crone, at least some of whose work on may be characterized as a fringe revisionist theory (see Hagarism). The subject of "Allah's daughters" is specific to Meccan religion, and all specialists of this subject are specialists of early Islamic sources. Msubotin (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we know enough about the pre-Islamic religion to call anything "mainstream" or "fringe." All we know is that there is a traditional account. It is the job of the scientists to find out whether it has any basis in reality. Crone is doing that. It is premature to call anything mainstream or fringe. Given that the Islamic tradition is the best we have so far, it is fine to attribute these ideas to the Islamic tradition. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

We attribute them to the scholars that have published on the subject. How they attribute them is a different matter. The question I asked KahnJohn27 is where are the sources putting forward the alternative view. No one's cited thdm yet. DeCausa (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Msubotin: @Kautilya3: The thing here is that no Islamic tradition or any Islamic source ever says that they were daughters of Allah. The scholars only postulate some of the Quranc verses to be saying they were daughters of Allah. That's their only source and that's visible from their works. And I've already specified in the article that it is based on interpretations of Quranic verses of the scholars. DeCausa's edits however presented that "Allah had daughters" as a complete fact instead of opinons. KahnJohn27 (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: And Decausa I already cite them. The sources you yourself cited cast doubt on this. And your edits turned the statements into a fact instead of opinons whoch they actually were. So your edits deserved to be reverted as they were self-made and improper synthesis that twisted the meaning of the content. KahnJohn27 (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, on the question specifically of UNDUE. The question boils down to this. Is there a source out there which says what KahnJohn27 says about the daughters of Allah? Is there a pre-Islamic Arabia specialist source that's commented on this? None have been cited yet. Until that's done we've got 4 sources (plus several others I cited earlier) that make the simple statement that the Meccans or pagan Arabs had a belief that the 3 goddesses were the daughters of Allah. It can't therefore be UNDUE because that is about disproportionately highlighting a point of view when other view(s) should be given greater prominence. But no other sourced view has yet been put forward. DeCausa (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: We're not going to get anywhere on this subject unless we keep straight an important distinction: being the daughters of Allah and being called daughters of Allah. Multiple Islamic historians state that pre-Islamic Meccan called them daughters of Allah, including the Books of Idols: "These were also called "the Daughters of Allah," and were supposed to intercede before God". Scholars use those references in addition to their analysis of the Quran to make the statements above. Obviously, no Islamic source is going to say that they were daughters of Allah, because that's not an Islamic belief. I'm not opposed to write more about primary sources, but I don't see where any of those authors are disputing the statement that they were called daughters of Allah. Msubotin (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: It seems that you don't want to believe that they themselves cast doubt on these claims even though they do. But the fact remains a fact. And you can't represent an opinion as a fact. KahnJohn27 (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, KahnJohn27 misleadingly uses terms like "fact." What he means by "fact" is whether these things were true of the pre-Islamic religion.

I said that these sources are UNDUE because they are not sources on pre-Islamic Arab religion. They are sources on the Islamic tradition. This is clear from the summary I wrote of Berkey's Chapter 3 several months ago, and Hawting has an entire book on it (which is called Polemic to History). So we shouldn't make the mistake of reporting Polemic as if it is History! - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: @Kautilya3: @KahnJohn27: There are certainly some scholars out there who wouldn't subscribe to the statement that they were called daughters of Allah, simply because they don't think Islamic sources can be used to write pre-Islamic history. I believe this is a minority view, but I agree with Kautilya3 that we should, as far as possible, avoid UNDUE without presuming to know which views are mainstream and fringe. However, I don't think that the right way to go about it is to insert "some scholars postulate" and "might have been" into every sentence on pre-/early Islamic history out there. How about we put a sentence at the start of the Mecca section noting that its history relies on Islamic sources, and this, together with the disclaimer at the end will help the reader put this material into perspective without having to struggle through tortuous syntax with qualifications in every sentence. Msubotin (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Msubotin: I've checked yoir claim about Book of Idols. That "daughters of Allah" from the English version is actually commentary by Nabith Amin Faris himself. And I've compared that to Arabic version of Book of Idols, however none of the Arabic words for the terms "daughters", "daughter", "daughter of Allah" occur anywhere. The Arabic version is available on Archive.org, you can confirm this yourself. As for the scholars, none of the sources cite anything outside the Quran, and the Book of Idols is never cited by anyone. And atleast 2 of the 4 sources given by DeCausa themselves cast doubt. So I think that the article should remain as it is as it perfectly describes the actual content of the sources. We never would have been disputing this if DeCausa didn't start inserting his own POV and synthesis into the article and adding improper synthesis. KahnJohn27 (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: Don't have time to check PDFs now, but it's there in the main text on Wikisource [[18]] كانوا يقولون: بنات الله (عز وجل عن ذلك) وهن يشفعن إليه Msubotin (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: When I used the word "facts" I meant that DeCausa's edits were portraying it as the Arabs calling the three goddesses as daughters of Allah is a fact. You can look at his edits yourself. KahnJohn27 (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Msubotin, it is fine to report both tradition and history, clearly separated. See for example Somnath#History and Ayodhya#Legacy, both of which I have worked on. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it's helpful to separate them whenever possible, but it's not our job to do it per WP:OR. We can only report the results of historians' labors, trying our best to avoid UNDUE. Msubotin (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

