Jump to content

Talk:Abrahamic religions/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

I'm not a member of the religion WikiProject, but a Jewish editor reviewing it for the Judaism Wikiproject. I give it a B rating because the article has all the basic necessary elements: well-organized sections, development of individual religions in context of a broader theme, images, and references. However, the quality of the writing is shoddy and inconsistent. It's typical for such articles to have different authors representing the various religions, and someone needs to review the whole article - and it's a very long article - to harmonize the various elements according to summary style, improve the quality of writing, and resolve POV disputes. Shalom Hello 02:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


Rastafari

I am curious as to why the article seems to only be about the "Big 3" abrahamic religions and does not mention smaller abrahamic religions such as Rastafari. Rastafarians worship the abrahamic God ("Jah") just as these do. Please discuss. --76.121.134.253 (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the Term

No reference to the term is made. The term is a modern and subjective label. This should be clarified in the article. Otherwise, it is misleading for the reader, who thinks this term is a generic and old account of the listed faiths.

This is a good point, it is a modern neologism and a misleading one at that, none of the religions described as Abrahamic consider themselves to have started with Abraham. As a nation the Jewish people are considered to have begun with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob but Judaism as a religion does not regard Abraham as having started Judaism as a religion as Adam, Noah, Shem, Eber for example are regarded as having practised Judaism according to tradition. Historically Christianity began with Jesus and Islam with Mohammed although they regard Abraham as an exemplary figure, a prophet in Islam in fact, but he is not the most important such figure in these religions, Moses would be a good example of someone of higher importance.
I'm concerned that this misleading and annoying neologism is being shoved into many articles on Christianity, Judaism and Islam etc. Which liberal scholar coined this phrase and just how well received is it, and which schools of thought use it? (Its certainly not used in tradional Christian and Jewish seminaries.) Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I too am concerned that what is essentially a particular religious concept (in this case muslim) is spreading through wikipedia. There are no 'Abrahamic' religions as such. Given that it seems to mean no more than 'monotheistic religion' I would suggest dropping the 'Abrahamic' and replacing such with a far more neutral term.
13:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmdavid (talk • contribs)
This is old territory, see the older comments. Dovid (talk) 05:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sexuality in Abrahamic Religion

This section needs reworking. Let's remove the terms "negative" and "positive" and let readers make their own value judgments.

"It may be that a distinguishing characteristic of the Abrahamic religions is their generally negative stance on homosexuality, zoophilia and, in some cases, human sexuality in general, notably outside of marriage and in non-procreative contexts."
"A distinguishing characteristic of the Abrahamic religions is their general respect and reverence for human sexuality, enshrining it in the institution of marriage, and disavowing sexual acts outside of this context, such as homosexuality, zoophilia, and pedophilia."
Two ways of saying the same thing. Again,
"sexuality was considered in a more positive light (positive in the sense that it was not recommended by their Non-Abrahamic religions to legislate death punishments for the practices of homosexuality or prostitution.)"
"sexuality was treated in a less reverential light (see Herodotus where marriageable girls in Babylon were offered for a duration as temple prostitutes before entering into marriage)."
The fact that the parenthetical explanation of "positive" was as long as the original sentence argues that this can be worded much better.
"It seems to be a mark among some versions of the rise of Abrahamic traditions that all sexuality was eliminated from the concept of the divine. Notable exceptions include Judaism (i.e. Song of Songs, Kabbalah, Hassidism), Sikhism and within Islam."
sounds like original research. if you cannot source that, let's remove it.

"By the time of the triumph of Christianity, in the late 4th century CE this was generally true throughout the realms of the declining Roman Empire. For example, within territories where Christianity and Judaism held political power the presence of femininity in local deities as well as the Godhead was eliminated. Contrastingly, the Non-Abrahamic religions accepted female high-priestesses. They also believed in the existence of many powerful female divinities like Athena, the Greek goddess of wisdom, and Isis, who was worshipped as the archetypal wife and mother."
Christians and Jews didn't endorse worship of the Moon in the persona of Diana and this means they eliminated sexuality from the concept of the divine? wp:nor. second, eliminating worship of another religion does not equate to eliminating doctrine within one's own religion proper. why not mention something about Theotokos, Mary mother of Jesus as Mother of God? i suspect there might be a Theotokos page, and could prolly copy/paste the intro to here.
"In general Abrahamic Religions negate the possibility of sexual openness with respect to the divine nature."
sexual openness? For Abrahamic religions, what you mean by sexual openness may very well be sexual perversion. first of all, source? no source, let's delete.

Homosexuality
"Many of the sacred texts of the Abrahamic Religions refer to homosexual behavior as an abomination, deriving from the Holiness Code of the book of Leviticus and an interpretation of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and the punishment the deserved. By the first century, the writings of Philo Judaeus and Flavius Josephus evolved it into a fully developed form. Thus the condemnation of homosexuality in all Abrahamic religions has a single Old Testament source in addition to any separate reference in other holy books. While the Abrahamic religions unequivocally condemn male homosexuality, lesbianism is nowhere explicitly mentioned in the Old Testament, the New Testament, or the Qur'an; though some scholars have argued the passage in Romans 1:26, "Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural," is a reference to it."

finally, incorporation of this link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality The Jackal God 04:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This whole section is totally unsourced and highly dubious. Abrahamic views on sexuality aren't particulary distinguishing. Just ask the Dalia Lama's views on premarital sex and homosexuality. The severity of the punishments may be distinguishing, but Abrahamic punishments are severe in general. This whole section needs immediate sourced to avoid being chopped as WP:OR. Ashmoo (talk) 08:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The claim that Abrahamism unequivocally condemns male homosexuality is completely false. There are many sects that allow it, and there have been many different interpretations of the Lev. verses. As mentioned, sexuality certainly isn't very distinguishing, particularly when many scholars argue as to the actual intention of the Lev. verses. I'm beginning to wonder if this really even has a place in this article. You could perhaps say something like, "Abrahamic religions have varying traditions of dealing with homosexuality, many of which have been the death penalty, though no tradition has been held consistently." Is there really anything else that can be said here? The other article covers this. Wakablogger2 (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire

I think the forced conversions (and attempted force conversions) of the Ottoman Empire need to be mentioned in this article if the Crusades are to be mentioned and this article is to remain balanced.--Girl-razor 22:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow people are narrow minded

"This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Abrahamic religion article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject."

This whole section should be deleted--Editor2020 (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Its so ironic and sad that Islam, Christianity, and Judaism have warred and caused so much suffering over the years, while failing to realize that they all worship the same god. Its like three siblings killing each other over whose parent is real. Warfwar3 00:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Post it on a forum idiot.^--71.107.217.121 03:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


They do not worship the same God. Allah is much different from Yahweh. Yahweh, in both Judaism and Christianity, tries to have a personal relationship with his people. Allah does Not. He is unknowable. Even in Paradise thjere is a viel over his face. He does not forgive like Yahweh. And, unlike Yahweh, he encourages womanizing.

