Jump to content

Talk:Abrahamic religions/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

since we're locked

A few points:

  1. ) Thank you.
  2. ) I just noticed some entries related to the Baha'i Faith under Origins and History, and Monotheism. I'd suggest taking them out.
  3. ) I still think mention of the persecution of Baha'is under violent conflicts should stay though I realize that transcends the original balance.
  4. ) In terms of the core issues of balance I'd recommend putting something like "The largest Abrahamic religions in chronological order of founding are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; the Bahá'í Faith is sometimes listed as well. There are other more obscure religions that are also actually Abrahamic but rarely mentioned." in the lead.
  5. ) Given the above I'd accept loosing the Baha'i Faith's picture in the window in the corner top. Though that could be seen as odd - but right now it is the reverse with the picture there with no language mentioning it right there. --Smkolins (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The primary reasons for this approach are:

  • historical consensus backed up by points made previously here somewhat repeated and updated, backed up by references pointed to above in the other section - (see next box below for links)
  • When there are more than three religions mentioned - and there are many - for the Abrahamic type the Baha'i Faith clearly is more prominently mentioned whether in scholarly, governmental, or popular contexts. (see box a couple below)
  • Peer-reviewed scholarly sources point to the distinguishing characteristic that the religion is the fastest growing over a century in every region of the planet (despite significant opposition I may add.) Peer-reviewed studies of the reliability of the source point to the only flaw being it more likely Baha'is and others were undercounted. (See Growth_of_religion#Bah.C3.A1.27.C3.AD_Faith for citations.)
  • Reliable scholarly sources have repeatedly mentioned the widespread character of the religion as a distinguishing characteristic of the religion. (See Growth_of_religion#Bah.C3.A1.27.C3.AD_Faith for citations.)
  • The persecution the religion has suffered largely in Moslem lands for a protected period of time is also a distinguishing quality of the notoriety of the religion. (see Persecution of Baha'is for citations)
  • All of these qualifications point to notoriety clearly above and beyond the relative notoriety of the other minor Abrahamic religions. --Smkolins (talk) 12:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

relative preponderance of fourth entries

scholarly reference of the Bahá'í Faith as Abrahamic

  • One of the existing citations has an updated url - here. The citation is -- "Why "Abrahamic?" Welcome page. Lubar Institute for Religious Studies atUniversity of Wisconsin - Madison. 2007 -- in the article but because of lockdown I can't update the url. From the updated URL you can see a scholarly center of study devoted to the Abrahamic religions clearly mention the Baha'i Faith.
  • One of the existing citations in government circles points to how Egypt then (2008) didn't acknowledge a fourth Abrahamic religion - the Baha'i Faith. It's on page 3 item 7.
  • One of the citations - from "Journal of Religious History", please note it is "fully refereed", [1] dwells at length on the Abrahamic nature of the Baha'i Faith. Unfortunately it is behind a pay wall.
  • One of the key central references for the Abrahamic religions is FE Peter's The Children of Abraham. Scholarly review of his work was published in 2004 in a professional journal used for library collection development. The citation is

Collins, William P., reviewer (September 1, 2004). "Review of: The Children of Abraham : Judaism, Christianity, Islam / F. E. Peters. -- New ed. -- Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press, 2004". Library Journal. 129 (14). New York: 157, 160.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Here's the relevant part:

"…. Though this update would have been improved by including the fourth Abrahamic faith, the Baha'i religion, it is recommended for academic, religious, and public libraries of all sizes."

This citation was pulled some time back because it was considered a duplicate of the point being made by others above.

  • The Library of Congress lists the Baha'i Faith under it's "Abrahamic" category - see [2]

This citation was also trimmed out as it was considered a duplicate of the point being made by others above.

  • Fils d'Abraham (series) - an encyclopedia in 31 volumes entitled the "Sons of Abraham"(trans.). The Baha'i Faith is mentioned in the introductory volume as well as a standalone volume for the religion itself at 202 pages. The series was published in French though the website says there are translations including english. The introductory volume is partially viewable [3]. The religion is mentioned on pages 11, 47-51.