But we still do not have one secondary source that questions in any meaningful way the many sources that refer to the three godesses as the daughters of Allah". If someone could please link to such a source then that makes it all straightforward because then we can just qualify a statement in the article on the basis of that citation. But, at the moment, we have in the article a misintrepretation of Peters which is such an obvious howler it's embarrassing. So, could someone please link to a source that does that. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid you are not listening. I have already mentioned the summary of Berkey Chapter 3 that I wrote several months ago (see above), and the Hawting book. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Even checked your recent claim too but it doesn't appear anywhere in the Arabic version I have. So it's obviously a commentary. Not only that none of the sources here cite the Book of Idols as proof for daughters of Allah. All of them jsut yse the Quran to postualte it. So basically the wording of the article is completely correct. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: It looks like you're confident not only in your ability to read Arabic sources, but also the minds of authors to know what sources they have consulted. In the IA version [[19]] it's on electronic p55, right side, line 6, in the main text. Msubotin (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: Misinterpretation? Embarrassing? Weren't your own edits which were obviously your own synthesis that were perverting opinions into facts misinterpretations and embarrassing? As for misinterpretation of Peters, it's not. The article says what he says. Basically the article was fine as it is and you've unnecessarily created a dispute over it when there really was none. I suggest you stop trying to insert your POV at every point and focus on improving it. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Here the Hawting book. I am afraid it is not "straightforward."

• Jonathan Porter Berkey (2003), The Formation of Islam: Religion and Society in the Near East, 600-1800, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-58813-3

- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, pipelinking the word "listen" to IDHT is unlikely to encourage me to accept the validity of your point of view. I've been here at WP too long for that to impress me. I had already read what you have linkked to last September which is why I asked my question (and does remain unanswered). I don't see what can be cited from those pieces which challenges the specifics of what we're talking about here. Can you cite a page number from either that does that? DeCausa (talk) 21:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Msubotin: Checked that but it's not there. Besides lol mind reader? Check the sources yourself and tell me if anyone if them uses the Book of Idols or anything besides the Quran and speculations. Your mocking insults won't make others people into agreeing with you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: You've been too long and yet you immaturishly impose your POV and edit what you want. Besides the Berkey source specifically says that it's difficult to know what the three goddess actually were. It you not only have a problem in listening but accepting facts that are contrary to what you believe. And I believe you've already imposed enough of your views. User:Kautilya3, I believe this opinon of Berkey should be added to the article as well. What do you think? KahnJohn27 (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: If you can't recognize letters in different Arabic fonts and think I'm acting in bad faith, do a RFC for an Arabic speaker. There are some 300M out there. And how else are we supposed to establish what sources a historian didn't use? Msubotin (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Msubotin: Yeah yeah whatever. As I told you just check the sources. They leave footnotes and sometimes directly cite what source they are using. Try reading them instead of mocking me here. KahnJohn27 (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, sometimes. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. Msubotin (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Msubotin: I said sometimes they leave footnotes and other times they cite it directly [in the page". As far as I've seen on the sources none of them have used anything besides the Quran. The sentencing of the article seems accurate but it seems you and DeCausa only want your views added. Sorry but Wikipedia isn't going to function the way only you want it to. KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

This is going in circles yet again. Here's a proposal to replace existing text of the 2nd paragraph of the Mecca section (with no reference at all in the Allah section):

The three chief goddesses of Meccan religion were Al-lāt, Al-‘Uzzá, and Manāt. According to Muslim sources, the godessess were referred to by Arab polytheists as the "daughters of Allah".<source: Berkey p.42> However, xxx.<Source: either Hawting or Berkey incl. Page no.>

Kautilya3, can you suggest text – I think it should be just one sentence – qualifying the previous sentence sourced to either Berkey or Hawting for the 'xxx' plus page no. for the citation? DeCausa (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