72.147.172.205 20:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC) 20 June, 2007

Wow! Another narrow-minded person who just doesn't seem to get it. Jews, Christians and Muslims DO BELIEVE IN/WORSHIP THE SAME BIBLICAL DEITY! Go ask an Arab Christian, hmmm, they use the word Allah! Why? Because it's Arabic and they speak Arabic! But what I'd really like to ad is to the comments regarding these three religions as being like siblings... that's exactly what is going on in a way. One has to realize that these religions' myths are all about sibling rivalries and it's only appropriate for humans to do what their religions condone or at least seem to condone. Carlon 16:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a blog. Argue about this elsewhere. For a bit more info on the subject, see Abrahamic religion. -- Boracay Bill 22:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


I believe his point is a distinction between the Jewish/Christian and Islamic concept of the 'one true God.' It is obvious that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all share a common Abrahamic heritage. The point is simply that the Islamic view differs from the Jewish/Christian one. This has applicability to the article because it relates to the differences between the three Abrahamic religions. Frstep1 (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I find it Ironic that you would draw a distinction between the Islamic view and "the Jewish/Christian ONE", since the Islamic and Jewish views seem FAR closer to each other than either does to Christianity.--Ff11 (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I seem some symbolic undertone in the siblings comment (dunno if it was intended or not), since the Israelites were descended from Isaac/Ishaq and the Arabs descended from Ishmael/Ismail; thus both founding fathers were siblings, sons of Abraham. Moses/Musa, Jesus/Isa (and countless other prophets descending from Issac/Ishaq) were Israelites while Muhammad was an Arab. While I'm sure the prophets wouldn't fight each other, their followers are and are distancing themselves from each other eventhough their origins are so closely linked. And instead of the religions fighting for their their collective forefather of Abraham/Ibrahim; they're fighting for their own respective views of God who is just as much the same for all of them; the biggest difference could be summed up as the name as they use for God, metaphorically speaking the differences are as small as a name-- only regional, cultural or historical. Infact Allah just means "The God", to emphasis the importance Islam puts to monotheism, a name was used that couldn't be pluralised (ie Gods) or made into a prefix, suffix or in someother way form part of another word (ie Goddess, Godparents), it's just become the arabic word for the monotheistic deity, which is why I'm using the word God the common english word for the aforementioned deity. I mean who cares what name you call God, as long as it's still the same God there shouldn't be a difference. Obviously some people may oppose the trinity as not all being the same God as that of Islam and Juadism but the three religions origins are so closely linked, historically and divinely. I'm a Muslim and I wish more people of all faiths were more as open-minded about this, since this kind of thing could have stopped the Crusades, the Anti-Semiticism in Pre-WWII Europe and the present Arab/Israeli conflict; after all all these prophets wanted peace, not conflict; so if people actually took the time to see these similarities, they'd see that other half the World's population worshiped the same God, a God that wanted peace no matter if you called him God, Yahew, Jenovah or Allah. khlieeq t • e • c 08:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Frstep1, the Islamic view may be different from the Jewish and Christian view, but the Jewish and Christian views are different from each other as well. The point is all three of them worship the god of Israel and the Jews, the one mentioned in the Jewish scriptures (Tanakh and Talmud). Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 03:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a discussion page ?

I think I had it with overzealous Zionists playing the "politically correctness". "This place is not the right place for any political free expression". I suggest you continue to decide about everything, what is correct and what is not, what is revisionist and what is Zionist BUT you change the label on the tab at the top of this page from "Discussion" to "Fascism" if not to "Zionist media fascism".

I wonder if an edit on a "Discussion" page needs Bronfman's approval to get published. 70.83.31.41 (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Mandaeism

I think Mandaeism/Sabianism qualifies as an Abrahamic religion. (The preceeding was an unsigned contribution 27 May 2007 by 67.42.243.125 (talk · contribs).)

I think that "Abrahamic religions" could be used in several different meanings. I guess there are at least the following:
  1. As used in the Qur'an, when referring tho those three large recognised "religiuons of the book" which themselves refer to Abraham, i.e., Judaeanism, Christianity, and Islam. (This is to be contrasted with e.g. Zoroastrism, which was recognised as a religion of the book but not as abrahamic.)
  2. Ancient or modern religions or "subreligions" who themselves actually refer to a tradition going back to Abraham as a main source of their religion. I think that academic scolars of religion would be more apt to decide on which faiths to include. However, I guess that not only mandaeanism should qualify, but also some other very old but dwindling, as e.g. samaritanism, and some rather modern with large numbers of followers, as mormonism. I suspect that a reasonable listing of these faiths should be considerably longer.
  3. Such religions or faiths which are actually classified as abrahamic by modern users of this term. This does sometimes include Bahá'í, according to one reference to an American institute of abrahamitic religions. I do not have the slightest ideas of which use the term has e.g. in modern predominantly moslem countries.
I have no opinion on whether the different meanings merit separate articles or not; but, if I'm right, clearly they merit some kind of recognition.JoergenB 18:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Mandaeans believe Abraham was a false prophet. Therefore, by definition, Mandaeanism is NOT Abrahamic. The reference in the Quran does not call them followers of Abraham, rather it is recognising that Mandaeans accepted one of the other prophets of God, namely John the baptist, therefore they are still "people of the book". Consequently, I have removed any reference to Mandaeanism in this article. Live-info (talk · contribs).)


Bias regarding Sikhism

The article implies that Sikhism is purely or simply Indic in origin when this is completely fallacious. Sikhism has dual roots in BOTH Sanatana Dharma and Islam. It cannot be said to be soley based on one. Carlon 16:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Your assertion is not true. Sikhism did aim to brigde the gap between Islam and Hindusim early in its history, but its roots lie in Hinduism (as various Sikh gurus were Hindus and have stated so). Many would regard Sikhs as Hindu's even today (although many Sikhs don't perticularly like the idea and consider themselves to have an identity seperate from Hinduism).

Sikhism's attempt to bridge the gap between Islam and Hinduism didn't work out too well on the Islamic side as the Mughal rulers of India demanded that Sikhs convert to Islam and waged wars. The last Sikh Guru (Guru Gobind Singh) turned Sikhs into a warrior brotherhood and instead of attempting to bridge the gap between Islam and Hinduism, Sikh became a protector of Hinduism (as various Sikh Gurus publically stated).

If it was not for Sikhism, Hinduism would probably have been much less popular in Northern India. The proposition that Sikhism has roots in Islam is ridiculous. No Sikh will give any serious thought to that. Although there are continuous debates on the role that Sikhs have played for Hinduism which even Sikh's won't deny. In fact many Sikh's would proudly state that its becuase of them that Hinduism survived.