This citation was pulled because the primary access/publication is in French vs English and it was a duplicate of the above. --Smkolins (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

experiment

This is by way of an experiment. Google scholar searches, not citations or patents, since 2009. The searches result in hit rates reported excluding fourth candidates and including them.

  1. abrahamic -baha'i = 6480
  2. abrahamic +baha'i = 670
  3. abrahamic -druze = 7250
  4. abrahamic +druze = 121
  5. abrahamic -mandean = 7370
  6. abrahamic +mandean = 47
  7. abrahamic -sabean = 7340
  8. abrahamic +sabean = 32
  9. abrahamic -samaritanism = 7360
  10. abrahamic +samaritanism = 13

Excluding the Baha'i Faith measurably decreases the hits on abrahamic by more than 10% across the range. This is the biggest affect of any of the fourth candidates. Druze, the next most impactful candidate is just 18% of the impact of the Baha'i Faith on such searches and it goes down from there.

This is one aspect of evidence on the relative preponderance of candidates for mention as a fourth Abrahmic religion in the lead. This experiment itself can't be cited in an article but it can give a feel for my point - that the Baha'i Faith is clearly more likely mentioned as Abrahamic than any other candidate. Excluding the Baha'i Faith actually decreases the hits on Abrahamic measurably. --Smkolins (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Major 3 Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or Major 4 including (Bahai )?

Why not chime in on my suggestions above?--Smkolins (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

We had a previous talk during last week. It turned to a huge page. Then I made a new one. Summary of first talk is as below:

Users who think of Major 3, including Hagarblue, Wiki hamze, John Carter and Khestwol Think at least one of below points:

1-Lack of history: Bahai’s is newborn, its age is about 1 century. So they have no considerable historical background in comparison to those big three, while they have huge historical background and this is made them special
2- Small population: their population is very low. About 0.001 of world’s population. While Christians are 0.33 and Muslims are 0.25.
3- Not only they are themselves small but also other top three doesn’t accept them as true Abrahamic religion
4- some people like John Carter and Hagarblue Believe that they should be considered under Islam. Exactly like Mormonism-Christianity.
5- There are a couple of small and big secondary Abrahamic Religions. Bahai’s should be included there, beside for example Sabians.
6- They have some rules or habits which are in opposite side of others. e.g. Membership in the Bahá'í community is open to lesbian and gay adherents.

People how think against Major 3 including Smkolins presented at least one of below points:
1-Although they are small but they claim that they are growing.

Correction. Peer-reviewed journals have made the claim specifically.--Smkolins (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The difference between them and other secondary Abrahamic religions in this issue is too much

that is your opinion. --Smkolins (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

2-Although they are small but Jews are also small.
3-They are under hard prosecution in some countries like Muslims country.

You keep stating "facts" aside from citations. Many institutions and notable individuals have taken note of the persecution in some countries. --Smkolins (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


Before writing please pay attention to bellow points:
1-Never a president is elected forever. Your agreement with others is not valid for new people. You can re-present your old arguments here to convince us all. While everybody can go and read old posts.

It does however present how things worked and that a number of diverse people were included. More over specifically it undercuts the claim I'm //introducing// the Baha'i Faith when it was previously agreed it should already be there. The argument then proceeds, again (seems like every two years) whether it should be there. That's the history and the facts. It has previously been agreed it should be there. That is the perspective your edits, and your censure, was trying to work against without evidence.--Smkolins (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

2- friends!, please don’t try to impose your opinion by filling the page with multiple posts and a lot of lines. Please clearly and concisely present an argument. It will avoid the talk page from being tedious.

You asked for evidence - I gave evidence. Now you call it opinion. Seems kind of useless to post evidence if it isn't listened to. But it is not a basis for making changes - not listening I mean. --Smkolins (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

3- If you don’t participate in talk, please don’t edit page in this issue and don’t revert other user’s changes.
4- Respect consensus and talk conclusion.