If we're specifying the sources, do we need the "However"? I thought it was just the statement as bare fact that the others were objecting to (Kauliya at least). As I said before, the "however" applies to the whole section. It serves no purpose to replicate it multiple times. Msubotin (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: You're back to the same old thing again. Again you're making false synthesis and inserting your own views. You're making it seem like the Arab polytheists definitely reffered to them as daughters of Allah which isn't true. And neither any of the Muslim sources say they were referred to as daughters of Allah nor any of the scholars are citing them. The current version of the article, "Some scholars postulate based on the verses of Quran" is correct and accurate to the sources. So there's no need to change it. I think you've brute forced enough of what you want already. KahnJohn27 (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Berkey, p.42: "Several hundred Arabian deities are known from the Muslim sources the most prominent of which were those identified by the Arabs as the "three daughters of Allah" – Manat, Allat and al-Uzza..." DeCausa (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Msubotin, I'm happy with just the first two sentences, but I had thought Kautilya3 was looking for something along the lines of the "however". But if not, and we have consensus on the first two sentences then we can wrap it up there. Over to you Kautilya3. DeCausa (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

By all means, let's include a statement about different assessments of the sources, whether in the form of the disclaimer I put there, or some variation of that. There's another problem with making those disclaimers for specific sentences besides encumbering them. If we qualify some sentences and don't qualify others, it creates a false distinction. All the information about Mecca in the section comes from the same handful of post-Islamic sources and is assessed by historians with greater or lesser overall confidence depending on their methodological persuasion. Msubotin (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: You didn't notice the "" highlighting daughters of Allah or that it doesn't use any Muslim source to cite this claim. Also here' s the first footnote on the page 42 What exactly the three goddesses were or what light they shed on pre-Islamic religion is however difficult to say. It seems you're just getting a consensus to force your views but that's not gonna happen. Will you stop trying to brute force everything you want? KahnJohn27 (talk) 00

11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The name of the scholars need to be separately mentioned if they're only shared by a few scholars. Also all of the scholars won't share the same opinons and as many times said they're opinions so it's important to notify that they're opiniond of some scholard. KahnJohn27 (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Msubotin, I didn't notice that edit. So, Kautilya3, with Msubotin's general caveat added here would you be satisfied with the first two sentences of the above proposal? DeCausa (talk) 07:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: Don't know about Kautilya3 but your first 2 sentences are presenting that they were called Allah's daughters as facts. When they are just opinions of scholars. As for Msubotin's caveat they do not concern the article since it isn't the reliability of Islamic sources. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The situation with Muslim sources actually seems more complex than that, and I believe we can make a more informative statement. Al-Tabari in his tafsir (which I can find only in Arabic online) records two reports. One states that the goddesses were called daughters of Allah, and another says that it was angels who were called that. The Book of Idols (at the start of the section on Uzza) reports a formula that the Meccans used to chant as they marched around the Kaaba invoking on the three, and says that they were called daughters of Allah and were supposed to intercede with him. The Princeton translation of it is online, though it's hosted on an anti-Islam site I don't want to link to. I think the intercession part would be important to mention. I would prefer to use secondary sources on this, but the Book of Idols and al-Tabari make simple declarative statements, which it should be ok per relate directly per WP:PRIMARY and WP:NONENG. We could get a consensus on a qualified proposal like "Some Muslim sources" and then expand. Msubotin (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Msubotin: Al-Tabari never calls them daughters of Allah in his tafsir. I searched your claim and came up only with ths https://books.google.com/books?id=kd3lefd9HO0C&pg=PA81&dq=al+tabari+daughters+of+allah&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiD-oXSuKnJAhUVCY4KHUzHDUwQ6AEIJjAC#v=onepage&q=al%20tabari%20daughters%20of%20allah&f=false English translation of Tabari's work. However Tabari never calls them as daughters of Allah here. It is actually the translators themselved who call them as "daughters of Allah" in the footnote. It is a commentary by the translators not Tabari claiming so just like the The Book of Idols. So inserting that "Earlier Muslim sources say Meccans called the three goddesses as daughters of Allah" is contrary to the actual content of the source. KahnJohn27 (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: You got the wrong work. Check the title. Msubotin (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Msubotin: Nope. Turned up translation of Tabari's volume https://books.google.com/books?id=SdrtpZQphYUC&pg=PA76&dq=al+tabari+daughters+of+allah&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiahquauqnJAhURB44KHdx1AnsQ6AEIQTAH#v=onepage&q=al%20tabari%20daughters%20of%20allah&f=false . Here too it is the translators calling them "daughters of Allah" so I'm sure the one you noticed in the Arabic version is a commentary just like this one. KahnJohn27 (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: Good grief, is it hard to check the title? You're linking to his history, not his tafsir. Msubotin (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Msubotin: Oh sorry about that. ai'll check it. But I've checked your claim about Book of Idols from the English version on pg 17 again and this time with the full preview and it's without any doubt a commentary by the translator as he's using Tafsir al-Tabari in fottnote to claim they were "daughters of Alalh". https://books.google.com/books?id=QSvWCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA17&dq=al+tabari+daughters+of+allah&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwixqrqsvanJAhWXB44KHdHaAlw4FBDoAQgeMAE#v=onepage&q=al%20tabari%20daughters%20of%20allah&f=false