24.5.120.23 07:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This is completely irrelevant, really irrelevant. Everyone cares SO much about whether Sikhism is MORE Muslim or MORE Hindu. To most Sikhs, it's more important that they're SIKH, and SIKHS do not worship HINDU GODS or follow ANY ABRAHAMIC PROPHETS. However, since the definition of a Dharmic faith has nothing to do with Hindu Gods, they can be Dharmic, but since the definition of an Abrahamic faith has a LITTLE BIT to do with ABRAHAM, and since Sikhs don't give TWO FUCKS about Abraham, all y'all can SHUT UP about whether Sikhs hate or love Muslims. It means NOTHING. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.147.0.44 (talk) 05:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you kind of missed the point, but your outcome seems logical, though somewhat crude. Half the world does care about Abraham/Ibrahim, so maybe you shouldn't be as explicit in your language. Just a thought, since half the world being really angry at you might not be a pleasing proposition. I'm Muslim, and I understand the context of what you said and the fact that you aren't intentionally trying to insult Abraham/Ibrahim or his followers but some people may not be so open-minded (,just look at how some of these religious conflicts started in the first place). Also, people would care more about what you think if you didn't swear during explaining it (there is a lot of prejudice against people inappropriately swearing on Wikipedia ;) ). But I agree in your opinion that Sikhism can't be counted as Abrahamic, since it's teachers weren't descended from Abraham/Ibrahim, or that it doesn't put any major significance to Abraham/Ibrahim in it's tenets or doctrines, even if it's blurry as to what influence Islam had on Sikhism, Sikhism still isn't directly linked to Abraham/Ibrahim except for it's worship of One God (as Abraham/Ibrahim is quite famous-- specifically in Islam-- for the smashing up of his community's polytheistic idols during which he outsmarted the priests, while he was only a boy-- which for that reason of him outsmarting them remains as one of my fave Quaranic stories); which I think could be included but other than that (which is quite important, but would be even more important if the article was dealing with "Monotheistic faiths", which could branch out to more than just Abrahamic faiths, with the Trinity's classification as Monotheistic a bit iffy.), I don't think Sikhism should really be included in this article or be considered Abrahamic. Wow, I can really write a lot when inspired. (corrected typos)khlieeq t • e • c 08:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Just checked and their does seem to be a mention of Sikhism as monothestic and having a similar prophetic teachers, but it's from an Indic origin, so can't be classed as Abrahamic. Though Dharmic on the other hand, I'm not sure since I don't know as much about faiths other than Islam, Christianity and Juadism and a little bit about Sikhism since we did it as school; which seemed kindof weird as we didn't do anything on more common or influential Dharmic religions like Buddhism or Hinduism, they mainly only focused on the Abrahamic and substantially alot of the RME curriculum had to do with Sikhism-- did it twice in Primary (once when we were studying India, and they never touched on Hinduism or Buddhism), might end updoing it again. khlieeq t • e • c 08:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Holy War

There should be mentioned, that all these religions have institution of holy war. Isn't there much differences between crusade and djihad? Even that both leads mostly to bad results. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.135.18.243 (talk • contribs).

It is important to consider if an action taken in the name of a religion is in fact a general characteristic of said religion, or a misuse of it. Jihad is 'holy war' sanctioned by Islam. Whereas, in the Christian religion, crusading is not doctrinal or in any religious text. The Jewish account does include warfare against others, but it would seem that it only applies to the religion when it is DIRECTLY called for by God. Frstep1 (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not correct. Although the New Testament does not sanction or command war, the Old Testament explicitly does, and the Old Testament is still a part of Christianity.--Ff11 (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The above entry by Frstep1 is correct. Jesus fulfilled Old Testament law, and His teachings do not call for war, but for love, laying down one's life for others, and praying for enemies, the opposite of war. Civic governments of Christian nations have gone to war to defend their citizens, and even Christian groups have sometimes called for war, but it is not in the teachings of the founder of Christianity.Dove111 (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hindu

So Jesus Crops up in Hinduism, but its not related? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.220.22 (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? Frstep1 (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Origin of the expression

It may well be that the expression was coined by James Kritzeck in his 1965 Sons of Abraham: I was unable to find any earlier attestation, and he seems to be quite fond of it. But it is of course almost impossible to prove that there was no earlier use of the term. OED knows the adjective "Abrahamic" from the early 19th century, but only in meanings directly related to Abraham himself. This is confirmed by a corpus search at gutenberg.org, which gives "Abrahamic covenant", "Abrahamic promise", but no "Abrahamic religions". There is one attestation of "all true Abrahamic faith (Rom. 4:1-5)" in Chafer, Satan (1909). Here, reference is made to the link of Christianity to the Abrahamic covenant in the epistle to the Romans, but the intention is not to inlcude Islam. dab (𒁳) 10:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Common understanding that all three worship the same God

"Indeed, there exists among their followers a general understanding that they worship the same one God."

I've tagged and modified the above statement for two reasons: first, because it has no source, and second, because it's quite inaccurate. Of course, many people assert such a thing (witness the section up above), but the opposite is also widely asserted. Consider Christianity alone: the historic creeds that to which most Christian churches hold assert the doctrine of the Trinity, which doesn't go very well with An-Nisa 171: "And do not speak of a trinity;/it is best for you to refrain." I'm not seeking to say that this statement isn't made — of course it's said, and quite widely — but it isn't at all general. Nyttend 04:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The statement is now "Many of their followers believe...", a statement that is common knowledge and requires no proof. I'm removing the tag. Lockesdonkey 17:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Origins

The Origins section is starting to look good. The current first few sentences may be a little confusing, speaking first of Judaism as having its origins in the Israelite culture of the 2nd and 1st millenia, and then of Israelite culture as being Canaanite in origin. This is true of course, but perhaps the form of words is confusing, so I changed "Israelite" to "Canaanite/Israelite" in the first sentence. PiCo 03:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Origin section--paragraph 2

"It is the choice of Abraham as a common label that makes them Abrahamic." What is this supposed to mean? The whole paragraph need to be rewritten, but especially this line.--Editor2020 (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Meaning of 'Abraham'

This is from the Wikipage 'Abraham'. It conflicts with the meaning given here.

"For the latter part of his life, he was called Abraham, often glossed as av hamon (goyim) "father of many (nations)" per Genesis 17:5, although it does not have any literal meaning in Hebrew. [1]"--Editor2020 (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Main Picture

the main picture for this article shows the star of david for the jews, the cross for the christians, and..."allaah" for the muslims? instead of the word for "God" in arabic, why doesn't this picture have the star and crescent of islam?

i might add that "allaah" is a word used by arabic-speaking jews, christians AND muslims to refer to the God. although arabic is a sacred language in the islamic tradition, i don't think that its use in this picure is appropriate. Bulbasaur (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)bulbasaur

Symbols

I think Islamic symbol should be changed to a crescent or a crescent with a star? radiant guy (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the word Allah is NOT strictly speaking a symbol. A Crecent and a five-pointed star would be more appropriate. InnocentMind (talk) 07:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the Islamic symbol is the cresent moon and star. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.217.21 (talk) 04:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Abrahamic religions: A term of Islamic origin. No, I don't think so.