Now you respect consensus? --Smkolins (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

5-Don’t forget to sign your post.

for clarity I did sign my posts - I don't know what happened to it but I acted in good faith signing my posts just like this one. --Smkolins (talk) 11:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

--Wiki hamze (talk) 10:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


Low population of Jews has special reason which is not applicable anywhere else. Judaism usually is inherited via “Blood” not invitation, you should be born inside a Jew family to become a Jew. Jews are reluctant and strict for letting other people enter their religion. Converting to Judaism is so hard, although possible. So Bahai’s can’t use this argument about their extremely low population
I also confirm that Bahais are under hard procesution in Muslims countries as a undeniable fact. but I don't think that this point is a factor to making them among top 3. many many other groups are under prosecution in all over the worlds. --Wiki hamze (talk) 12:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

  1. ) I have never said they are "among the top 3". I have only said that when a fourth religion is mentioned in sources the Baha'i Faith is clearly mentioned more often. This is notable and should be reflected in the text. --Smkolins (talk) 12:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
good to hear this. so you approve the thick line between top 3 and others. when you put 4 pictures of abrahamic religions in this page or mention it wherever else, it is inferred that you are going to replace that thick line. it is obvious that when a 5th religion is mentioned another is mentioned more, and when a 6th .... my solution is put a picture of 3 or all Abraham regions ( as you see this picture is in the top of this page with about 10 symbols ) and also in contexts. then your 4th place will be mentioned. 5th one also deserve to be mentioned by exactly the same argument. and 6th and....--Wiki hamze (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
No I don't agree the right balance is two groups - large and small. I and previous consensus, relative occurrences of scholarly references and so on favor essentially three groups - the main three, the fourth, and "other". That fourth is where the Baha'i Faith sits. I think 10 pictures for things most people have never heard of would more confuse than help though I'm not totally opposed to it. However previous attempts at having many religious symbols on other articles tended to not be supported by consensus (nothing to do with me really, this was another discussion in another place). If you look at my suggestion above it was three religions but have text showing a fourth and a general statement of others beyond. I'm offering it in the recognition I have always maintained through all this discussion to distinguish the Baha'i Faith not on an equal footing with the other three well known religions. But isolating mention of the Baha'i Faith only to a bottom section under "other" does not correctly represent scholarly sources and other aspects of relevance. But I'll leave the balance of what to do to consensus. It's just a suggestion. --Smkolins (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  1. ) This persecution you affirm is but one and not the lead reason stated above. Wiki hamze (talk)
  2. ) Since you bring it up I'll add that a scholarly source notes the only significant impact on the population of Jews in Iran was their conversion in some number to the Baha'i Faith in the 19th century. See [4]. Please note this is part of a scholarly series of books. --Smkolins (talk) 12:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Sources A lot of ad hoc and arbitrary reasoning is pointless: what do sources say? If sources routinely mention Bahá'ís, then we should as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

About the crescent as symbol of Islam

Would you please remove that crescent as a symbol of Islam? because I am Muslim and the crescent is not Islam's symbol there is no source for this. thank you I appreciate the one who remove non-sourced things.--أحمد عصام الدين (talk) 03:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Reversion by Saddhiyama

Please check the wikipedia article Jerusalem where this text is used. According to the Biblical tradition, King David established the city as the capital of the united Kingdom of Israel and his son, King Solomon, commissioned the building of the First Temple. This is much more accurate, and I do not understand why it would not be used at Abrahamic religions as well. The correct name is the United Kingdom, not just the word Israel. Israel was only one of the two kingdoms that united. Please discuss before any reversion. 81.159.119.25 (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem and Judaism

Why is this section relevant? It has been majority Jewish since about 1852 and continues through today.[21][22] I propose to remove it. Numbers have nothing to do with the city's importance to Jews, or other faiths.81.129.210.209 (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Not seeing the issue. Jerusalem is clearly a topic for the article and the content reflects the religions on it, not just one. --Smkolins (talk) 10:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Diversity within the major Abrahamic religions