The interesting thing here is he claims it is on Tabari's vol XXVII (27). However al Tabari's tafsir work does not have 27 volumes. I'll however check it and try to verify if this is true. KahnJohn27 (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Msubotin: I've checked the Arabic version of the Tafsir. None of the translated words for daughter, daughters of Allah, daughter occur anywhere. I've even checked the Arabic word of Allah in specific and it's the same result, the words for daughters/daughter don't appear anywhere. So as far as the article is concerned you cannot add such a thing. The present sentencing is correct. KahnJohn27 (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: I'm afraid I can't take this objection seriously per WP:COMPETENCE. The right way to verify editor translations and sources that you can't read yourself is through WP:RFC. Msubotin (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Msubotin, I'm not overly keen on citing primary sources, but I guess if it simply quoting what is in Tabari/Book of Idols and is attributed and is a follow on from the Berkley sourced statement that's ok i.e.:The three chief goddesses of Meccan religion were Al-lāt, Al-‘Uzzá, and Manāt. According to Muslim sources, the godessess were referred to by Arab polytheists as the "daughters of Allah".<source: Berkey p.42> The Book of Idols says X and Al-Tabari states Y.." something like that. Could you suggest wording for the two muslim sources? DeCausa (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: That's not happening until Msubotin can verify they contain such things and after checking their original Arabic version they don't. As for the Book of Idols read my 2nd last comment to Msubotin, it proves that it's a comment by the translator not the text by the original author Ibn-Kalbi. KahnJohn27 (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Msubotin: I don't need to be an Arabic speaker to understand Arabic words. I've combed the sources thouroughly. Even looking for specific words. However I've come up with nothing. Even your claim of Book of Idols has turned out to be incorrect. So the article will stay as it is. KahnJohn27 (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Can I please check: KahnJohn27, Msbotin: who of you can read Arabic? DeCausa (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't claim to be an expert on classical Arabic, but I know it well enough to read material like the relevant passages without a dictionary. If I'm not confident in my understanding of the text, I won't put it in. Msubotin (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: I will. I just want to take some time to handle the additional details carefully, and I don't want this to distract us from building a consensus about the general approach of handling methodological controversies in this section. I'd like to get Kautilya3 opinion on the two sentences you proposed before, qualifying it as "some Muslim sources". Some later sources ran with the "angels" version (e.g., the tafsiir of Ibn Kathir - see translation here [[20]] and here [[21]], so adding "some" shouldn't be controversial. Msubotin (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Msubotin: Your tafsir translations appear basically same as the Quranic verses. Neither I notice them anywhere calling the three goddesses as daughters. Therefore adding that "some Muslim sources say they were the daughters of Allah" will be self-synthesis even though actually none is saying that. As I've said earlier many times, the sentencing should be kept as it is. KahnJohn27 (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually it's irrelevant. We cannot use any primary sources to make any sort of assertion that "muslim sources" or "some muslim sources" say x. All it entitles us to do is to say that source says x. The citation for "muslim sources" or "some muslim sources" has to come from a secondary source and page 42 of Berkey does that. DeCausa (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: Ok, fair enough. We can go with your wording, and I'll look into additional details more closely later. Msubotin (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Msubotin: @DeCausa: This isn't a personal dictatorship here. DeCausa's statements twist the thing that "the godessess were called Allah's daughters" into a complete fact. However none of the sources say it was a fact. It is a self-synthesised statement by DeCausa. That kind of statement can't be added regardless of how many people agree. A consensus cannot add improper self-made synthesis and POV into an article. KahnJohn27 (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? All it says is that Muslim sources say it - which is all Berkey says. What's the issue? DeCausa (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Or we can use a direct quote from a published translation of a primary source backed up by secondary sources: According to the Book of Idols, they were also called "the Daughters of Allah," and were supposed to intercede before God. I don't know where KahnJohn27 is looking, but everyone else should be able to verify this online. Just do a search for "were also etc" and check the "answering Islam" site. Msubotin (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Already checked your claims properly. However none of it is correct and I've provided the results already. Besides "Answering Islam" is anti-Islamic website that bends everything, ommits details and makes false hypothesis to prove itself correct. I've read their material many times. But I've checked the Book of Idols online and haven't found it anywhere saying they were daughters of Allah. And the one you pointed in English version is a commentary. And the original Arabic version turned up mothing of such kind. So basically as I see the article will remain the same. KahnJohn27 (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Really, "properly"? The snippet preview on Google Books [[22]] shows the same placement of the phrase as in three other versions I've checked. What a waste of time. Msubotin (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't read Arabic but this translation – Ibn al-Kalbi (8 December 2015). Book of Idols. Princeton University Press. p. 17. ISBN 978-1-4008-7679-2. – which I can see in full view not snippet clearly states in the translation not in any commentary "daughters of Allah". DeCausa (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: @Msubotin: I guess you didn't read the previous comments. As I said I've accessed the full preview of the page 17. It's clearly a commentary especially from the way the translator uses the footnote. Here's the link to the full preview of the page:

https://books.google.com/books?id=QSvWCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA17&dq=al+tabari+daughters+of+allah&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=al%20tabari%20daughters%20of%20allah&f=false

What are you talking about? Don't you understand that Page 17 is a translation of the Book of idols. What commentary? The only commentary are the footnotes in italics at the bottom of the page. what commentary are you talking about? Explain yourself and stop wasting our time. DeCausa (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Lol how many times you need explanations? How does a translation have a footnote citing works of others that too some from modern scholars? Talking about translations, I checked the original Arabic ones, nowhere did I find anything such in them. And also try reading Kautilya3's latest section of "sources" about the Quranic verses. Now if you'll excuse me enough time has been wasted over your petty wants, no offence but that's what it is. And really I've been going on and on over this article over many days and I will take some time off though if need be I'll come back whenever I'm required. Honestly I've been literally drained completely because of you over the last many days. Especially continuing a proplonged discussion everyday for hours with someone who only cares about enforcing his own POV doesn't make sense. Happy editing anyway. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

This reply indicates a WP:COMPETENCE issue in using academic editions of primary sources. The footnotes here, as is often the case, point out other materials that can be consulted on the same topic. Msubotin (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I said happy editing! And that was meant to everyone. We'll discuss it later of you want to. Even though you might not be, right now I'm tired and drained literally, especially because of the numerous discussions of the article that have been ridiculously going on for days and that too continously. And the constant unending discussion is gonna send me to mental breakdown. I'm gonna take a short time off. Now have a nice day! KahnJohn27 (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Are you seriously saying that you think it's not a translation because it's got footnotes? That is idiotic. Have you never seen an edited edition of a primary source before? You are either being deliberately disruptive with that comment or there is a serious problem with your WP:COMPETENCE. DeCausa (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: All I'll say I still don't agree with you and it's a copycat of Msubotin's statement, but I'm sure everyone here can use a break for a while especially me. I hope you won't mind the discussion remains open for a while. Now as I said HAVE A NICE DAY! Bye! KahnJohn27 (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Sources

Taking a step back, I decided to understand the nature of the sources we are dealing with. Donner's article in the Cambridge Companion was very helpful in this regard. Hawting's book is quite influential, with about a dozen journal reviews. But it is written for the specialist, and it has been hard for me to get a grip on it. Having read some of the reviews, I now see that Hawting bases his analysis directly on the text of Quran, and finds that the people that Quran calls polytheists are in fact monotheists that are imperfect from Quran's point of view. Accordingly, I have added a section on Sources prefacing the whole discussion. Given the uncertainty surrounding the whole subject, I don't think there is too much point in debating what is "true" or "factual." We simply have no idea. So, we should just report the multiple points of view, and let the readers make up their own mind. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the good start. I've moved it under Mecca, because it doesn't really apply to the sections on other regions, whose history depends primarily on other evidence. I will try to integrate it with the Humphrey digest I made above. We want to alert the reader to the controversies in the field rather than simply discussing skeptical views, which would be WP:UNDUE. Msubotin (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Msubotin: @Kautilya3: Good to see something meaningful and of real value and relevance added to this article. From a short look it looks a fine piece. Good job guys. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, KahnJohn27. I'm sure it's been exhausting for all involved and I'm glad that it looks like a way forward. Msubotin (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks good but I've got a couple of questions on it. It is Mecca specific, right? The opening sentence is "The majority of our information about the pre-Islamic religion in Arabia comes from the text of Quran itself and the literature dealing with the biography of the prophet Mohammad." That seems broader than Mecca. Also, next citation is page 23 of Donner but I can't see anything in the cited page that supports that statement. I don't think it's true either. The Quran has very little on the south and east which comes from other quite rich sources (including in relation to Nestorianism as well as southern paganism). I think it should probably be amended to refer to Mecca or the Hejaz. Also minor point: we've got Berkey making the same point twice in that section and in the background section (not much known on polytheism generally). I think there's probably some rationalisation to be done between the background section and the sources section, but I'm not quite sure what goes where. DeCausa (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like Donner's discussion may have been stretched a little beyond its intended scope. Let me read it in full and then try integrating it with Humphrey. On the second thought, I think the discussion in Sources should be appended to Background, specifying that it refers to Mecca. I went ahead and moved it together with the additional information. Msubotin (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, Meccan is probably the right interpretation. Donner is talking about "Quran's historical context" on p.23. The text of Quran is not mentioned on this page, but it is talked about later in relation to Hawting. Berkey can also be added of course.