Article says: "Abrahamic religions is a term of Islamic origin."

(A) I don't think that this is true.
This could be a badly phrased attempt to say that the name "Abraham" is of "Islamic" (Arabic) origin, but I don't think that that's true either.

(B) The cites given to support this are "J.Z.Smith 1998, p.276" and "Anidjar 2001, p.3". As far as I can tell, the article does not clearly specify what these are. Can anybody please track these down and check whether they confirm this or not?

-- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Z. Smith and Gil Anidjar, both appropriate scholars to cite, but I can't find a work by Smith of 1998 or by Anidjar of 2001. Probably second editions. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I went through the refs and linked to the actual work intended in the references. The reason you didn't find works by these scholars is that Smith's is a book chapter and Anidjar's is the introduction to his translation of Derrida. Merzul (talk) 10:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Parallels of the "Abrahamic" category

An anon added {{dubious}} asking what is meant with "parallels" in this context. I'm also confused, so I ask it here. The last section of the lead paragraph needs some clarification. Merzul (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

I took a pass at the lead:

  • Dubious - "post-modern". There is no indication that this grouping of religions is a post-modern phenomena, nor any indication that the term "Abrahamic religion" itself is associated with the postmodern movement in philosophy, anthropology and/or historical scholarship.
  • I removed the reference "p.95, Greenstreet", as no source by an author named Greenstreet is provided, making it something of a pointless citation. I left the claim in the article, but indicated the need for a citation. I see the reference has been provided.

In the "Origin of the Expression" section:

  • Removed the cite and tagged as needed a citation the de Perceval footnote for the same reason as the Greenstreet citation above. (Self-reverting as an editor seems to be fixing the issue.)
  • Tagged an unreferenced claim about the origin and history of the term.

In the "Common aspects" section:

  • The second to last bullet point seems to be written from a Judaic perspective, and appears to assert an "ownership" of certain materials and practices. While Judaism has an obvious primacy as the oldest of the Abrahamic faiths, the current phrasing seems particularly lopsided.

Thoughts? Comments? Vassyana (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Post-modern refers to the post-1945 period. I have never seen the term used in any literature before this date. However, if you can find such a cited reference, please amend post-modern to modern period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meieimatai (talk • contribs) 03:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
That is not at all what post-modern means. Please read the article it wikilinks to for a better understanding of what you're talking about. Vassyana (talk) 05:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The reference should be removed to recommended reading as it is not cited properly. I do not have the first edition of the book, nearest copy not being in immediate reach. The author is however a retired professor at Princeton, and a specialist in Islam.
I note that if not source for the term can be found, its interpretation becomes highly questionable--Meieimatai 05:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Since this is in response to fact-tagging a statement, I'm really a bit confused regarding what your saying. Vassyana (talk) 05:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I rephrased the text to say "spiritual devotion to the traditions of Abraham and not Moses by Christianity". Quite simply the entire claim to Abrahamic "tradition" is spiritual for Christianity which (see Galatians 3:13) was happy to be free of observance by Judaism at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meieimatai (talk • contribs) 03:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
This does not address my concerns in the least. Vassyana (talk) 05:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

I support renaming the article to Abrahamic religions to reflect contents of the article, use in cited references, and lack of any identified group of worshipets of Abrahamic religion (in the singular)--Meieimatai 07:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Religion (as such) is not always a singular noun. "Religion" can refer to broad groups (such as "monotheistic religion" or "neopagan religion"), as well as a singular religion (such as "the Judaic religion" or "an ascetic religion"). Vassyana (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Tis in English--Meieimatai 10:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
There's a reason we have Cow and not Cows. Singular number is preferred in titles. Ilkali (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
No, what we do have is Cattle, which is plural as a grouping for the a member of the subfamily Bovinae of the family Bovidae. Abrahamic religions is also an attempted taxonomy, though one distinctly different from the approaches taken for other religions--Meieimatai 13:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, bad example. You're missing the point, though. Read the MoS. Ilkali (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(plurals): An exception to the rule of "always use singular" is "articles on groups of specific things, rather than a class of things". The important question is: is this about a group of specific things, or a class of things? As far as I understand, this article falls into the first category, and the rule is not appropriate. The article is not about religions with roots in Abraham. It is about a particular group of specific religions that have been deemed "Abrahamic". So I support the move. 81.98.251.134 (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I will support the move. "Religion" [sic] is commonly used to refer to a group. However, this is obviously a point of confusion among those unfamiliar with the term's usage and the basic literature. We should be writing for a general audience, so the move would be appropriate. Vassyana (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Vassanya, you continued veiled insults and assumption of your superior knowledge do no justice to yourself in the eyes of other editors. I had pointed out before that to be a religion in singular, a religion, but the commonly accepted definition in social sciences has to have a group of worshippers attached to it. It has nothing to do with your assuming of a lack of familiarity or confusion with terminology by myself or others.--Meieimatai 22:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meieimatai (talk • contribs)

Vassanya disruptive behaviour

Please stop being disruptive. So far you have questioned my qualifications, my expertise and my intentions for editing with no good cause. I have provided cited references for every one of your veiled insults, and you have contributed none. It is not the policy of Wikipedia to reference self-evident and obvious statements. As of today I have consulted every major dictionary, three encyclopaedias on religion, several recent reference works on World religions, and scoured the books on GoogleBooks, and have been unable to find a source for "Abrahamic religions" dating before the end of the Second World War. That, according to conventional periodisation in general History, means that the term is post-modern in historical context. I have asked you to provide a citation to the contrary, and you have not. Until you do, the qualification that the term is recent will stay. If you don't like that, you have other avenues of resolving your disagreement within the Wikipedia that continued reverting of my qualitative expansion of the article.