Most of the Abrahamic religions considered here, in addition to differing from each other, are internally quite diverse, including for example non-Trinitarian Christian religions like Mormonism and Christian Science, and the Sunni and Shia in Islam. Differences in theology, dietary customs, etc. within the branches, especially of Christianity and Islam, need to be discussed in greater detail.CharlesHBennett (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps - greater detail than what? Is there a limit to the detail? I think the "line" would be where the discussion between the religions falls into too much discussion of diversity within the religions - that is what other articles are for. So for example Mormonism is a hot topic inside Christianity, but from the perspective of an Abrahamic grouping it's clearly not Judaism, not Islam, not the Baha'i Faith, not any of the small religions way at the bottom. Similarly for Sunni and Shia - there is no way to mistake either for Judaism or Christianity or the Baha'i Faith and so on. From a pov of the sources discussing abrahamic grouping I don't see a lot of diversity represented. An acknowledgement of it I can see - but not an extended discussion of individualized practices compared and contrasted, for example. This article should be focused at the levels of issues across the religions. --Smkolins (talk) 10:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree, plus more so. Well put. To those raised outside of the the West's three dominate Abrahamic religions, they seem like different sects of the same religion, ...like three peas in a pod. Likewise I think that many of us raised within that culture are unaware of how strikingly similar the three Abrahamic religions actually are within a global context. I added a paragraph on "some unusual but similar and unifying characteristics when compared to the major non-Abrahamic religions."
    But because I believe more people from the Abrahamic mind set will be reading here, these (invisible!? under-valued?) important similarities need to be expanded. ...Because fish cannot see the water. Indeed "similarities" is inferred in the subject title, but are largely absent, —other than hinting at common (seemingly unimportant!?) origins.
--71.133.254.31 (talk) 02:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Doug Bashford
Addendum: quoting myself: "unaware of how strikingly similar the three Abrahamic religions..."
put another way is: unaware of how strikingly different the three Abrahamic religions are from the rest of the religions. Many people (including myself) have erroneously focused on some obvious similarities such as murder prohibition..., to the exclusion of the rest...such as Man's place and relationships in the universe and the related existential relationships: —is Man slave or king or, —noble or sinner or..., —of God or of Nature or of..., —is God... —is Nature... —is Mind & Intellect.... Afterlife?  ??
--71.133.254.31 (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Doug Bashford

History

the history section is laughable, as is the structure of the article only focused on the main 3 religions as if they were sorted out of nowhere. the history section should address the similitude between ancient religions and the abrahamic ones, the way the bible was written as the new testament and the quran. Sorry you don't like the idea it has been written by men, but as far as we know, it has.Klinfran (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

inconsistent editing

I'ld like to note this edit [5] which is inconsistent with Islam90 trying to introduce Babism as Abrahamic with such edits as [6] where he makes precisely the inverse change - aside from using an unreliable source to try to make the point. A lot of work was done by me to include minority Abrahamic religions but I never saw any reliable source refer to Babism as Abrahamic. --Smkolins (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

--- Babism is the true source of Baha'ism How not classified as Abrahamic?

--- the image [7] is important to Show data of Minor Abrahamic Religions --Islam90 (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

There are a lot of reliable sources that mention the Baha'i Faith as Abrahamic. Your assertion is original research. There is also the bar of undue weight. Because of that Wikipedia policy Mention of the Baha'i Faith has to be in line with the number of sources (which mean it's less that Judaism/Christianity/Islam), and undue weight means that Babism and other super small religions don't get mentioned at all. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 11:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Babism is Abrahamic, See Book:Abrahamic religions --Islam90 (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Then why did you take it out here? Look - the points are:
  1. you are adding Babism based on a poor source, and other times taking it out
  2. Of the smaller Abrahamic religions, the section we are dealing with, the Baha'i Faith stands clearly more significantly in the sources than all the others, even all the others put together. So putting them on a par is a miscarriage of the sources. This is the SAME reasoning that puts the Baha'i Faith not on a par with the Big Three, and thus, not generally mentioned in parallel with the other three. This is the kind of balance generations of editors have built time and time again.