On the subject of integration, I think the remark about Crone and Cook should also be integrated into this section. - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Donner also wrote a review of Hawting here where he says another possibility is that the Meccans might have been "converted" to a monotheistic religion by the time of Mohammad. It seems a bit far-fetched, but there could have been a significant monotheistic element in Meccan beliefs of the time (coming from Judaism or Christianity or both). - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest putting Hawting's theory and other positive statements about religion in Mecca into the main narrative (currently "Interpretation"), perhaps at the end of it, following the more traditional reading of sources. Msubotin (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't like this edit. Hawting's view has found widespread acceptance among scholars. Moreover, it comes directly from the analysis of Quran, overriding the unreliable tradition. So there is no way than we can give the tradition priority.

The Donner's point in the review is just a theory. So we can't mention that at all. We are also not mentioning the other part of Hawting's analysis that Quran itself was set in Syria/Iraq, because it did not find acceptance by scholars. We report views that have scholarly consensus, not every view mentioned by everybody. - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Could you point me to discussion of acceptance of Hawting's view? As far as I can tell, the reliability of tradition for this period is a matter of continued controversy with no consensus in the field. It's very hard for a non-specialist to judge these things without WP:OR, because scholars in all fields share a natural human tendency to trump up the level of acceptance of the views they personally agree with. One thing I like about Humphreys is that he seems to bend over backwards to be fair and has good things to say about works promoting diametrically opposing views. Msubotin (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is defending the tradition. The fact that it was composed 150 years after the fact immediately makes it unreliable. The only people peddling it are the scholars of Islam. Among the historians, it seems to have been discredited a long time ago. Note how Donner explicitly marks as it as the "tradition" in his review article.

The Hawting view is cited by Donner in his review article, which means it is accepted. You can read the Bulletin of SOAS article that I cited, which is in fact a preface to a special issue dedicated to Hawting. It mentions a dozen reviews of the Hawting's book.

WP:OR means writing one's views on Wikipedia. Assessing scholarly sources and scholarly consensus is not OR. That is something we are expected to do.- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, can you share your experience of how this has been (successfully) done on Wikipedia in other matters of scholarly controversy? What criteria are we supposed to use as non-specialists to gauge the level of acceptance for this or that view? Do we track down a sample of reviews of Hawting's work and tally the yea's and the nay's? Msubotin (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

We can do that. But remember that consensus does not mean a tally. You are expected to assess the sources. For example, a review article titled "Historical context" in a volume titled "Cambridge Companion" gets very high points. This is the about highest quality source you can imagine. You cannot count it the same as some unknown scholar writing in some cornerplace journal. So it will be quite labour-intensive if you want to look at all the sources and figure out the consensus. But looking at a sample of reviews is not a bad idea.