That Abraham is first and foremost a Jewish historical figure is so common a knowledge that it is absolutely unnecessary to cite references for this fact. Until the creation of Islam no one had questioned that Abraham was Jewish, primarily due to his Covenant for which cited references are available dating to the Middle Ages--Meieimatai 09:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Meieimatai, have you heard the Islamic term People of the Book? It seems to be analogous with Abrahamic religion and dates back to the 7th century. So the distinction was made long before 1945. Ashmoo (talk) 11:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
You want to merge them?--Meieimatai 11:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meieimatai (talk • contribs)
No. The 'People of the Book' article is about the distinction from an Islamic perspective, or rather how the distinction affects Islamic law, while this entry is more general article of the topic.
I just mentioned it because it seemed like you were arguing that the distinction was never made before 1945. Sorry if I misunderstood you. Ashmoo (talk) 11:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
It was not. The reference cited in the article referred to The Peoples of the Book, not the "Abrahamic religions". Whoever added that reference should have kept reading to page 22. I shall return to that page. Derrida of course borrowed from Messignon, as it says in the referred to text, and Messignon only begun to publish in the 1930s. When I tried to add this to the article, it was deleted as my POV, but the individual who deleted it so far is unable to show that the term, and it is used as a term, originates before 1949 as I have cited, and that it is in fact a term at all, and not as an idiom based on translation from the French. We shall see because on Thursday I will try a much larger library, and will have more than an hour to spend on it--Meieimatai 12:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meieimatai (talk • contribs)

Meieimatai, you have not provided a source that states "Abrahamic religion" is a post-modern term. If you want to make the assertion it is, it is on you to provide a citation. Your own opinion and ideas are not sufficient. Your argument in favor of terming "Abrhamic religion" as postmodernist terminology illustrates my concerns about subject knowledge. Post-modern refers to a specific (if broad) group of approaches in various disciplines, not to a period of history.[1][2][3] Vassyana (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, the article had to be undisputed in terms of notability of the term used from its creation. This was never shown because no one could find that "Abrahamic religions" exist as anything more than an idiom. The onus is therefore on the original editor/s, and not on me, though at least I am trying. Fort all your statements, you have not even suggested the origins, and deleted the suggestion of Louis Massignon though all You should know that post-modernism is used in the general discipline of History for periodisation as much as it is used in in philosophy--Meieimatai 22:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meieimatai (talk • contribs)

Abrahamic religion is an academic term

A recent attempt to edit out referenced content betrays the motives of the editor:

Abrahamic religion is an academic term classifying together the three main faiths - Judaism, Islam and Christianity - that recognise a monotheistic partially shared heritage, and which identify Abraham (Hebrew: Avraham אַבְרָהָם ; Arabic: Ibrahim ابراهيم ) as an important antecedent. [2],[3][4] Other, smaller religions that identify with this tradition, such as the Bahá'í Faith and Druze, are sometimes included.[5]

  • "Abrahamic religions" is not an academic term. Some academics use it, but since it has not been defined, so far they use it as a figure of speech.
  • "together the three main faiths - Judaism, Islam and Christianity - that recognise a monotheistic partially shared heritage, and which identify Abraham" - Actually they are not. For Judaism is is at the core of their religion, and is not just heritage but direct descent. For Christianity its a spiritual role model although it denies the very laws Abraham kept. For Islam its a way to claim that neither of the preceding two religions are valid. This is what my last edit and its source were saying. Abrahamic religions is an invention, after Second World War, that sought to artificially create unity where none existed, or will ever exist.
  • "Other, smaller religions that identify with this tradition, such as the Bahá'í Faith and Druze," - there is no such thing as smaller religion, only a smaller membership of one. Each belief is as valid to its members as that of any other religion. There is no contest for "numbers", only for validity of beliefs.
  • "The term "Abrahamic religion" is derived from a term of Islamic origin, Millat-e-Ibrahim " exactly where does it say this? not on page 7 of Gil Anidjar's review of Derrida's works, but on page 22,a nd in a very interesting context--Meieimatai 11:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
It's on page 3 that Anidjar discusses the Islamic usage, not page 22. Jheald (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Your 2nd point seems to be saying that only Judaism is really Abrahamaic and Xtianity & Islam are merely faking it, or at least subpar. This would be POV and as such, could not be included in the article without attributions.
You have also repeated the claim that the grouping was invented after WWII, but as I said, Islam has had the concept of 'People of the book' which is the same. Ashmoo (talk) 12:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Opening line. I suggest

Abrahamic religion is an academic term for any of the three main faiths - Judaism, Islam and Christianity - that recognise a monotheistic partially shared heritage, and which identify Abraham (Hebrew: Avraham אַבְרָהָם ; Arabic: Ibrahim ابراهيم ) as an important antecedent.ref:pp.20-23, Massignon (1949);ref: "J.Smith98"; ref: "Anidjar2001"/>

as a concise, defining open line; which sets out the key points, in a clearer and simpler way. In particular, that:

  • In this context Abrahamic is principally an academic umbrella term, for the Judaic, Islamic and Christian faiths
  • This classification together reflects a closer relatedless than with other religions, because of the elements of shared heritage
  • The word "Abrahamic" is chosen because all three identify Abraham as an important antecedent.

It seems to me that these are the most important points to make in a first-line capsule presentation; and this line makes them clearly, simply and efficiently.

In contrast, Meieimatai (talk · contribs) has reverted to

Abrahamic religion is a grouping of monotheistic religions into a single classification of faiths that includes Judaism's Abraham (Hebrew: Avraham אַבְרָהָם ; Arabic: Ibrahim ابراهيم ) as a shared spiritual role modelref: pp.20-23, Massignon (1949), that emerged from sacreed history into academic historyref: p.2, Firestone that is partially illustrated in perspectives of Christianity, Islam, and the Bahá'í Faith religious texts.ref:"J.Smith98", ref: "Anidjar2001"

with the edit summary "please read the cited references, and do not delete them as per Wikipedia policy". I note that the only reference I cut was to "p.2, Firestone", which page doesn't refer to "sacreed history", "academic history", or indeed "Abrahamic" at all.

I submit that the reverted text is (much) less clear, doesn't indicate that the reason academics link these faiths goes rather deeper than them just including Abraham; and also that it really is misleading to say that Christianity is called an Abrahamic faith because Abraham is seen as a "spiritual role model", because he really isn't seen as a very significant spiritual role model by Christians, and going further than just saying he is an "important antecedent" misunderstands why the term has come into being. The important commonality of the Abrahamic religions isn't Abraham.