3) Particular to Babism the religion is tiny to the point of being uncountably small. So pulling all the religions together just to add Babism is not sound. --Smkolins (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but your points don't follow Wikipedia policies. Other Wikipedia pages, cannot be used as sources, see Verifiability, no original research and WP:RS. Bayanic.com is a self-published source and also cannot be used. And based on the undue weight policy, views of extreme minorities shouldn't even get included. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 01:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why you are against Babism all the time? it's an Abrahamic and it's the true source of Baha'ism and Azali Babism. --Islam90 (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Babism is an Abrahamic

There are many reasons to classified Babism as Abrahamic:

  1. Babism divided from Shaykhism Shi'a Islam.
  2. The Bab (founder of Babism) claimed that he is the Islamic Mahdi get link.
  3. Babism belive in Abraham as a major prophet get PDF
  4. Babism belive in Abrahamic Prophets like Moses, Jesus and Muhammad go to this link.
  5. Baha'i Faith and Azali are divided from Babism so, How Baha'i Faith classified as Abrahamic and Babism No?
  6. Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Núrí (founder of Baha'i Faith) was one of Followers of The Bab.
  7. Baha'i Faith (Abrahamic) Belive in Babism and The Bab See Kitab-i-Aqdas 65 and 77.
  8. Population of Babis is more than 4,000 and this is near to Samaritanism.
  9. See Book:Abrahamic religions until Smkolins Tried to sabotage it.--Islam90 (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  1. it wasn't sabotage and calling it sabotage is inflammatory. We are making points about wikipedia procedures and standards and you are making accusations. Get on the game.
  1. It is clear the that website is an unacceptable source for wikipedia work.
  2. This has nothing to do with being "against" Babism. Again you take personal stances instead of a reasoned approach. You yourself took Babism etc out of Abrahamic into Iranian religion at this edit. Why did you do that if here you are so insistent (still without sources or balance of proper accounting of how sources make the case) here to the other categorization? --Smkolins (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

--if Baha'i Faith is Abrahamic, so Babism is Abrahamic also, But I think Both of them is Iranian --Islam90 (talk) 10:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

All of the above is original research, and not acceptable as per Wikipedia policy. I've noted the policies above, but I'll do so again below:
  1. No original research. You cannot have something in Wikipedia that isn't cited in a reliable source. And that includes a synthesis of other facts, like what you are trying to do. From the policy page: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."
  2. Undue Weight. Small minority views don't get to be in any Wikipedia article. From the policy page: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not"
  3. Verifiability. Other Wikipedia articles, such as the Book or Template that you are referencing are not acceptable as sources. From the policy page: "Do not use articles from Wikipedia as sources. Also, do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources."
You insertion of the Babism in that article breaks all three of thove above policies. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't Konw why Persecution? Babism is an Abrahamic religion due to sources and scriptures, also it's the true source of Baha'i Faith so How we can make it as Abrahamic and this is not? --Islam90 (talk) 11:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Did you even read any of the above, WIkipedia is not about everything that is true, it's about notability, verifiability, etc, etc. BTW, I've reported you for reverting more than 3 times. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 11:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm about to leave for the day, but I found this source supporting Babism as an Abrahamic religion. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think anyone disputes that Babism comes from an Abrahamic lineage, but it's also a notion of notability and undue weight. If you read the archives of this talk page, you'll notice that the same discussion has been made about the Baha'i Faith, where there are relatively large number of citations that it is an Abrahamic Faith, but in relation to the number of sources that state the Abrahmic religions are the big three (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) the number of sources, and the number of followers of the Baha'i Faith (6-8 million) is much lower, and thus the consensus was made that mention of the Baha'i Faith had to be much less than the big three. This was to follow WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE specifically. Now in relation to Babism, where the number of sources and mention is another order of magnitude lower, and is a religion of at most a couple thousand followers, the bar gets even higher for inclusion. There are tons of very small religious groups that could be mentioned as Abrahamic, but it's not neutral or encyclopedic for the mention of those religions to be placed all over Wikipedia. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
An excellent summary of the issues. I was one of the people working all phases of this including the Baha'i entries and what Jeff3000 says is exactly what happened over three cycles of major edits I've been involved with. --Smkolins (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with points raised by Islam90. Also, it makes no sense to have the current image in the "Other" subsection which repeats uselessly the 3 major religions already covered. We should instead have an image which is about the minor religions (NOT Judaism, Christianity, Islam). Khestwol (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
It's about undue weight, which states that minority viewpoints don't get as much or even any mention in pages. In this case, there are most a thousand Babis in the world with no significant notability about them being Abrahamic. If we want to mention any smaller religions, there's a whole bunch that have much more notability that the Babis. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