You ask what criteria we should use. The quality of the journal, the quality of the reviewer, the specialism of the reviewer and the view itself that has been expressed and the depth of the analysis. And you should remember that we are dealing with history, the qualified reliable sources are described in WP:HISTRS. Most Islamic scholars that you have been using here probably don't qualify. - Kautilya3 (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I missed two paragraphs starting with "I don't think..." That argument sounds circular to me. The scholars of early Islamic sources are the only ones who are qualified to assess reliability of early Islamic sources, based on their knowledge of them, together with other available evidence (very skimpy in this case). As I hope the digest of Humphrey makes clear, the situation is more complex than that. The sources achieved their "definitive form" one or two centuries after the fact. They were based on other sources written down earlier (scholars don't agree when), and those earlier sources recorded an oral tradition with attribution chains (scholars don't agree how authentic, either the tradition or the chains, which are two different assessments). Anyway, it's fun to discuss this, but it may be too much talk for the minor content dispute that we're having here. Let me read some more stuff and work on the text. Msubotin (talk) 02:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Donner seems to be in the skeptical camp himself, but his assessment of the field seems to agree with Humphreys in general outlines: "The issues raised by these recent skeptical writers and their critical predecessors have yet to be definitively resolved by scholars of the Qur'an. There is evidence to support the contention that some reports of the sira literature are of dubious validity... On the other hand, there is evidence to support the contention that the sira narratives originated independently of the Qur'an.... Scholars differ greatly in their judgements about the degree to which these characteristics undermine the historical reliability of the sira literature, some rejecting its testimony almost completely, others feeling that the main outlines of the sira are probably authentic. But... there is as yet no generally accepted and foolproof method for distinguishing what might be true from what might be false." That hardly sounds to me like a consensus to dismiss Muslim historiography and replace it with inferences from other sources. Msubotin (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Donner might be in the skeptical camp, but this is a review article that is trying to document the contemporary scholarly consensus (or the lack of it). Even if he is a skeptic, he gave a detailed account of the tradition, clearly labelling it as such. That is scholarly WP:NPOV. We should do the same. We could follow his presentation style, for example, with a section called traditional account, and another called contemporary analysis. To do that, we would need to know precisely which of our sources are documenting tradition and which are contesting it. Instead, I followed the approach of writing a short preface, which castes sufficient doubt on the tradition ahead of time so that the reader can keep it in mind. Your edit basically killed its purpose. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure which part of my edit(s) you're referring to. The background section seems to cast plenty of doubt (I would still like to expand it a bit to better reflect the assessments by Humphreys and Donner above). I agree that the presentation of material in the Mecca section could be clearer (some statements that seem to come only from the book of Idols are labeled as such, while others, of apparently similar nature are sourced from elsewhere), but much of it -- and I'm not exactly sure how much -- does not reflect a traditional Islamic account but rather modern scholarly views. Even when the two rely on the same sources, they often interpret them differently. We can't even present a single "traditional" account because the medieval Islamic tradition itself is full of scholarly controversy. I'm trying to give different modern interpretations of source material a voice while avoiding WP:UNDUE in discussion of methodological issues. Msubotin (talk) 13:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

This [23] is the edit you mentioned above. You can't move it out because it is the only one listed that bases its analysis on Quran. Donner's endnote 4 makes clear that Montgomery Watt and F. E. Peters are basing their analysis on the Sira literature. Incidentally, I am not sure why the reference to Sira literature has been removed. It is used throughout the article of Donner. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree about the placement of this passage, but I don't feel strongly about it. If you do, I would be ok with moving it back. You're right about "sira". When I looked at the literature he cites in a footnote, I realized that he uses the word in the usual way (the exclusion of hadith apparently reflects the tendency to give more credence to sira works than hadith among Western scholars, contrary to the tendency in traditional Muslim historiography), so I was going to put it back when I expanded this paragraph. Msubotin (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm done with my expansion. I've dropped the Hawting ref because I don't have access to that page to check whether it agrees with the new phrasing. Msubotin (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I've re-added the theory about Mecca being already Christian, properly attributed, based on Donner's assessment that it's a better hypothesis than the one proposed by Hawting. One thing I've noticed in the review is that Donner seems unconvinced by Hawting's argument about unreliability of The Book of Idols (aka Kitab al-asnam). Msubotin (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Self-revert. Seems like a work with very low acceptance and based on details like in this review [[24]] not of very good quality. Msubotin (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Allat's image

I see the image of Allat in "Religion in Mecca" saying it is from Taif. However I'm unable to confirm it at all if this image is what it is described as in the caption and details of the image. The website from which this image has been taken is dead. And I'm unable to find any reliable website on Google that contains this image and tells where it is from. As far as Taif goes, Allat's dhrine in Taif was destroyed. If this Bas-relief is really from Taif then that means there must have been some sort of ruins of the shrine at Taif which there isn't. John F. Healey and Venetia Porter describe on page number 107 of their book "Studies on Arabia in Honour of G. Rex Smith" that The formal archaeological surveys and investigations that have taken place so far in Saudi Arabia are silent on the pagan temples that the Prophet ordered destroyed in al-Hijaz and Najd. I think there is considerable amount of doubt for this Allat image as it's original source does not seem to be known. KahnJohn27 (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nice as the image is, its caption does seem to be flaky. I looked through all instances of the image turned up by Google's image search, and none of them is on a reliable site. I propose replacing it by the old drawing of Kaaba's black stone shown here. Msubotin (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

New account notice

Since I've taken part in some heated discussion on this page, I'm making this extra step of noting my privacy-related move a new account: msubotin -> Eperoton (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Daughers of Allah redux

A dispute regarding on this point was temporarily put on hold over a year ago, and hasn't been revisited since. The user who argued for keeping current phrasing has been indeffed, so I'll just paste here the sourcing for the change given earlier by DeCausa and go ahead with it.