I also deplore that without discussion Meieimatai deleted the reference added to Millat-e-Ibrahim in the next section. It's important to note that, if the "Abrahamic Faith" does derive from Muslim usage, that that usage is very different. Jheald (talk) 12:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

responding to M's objection to "three main faiths - Judaism, Islam and Christianity - that recognise a monotheistic partially shared heritage, and which identify Abraham as an important antecedent". You write "Actually they are not". I don't understand. Actually what are not? And what aren't they?
Since there are many explicit references in the Qur'an to stories and material from the Torah, and indeed the whole discussion of Tawrat in Islam, surely it is undeniable that there is a partially shared heritage there?
And surely, it's equally undeniable that all three religions regard Abraham as an "important antecedent".
What's the problem? Jheald (talk) 12:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
They are not three religions together, what being separated by significant time periods. They are not sharing heritage since neither Christians nor Muslims observe the laws Abraham observed, or share in the descent despite claims of relationship between Mohammad and Ishmail (never proven). The identification of Abraham's importance is far more important to Judaism than it ever was to the other two religions--Meieimatai 12:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meieimatai (talk • contribs)
Muslims would strongly disagree, and identify Abraham as at least as significant to Islam as he is to Judaism. Jheald (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Also note, very clearly, the word partially shared heritage. Jheald (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
But we are not talking about "Abrahamic". Rather its "Abrahamic religions"
The elements of "shared heritage" are what exactly? We shall find out in the rest of the text, won't we? For now ket me just enlighten you on the meaning of heritage - refers to something which is inherited from one's ancestors.
Christianity borrowed.
Islam assumed.
"The word "Abrahamic" is chosen because all three identify Abraham as an important antecedent" - that is a rather ambiguous statement. The definition of an "antecedent" is a preceding event, condition, cause, phrase, or word, but we are talking about a person, so what you mean is an ancestor, which is what Muslims like to believe except that there is no documented genealogy that links Ishmael to Muhammad's supposed ancestor, Adnan
I suggest you find references to cite--Meieimatai 12:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The use of the somewhat ambiguous "antecedent" is appropriate, because Abraham means rather different things to the three different religions. And as I've noted above, the important commonality of the Abrahamic religions isn't Abraham.
"Heritage. 2. Anything that has been transmitted from the past or handed down by tradition" (Collins Concise Dictionary, 1999).
I submit that what I have written is more than supported by the sources already cited. Jheald (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Yet again I point out to you the subject of the article "Abrahamic religions".The term purports to group four monotheistic religions in one class of religions. The pre-existing Modern Era term was monotheistic, which based on belief in one God. If it is Abraham this is the unifying factor in these religions, than the article needs to show how that is developed. I put it to you that Abraham is not a tradition for Jews, but recorded cultural history which was not handed down to either Christianity or Islam. In comparative religion its called borrowing. So far you have not added any sources since I started editing, and seemingly have not read the sources that are cited--Meieimatai 21:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meieimatai (talk • contribs)
Meieimatai, Rashi and the Rambam among others were well aware that Christianity and Islam shared certain similarities with Judaism which distinguished the three from other faiths, and these similarities fared prominently in the various lenient rulings on Avodah zarah during the Middle Ages. They didn't use the specific English term, but the concept was well known to them. I don't understand how you can say it originated after World War II. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Shall we rename the article to Certain similarities Christianity and Islam share with Judaism? The article name is (or should be) "Abrahaic religions". That means it s anotable subject for reference in the English language. If you look up the IP I am editing this from, you will find it is linked tot he State Library of NSW. I have failed, with the aid of two librarians, to find any trace of this experession as a term in any religions, sociology or humanities references, published works or journals (using indexes going back to 1940s) in the English language. That the expression is used in books is undeniable, but that it is a defined, or definable term which groups monotheistic religions in the study of comparative religions is unfounded. I will continue to search though, my next stop being the School of History and Philosophy at the state university--Meieimatai 06:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meieimatai (talk • contribs)
First of all, it's not an idiom, because the meaning can be deduced from its parts. ("Abrahamic religion" ... religion involving the tradition of the patriarch Abraham.) Second, it was already demonstrated to you that it is a grouping taught in introductory-level university classes and as the sole subject of upper-level classes.[4] Finally, on the defining of the term, you had no need to look farther than the references already provided in the article. It's even provided by a so-named academic institute that is fully funded and under the auspices of a reputable university.[5] All that being so, your claim that it is an idiom doesn't wash (by the basic definition of the word "idiom" itself) and your claim stating "[the assertion that] it is defined, or definable term which groups monotheistic religions in the study of comparative religions is unfounded" appears a bit unfounded itself. Vassyana (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Vassyana, nobody disputes that the term is used in universities. This thread began with a claim that the term is an exclusively "academic term." One possible reason for tagging it as such is so that people of certain religious bents will know to regard it as suspect. I have no problem with doing this for sourcing. We identify academic sources as such for the same reason we identify religious sources as such without dictating which direction a reader's trust level should go as a result, and whoever wants to can give greater weight to the points of view they trust more. And if the term arose in academic use it would be quite appropriate to explain its origins, perhaps who coined it if we can reliably identify someone who did. But since the term seems to be in relatively common usage in English, I don't think a claim that it's exclusively an academic term (at least currently) is consistent with the sources. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I do not disagree. My response was purely to Meieimatai's claim it is an idiom that is not "defined, or definable term which groups monotheistic religions in the study of comparative religions". Vassyana (talk) 21:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Meiematai, I find myself honestly not understanding why the term is not sufficiently "defined" or "definable". It seems to identify a relatively clear group of religions claiming a descent from Abraham. There are a few religions on the borders whose status might be unclear, but I don't see this as a problem. Wikipedia (like all encyclopedias) has articles all the time on subjects whose precise definition is unclear or subject to dispute. These kinds of subjects exist throughout human knowledge. Do yopu seriously suggest that we shouldn't have an article on God (and do you seriously suggest that that term is either precisely defined or precisely definable by any human?) For that matter, should we have an article on quantum mechanics? (Another subject whose basic entities nobody really completely understands). Oliver Wendell Holmes was famous for his view that no subject in human affairs is precisely defined, as an example he said that day and night have no clear boundary between them, there are only shades of gray. Yet that distinction is one of the most useful ones we have and one we think we understand well. If this subject's definition is a bit imprecise, it has lots of good company. It strikes me that the whole "undefined" issue isn't really getting anywhere. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 11:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
That said, I wouldn't mind using the term in the plural, to refer to the group, since as the lead acknowledges that's the way the term is generally used, and it's clearer that way. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Symbol Of Islam

The symbol of Islam is not the writing of Allah in Arabic characters. It's a crescent with a star. Can someone change it please. It's an ancyclopedia,it must be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.99.77.111 (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC) 

not true. symbolism is not allowed in islam...this became popular from ottoman empire--195.229.235.41 (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The symbol of Islam is NOT a crescent moon and star. It has no official symbol, just as Christianity has no official symbol. But why do the Christians use the cross? It's because it symbolizes their Lord. The Arabic calligraphy of "Allah" symbolizes our Lord, and that's why it's better to use that than the crescent moon and star. The crescent only represents the start of Ramadan, by the way. Armyrifle (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Uncited material

From WP:V:

  • "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."

And from Jimbo on the WP:V page:

  • '"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

The uncited section tag has been there for a while, and leaving unsourced material that editors are challenging is against policy. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Terrible bias among editors. Yeah YOU. It is not an example of "I heard it somewhere" The Abrahamic religions are male oriented. You just seem to have an objection to me (and another editor) pointing out that fact in the common aspects section. Most of the comments in that section are uncited. Should they all be removed? I see you do a lot of work on Bahai articles. Do you see the god of the Bahai faith as being male? --Sting Buzz Me... 13:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Another Wikipedia policy assume good faith. Go ahead and remove all the material, or find a citation. (And by the way Islam doesn't see God as male.) Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
It is impossible to assume good faith with your obvious bias. Stop edit warring your personal point of view and grow up. I notice you didn't answer the question re Bahai = male god. Bahai doesn't belong in the article as it is not an Abrahamic religion. Just another relatively modern scam copy cat religion. The Bahai articles you work on are full of uncited comments, just as most of Wikipedia is! My point is that the god of Abraham (and hence Abrahamic religions) is male and as such is a "common aspect" that needs to be mentioned in the article. Do you happen to have a reference that the god of Abraham was/is a female? No you don't so leave the information intact please.--Sting Buzz Me... 00:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

What obvious bias? It's not a personal view. Islam doesn't see God as a patriarchal God, and that's a very large percentage of Abrahamic religions. My beliefs have nothing to do with it. Bring a source if it's otherwise. Also please read WP:V, the burden of proof is on the editor who wants material in the article. I could remove the whole section, but that would be a WP:POINT, which is also not approved in Wikipedia. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey you're edit warring just out of sheer contempt for the facts. Read what it says please: "A patriarchal orientation, meaning that God is described as Male." It is NOT saying that god IS a male it is saying that god is DESCRIBED as a male. Now read your various religious texts and you will see that terms such as Father, Son, His, Him, He, are all used when discussing god. Do you get it now? The info doesn't need to be cited as it is common knowledge for anyone reading texts in relation to the God of Abraham, that in fact Abrahams God was being described as a male.--Sting Buzz Me... 00:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest you read some more about the concept of God in Islam. Wikipedia has a good article: Islamic concept of God. In Islam any such description of human attributes to God would be against many of their concepts. The use of the terms "His" in the English translation are due to there being no good word to translate the original Arabic which has no masculinity/femininity applied to the pronouns referring to God. If it such common sense, you should have no problem finding a source. On another point, I've asked for a third-party comment. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
AGF Sting, it appears that you're being a bit aggressive about this conflict and it would be good for both of you to show restraint and charity towards one another. Since Sting is apparently the one making the claim, he needs to provide verifiable and credible sources for those claims. Your charges about Jeff being biased also smack of religious bigotry; it's really irrelevant what your or his religious convictions are, both of you need to provide sources for claims. It's as simple as that. If you cannot provide a source for a claim that is particularly controversial, it is likely to be removed more swiftly. I suggest that you state clearly what your thesis is, provide the sources from which you got these ideas, and then we can figure out a text that works best. If you cannot do either of those things, you are going to find it difficult to collaborate on Wikipedia articles of any type. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
The use of "His" and "Him" in these contexts is clearly not intended to imply maleness in some cases, and that is particularly so in some of these religious traditions. In fact, the teachings of some of these religions clearly state that they do not consider the concept of maleness (or gender) to apply to their concept of God. Considering this, it seems obvious that the statement should be removed, because it is clearly not entirely true (in addition to being unsourced). -Wookipedian (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


I'm concerned with the origins section, where are the references? 72.3454.34 (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yazdanism as an Abrahamic Religion

Aren't the religions of Yazdanism (practiced mainly by Kurds and some Armenians) considered Abrahamic religions? No mention is made of these in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.157.110 (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't think so. Just like Zoroastrianism, they have very close similarities to the Islam, Christianity and Judaism but they do not have Abraham as an important figure. Persian Warrior----Contact Me! 03:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Bahai

First of all, I would like to thank all the wikipedians for their hard work. Next off all, I would like to delete the Bahais, they are Dharmic, and not Abrahamic.


Please discuss.

Thanks,

Yahya Al-Shiddazi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.138.69.17 (talk) 08:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Please post references that say they are not. I'll find and report my citations they are. Just as a starting point for background info compare the lists at Table of prophets of Abrahamic religions but here we go-
  • please consider, "Abrahamic religions are monotheistic faiths that recognise a spiritual tradition identified with Abraham." it says at Abrahamic religions. So are there credible source about the Baha'i stance on the spiritual tradition identified with Abraham?

"The Holy Land was conquered by the power of the Covenant of God with Abraham.... His Holiness Abraham who being an iconoclast and a herald of the oneness of God, was banished from His native land." (Baha'i World Faith, p. 271)

...so lot's of references the Baha'i Faith is Abrahamic.Smkolins (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The Bahá'í Faith is not Dharmic by inspection. They categorically consider the Abrahamic line of prophets to be authentic. It's a consistent theme in Muslim apologia I've seen to charge that this religion is Dharmic, or syncretic — anything but Abrahamic — to distance it from Islam. MARussellPESE (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The Bahá'í Faith is Abrahamic. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 08:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
This article is about the three religions that historically have been recognized as Abrahamic religions, and for which an abundance of proof exist. If you go back through the history files of both Talk and the Article, you will see that several-to-many religions have been added to the article at one time or another. It is difficult to deal with the three main religions that are almost universally recognized as Abrahamic religious. It was becoming impossible to also deal with so many claims from other groups. We are not passing judgment. We editors can only go by verifiable dependable sources. We hope for your understanding, and can only apologize if this policy has offended in any way. Thank you...Afaprof01 (talk) 13:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


As time progresses this topic will become clear. Over the past several thousand years we have seen the adition of Jewdaism, Christianity and Islam. Of this time period (70,000 BCE 1,000 H.s.s. increasing to 1 billion people approximately 1844) Baha'i is part of a population of H.s.s that numbers 6.7 billion and predictions of 9.1 by 2050 A.D. A nine time increase in the world human (H.s.s.) population in a 200 year period is predicted. How this will reflect in discussions about including Baha'i will happen over the next 41 years. The numbers of adherents to religion today (Jew approx. 12 million, Christian approx. 2 billion, Islam approx. 1 billion and Baha'i approx. 6 million) are changing in proportions. How the make up proprotionally will be in 2050, or 41 years time, when H.s.s. is predicted to peak is a wait and see exercise. Wikipedia is 8-9 years old (2001 est) and this discussion has only started in regards to including Baha'i or other references. RoddyYoung (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The Baha'i Faith is Abrahamic. It's primary influence was Islam. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 14:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought we were done with this - that the evidence was clear an the simple definitions of words were enough. Clearly that is not the case. More references that can serve:

Smkolins (talk) 04:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Integrating spirituality in health and social care Paradise and paradigm: key symbols in Persian Christianity and the Baháí̕ Faith Search for values: ethics in Bahá'í thought Symbol and secret: Qur'an commentary in Bahá'u'lláh's Kitáb-i íqán Prayers of Prophets, Knights and Kings: A Symposium from 2334 B. C to Date International Tourism: Cultures and Behavior Wondering Man, Money & Go(l)d Islam, Europe's second religion: the new social, cultural, and political ... The old religion Sodomy: a history of a Christian biblical myth Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Religion: A-F J. Soc. Sci., 17(3): 243-252 (2008) How the Scriptures Constrain the Gender Mainstreaming Process

o yes - more references! Smkolins (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, don't buy the argument that this article is exclusively about the "big three". Too many sources identify Baha'i is Abrahamic to ignore. Restored the Baha'i material per WP:V. Kept each entry shorter than any other in the same section per WP:NPOV & WP:UNDUE. MARussellPESE (talk) 03:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether any of us "buys" the argument that only the so-called Big Three are Abrahamic Religions is completely beside the point. Wikipedia is not the place to grandstand. We don't do research. That's OR. This article is about the three religions that historically have been recognized as Abrahamic religions, and for which an abundance of proof exists. There are only three main religions that are almost universally recognized as Abrahamic religious. We editors can only go by verifiable dependable sources. In time, the Britannicas and other highly respected sources of validated information may come to add Bahá'í to Abrahamic Religions, but they have not yet. For us to make the argument here is improper per Wiki standards. Someone else must do the research; we can just be reporters. I've added a comment in the opening to say that some believe it qualifies, and that probably is improper and may not stand. I was a bit shocked to find who else believes they qualify alongside the Big 3. Please let's move on to things for which there are significant number of respected major validated sources. Afaprof01 (talk) 04:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the argument that this article is exclusively about the "big three" is precisely the point. Who says this article is only on those? When WP:V and WP:RS say that Baha'i is Abrahamic, then the research has already been done and it's not WP:OR. You're cherry-picking. Britannica is hardly the only source used at WP - especially when its online edition at least doesn't even have and article on it.
You'll have to reconcile the fact that there are reliable tertiary sources that actually do include Baha'i as Abrahamic. (Is the University of Wisconsin not a respected source.)
Now, if you've got a problem with individual subsections and WP:UNDUE then, please actually "work" with the editors here. Unilateral deletion of V and RS isn't "working" with, and is against policy. MARussellPESE (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
The U of Wisc project is exploratory. All through that page they consistently refer to three religions. The only place Baha'i is mentioned is in the first sentence in parentheses as part of "a" family of religions. It never says which family. They say who Abraham is "for Jews," "For Christians," and "For Muslims....: Their bottom line is that the Lubar Institute is "dedicated to examining both the commonalities among the traditions and their disputes, as well as encouraging members of those traditions to consider their shared Abrahamic legacies."

Lubar is a work in progress. Lubar is very careful in this statement NOT to a say that Baha'i or any other tradition fits the definition of Abrahamic. The wise thing for us to do is to "stay tuned" to Lubar, stay alert to other such investigative institutes that are similarly credentialed, and be patient. It is fair to say that there are suggestions that various institutes such as the Lubar Institute at ____ is the Baha'i faith qualifies as "dedicated to examining both the commonalities among the traditions and their disputes, as well as encouraging members of those traditions to consider their shared Abrahamic legacies." We would be wise not to overstep our bounds and make more claims than Lubar is yet prepared to make. The integrity of our article is at stake.Afaprof01 (talk) 04:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Calling Lubar's mention of the Baha'i Faith exploratory is an opinion - I see no evidence one way or the other. As for the question of the "family" Lubar says "Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (as well as the Baha'i Faith) comprise a family of religions." I don't see a vagueness of what family is being defined. And there are other significant references above. I also tried to find any reference to the idea that the Baha'i Faith is NOT Abrahamic and found not a single one doing a very exhaustive search (via google scholars and google books, even a general web search found nothing specific - and found not a single one (allowing for multiple spellings even.) Conversely I've seen some sources criticized for not having the religion mentioned, albeit in online opinions.Smkolins (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I also note it was your edit that removed the Lubar source which had been present as early as May 2007.Smkolins (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Lack of evidence to the contrary is not evidence, and is thus irrelevant. Your RS must specifically describe Bahai as Abrahamic, otherwise, you run afoul of WP:SYNTHESIS which is considered WP:OR Dovid (talk) 03:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't proposing lack of evidence as an element to be included in the article. But considering the thousands of articles it is interesting that not a single one says the religion is not Abrahamic. Maybe there will be one someday. But so far there are numerous sources saying it is and not a single one saying it isn't. O - and more sources saying it is?

No - I'm not done yet:

So - A couple academic think tanks, Library of Congress cataloging system, a UN report, some Christian and Judaic sources, a source examining why there probably wont be a Moslem source, internal references from Baha'i sources published through referred journals, various encyclopedias, articles from multiple scholarly domains, actual usage among the public reported through responsible sources. I've tried to make sure none are circular refs back to wikipedia or self-pubished sources. And from Christian sources the Baha'i Faith has been the first or second fastest growing religion for 35 years of stats, and also notable as the second most widespread religion across the countries of the planet(ref elsewhere) and have major temples on most continents (whole article on that) and one is particularly well attended by visitors (another).And I'm still looking. I think it deserves more than a sentence. And there are subtleties to the categorization of the religion that deserve space; some unique qualities of the religion. Perhaps it should be in a sub-article of it's own linking from here.Smkolins (talk) 05:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Fils d'Abraham (series) - an encyclopedia in 31 volumes entitled the "Sons of Abraham"(trans.). The Baha'i volume is itself 202 pages and there are other significant small religions that each have their own volume. They are in French. A 32nd volume is mentioned in A bibliography Fils d’Abraham. Panorama des communautés juives, chrétiennes et musulmanes which is the summary volume introducing the whole series - is partially viewable here Clearly it mentions the Baha'i Faith. The published bibliography says the pages mentioning the religion are 11, 47-51. Smkolins (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Bringing the discussion of removing the smaller Abrahamic religions from the article, where this thread began, please note a reference Afaprof brought up supports the idea the Baha'i Faith is Abrahamic - see page 254 where it says "This indudes such faiths as Baha'i, the Family International (also known as the Children of God,) and Christian Science among others. Each of these movements is rooted in the Abrahamic "family" of religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Though Baha'i teachings attempt to distill a universal truth from a wide variety of world religions the movement's roots are Muslim…."[6] Smkolins (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ JewishEncyclopedia.com states, "The form 'Abraham' yields no sense in Hebrew". Many interpretations were offered, including an analysis of a first element abr- "chief", which however yields a meaningless second element.
  2. ^ pp.20-23, Massignon (1949)
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference J.Smith98 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Anidjar2001 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Why Abrahamic? Lubar Institute for the Study of the Abrahamic Religions at the University of Wisconsin
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abrahamic_religions/Archive_2&oldid=1255303085"