• Berkey: "Several hundred Arabian deities are known from the Muslim sources the most prominent of which were those identified by the Arabs as the "three daughters of Allah" – Manat, Allat and al-Uzza..."
• Robinson: "He [Allah] was not, in their [Arab pagans'] view the sole deity for they ascribed daughters to him, including the goddesses Allat, Manat, and al-Uzza."
• Peters: "the other popular deities of the Meccans and their neighbours, the so-called daughters of Allah were named al-Lat, Manat, and al-Uzza."
• Peters: "Allah has begotten? But they are surely liars! Would he choose daughters rather than sons? Quran 37:149-153) It is in this way that the Quran establishes that the three goddesses were not the 'daughters of Allah'.."
• Peterson: "As part of the polemic against the Meccan belief in the three goddess daughter's of Allah the Quran repeatedly asks Muhammad's opponents why, when they crave sons so much, they believe that God himself has only daughters."

It's clear that according to Peters the Quran states that the goddesses weren't the daughters of Allah. It doesn't state that the Arabs didn't believe that they were the daughters of Allah. Eperoton (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

My edits

Oshwah Why did you revert my edit? I was shifting the content added by the IP, not outright deleting it. The section is about polytheism and native religious beliefs. Therefore I was shifting it. Sorry as I didn't mention that originally but you should have waited for some time or contacted me instead of reverting so soon. 117.199.89.177 (talk)

Ah, this is why I was confused. Your edit here gave input on the content itself, but didn't explain exactly what you were doing and why. In the future, just make sure that you explain this with edits in your edit summaries; it helps other editors to understand what you're doing, why, and avoid confusion and mistakes (like this, for example... lol). Were you able to undo the revert I made? Or do you need my assistance doing so? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah I'll remove it myself. I have added the material to other sections where it is relevant. Also I've removed content that is not related to here. Most of it is about the languages spoken by people in pre-Islamic Arabia. That might be appropriate for an article about pre-Islamic Arabia or its languages or culture or people etc but this is solely about religion. And the rest has been shifted to where it belongs. Thanks for understanding anyway. 117.199.89.177 (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The text about Christians in Eastern Arabia could go either into the section on Christianity or the section on Eastern Arabia, but the passage I just restored is clearly relevant to the article and should not be removed. Eperoton (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

On closer inspection, I agree that the placement was inappropriate, and I see that you've already moved one of the sentences. I moved the sentence which talked about the liturgical language. Eperoton (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Eperoton Why have you restored the whole thing? What you restored is about languages spoken by the people. While it may make sense on an article about pre-Islamic Arabs or Arabia as a whole or their languages or about the Bahraini people, this is strictly for religion. There are a lot of regions and tribes and civilizations here, the article will become unnecessarily large if we add everything to them. I can understand your point about liturgical language, but the rest of the content is irrelevant. Also the use of Syriac is very ambiguous. It isn't stated whether it was used as liturgical language by a particular group or by everyone or was used by most. I didn't think it was relevant. I don't see any rational reason to restore it. I might be okay with liturgical language as it at least have something to do with religious affairs, but the other things are irrelevant and the liturgical language is ambiguous. 117.215.225.124 (talk) 01:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

You have a point. Let's keep just the part about liturgical language. Eperoton (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Eperoton Thank you for doing that. 117.199.89.61 (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Removed the sentence that claimed Christianity was the dominant religion in Eastern Arabia. The sources attached to that claim do not say so. CaliphoShah (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Split article?

To be honest, the polytheism section is too long and out of proportion to the rest of the article. I suggest splitting the polytheism section to a separate page (maybe "Pre-Islamic Arab paganism" or "Pre-Islamic Arab polytheism"), and a summary of the polytheism on this article instead (similar to other "Religion in" pages). Just my suggestion. HouseGecko (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think the polytheism section out of proportion; rather the opposite. It's long relative to the rest of the article because it reflects the relative weight this sub-topic receives in RSs. It's not excessively long in absolute terms. Eperoton (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Eperoton's comment above. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

What exactly is a "mix" of religions?

1st sentence: "mix of polytheism, Christianity, Judaism, and Iranian religions." Sounds like sloppy formulation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.36.175.217 (talk) 09:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)