History of the concept and criticism is missing

How did the term "Abrahamic religions" originate and who promotes it? There seems to be strong link to Liberal Christianity also known as Liberal Theology. There is also a clear political aspect of the term, to relativize the religions in order to make them them more compatible and that way promote multiculturalism. Criticism of the concept is also missing. From a Christian view its hard to agree that the God in the Bible that tells hes followers to not be a part of this world, and that Satan is the ruler of all political and military power and therefore not to not participate is the same God as the God in Islam that teach the opposite, that Allah is the ruler of the world and he wants his followers to take military, religious and political power by warfare and such thing.

--Kaffeburk (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Ow, no, that is just completely wrong, so wrong it borders on trolling. Abrahamic religion is an academic term describing any religion that claims descent from Abraham, for purposes of comparing and contrasting those religions with other religions. For example, it's used in statements like "the Abrahamic religions prohibit syncretism more than non-Abrahamic religions," or "Of all the Abrahamic religions, Christianity has the fewest dietary restrictions." It is never used to describe some collective religious movement merging the religions. It is not a term to describe whether a religion is right or wrong, it's just noting the similar backgrounds of those religions. I don't see how you could have arrived at the conspiracy theory you posted after reading the article.
And the only connection Liberal Christianity has to any of it is that it's a part of Christianity. Liberal Christianity generally doesn't attempt to syncretize itself with outside religions, it is merely the willingness to reject older or common doctrines if those doctrines clash with how the liberal Christian understands the core teachings of Jesus. You seem to have it confused with the Christian left, which may overlap, but doesn't necessarily (there are plenty of conservative evangelical European Christians who are part of the Christian left). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

How is this completely missing

"Some proclaim that during the initial expansion of both Christianity and Islam, a number of pagan communities were converted by force.[citation needed]" -- Abrahamic_religions#Between_Abrahamic_religions_and_non-adherents -- Hello, the Crusades?? You know, the part where they invaded Estonia and such areas? I can see that the Crusades are already mentioned in an above section but it's very relevant here as well. (I'm not a huge history buff so I don't want to try and mess up this important article myself.) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The Crusades happened about 10 centuries after Christianity started (several after it expanded throughout most of Europe) and 4 after Islam started (so not "during the initial expansion"), and the overwhelming majority were nominally meant to target Muslims but killed at least as many Jews and Eastern Orthodox Christians. Actual pagans in that region still weren't near that action.
The Northern Crusades did go into the Baltic regions to nominally fight pagans, but they fought against Orthodox Christians just as much again, and could really be seen as Vikings raiding in the name of Jesus instead of Odin. Again, though, of 35 Crusades, only 6 were not at least nominally directed at Muslims, this was centuries after Christianity's initial expansion, and had nothing to do with Islam's expansion. Indeed, Islam completely lost Spain and Portugal, had to give up on Italy or France, and only gained then Orthodox Christian Turkey and Greece thanks to being completely smashed by Catholic crusaders and likely-Tengriist Turkic invaders (which is why the region is now "Turkey" and not "Anatolia").
What the sentence is probably referring to is:
However, it still needs secondary or tertiary sources to demonstrate that these are notable features of the Abrahamic religions. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, okay, but we have a section called "Violent conflicts" with a subsection called "Between Abrahamic religions and non-adherents" -- I was trying to say that the Northern Crusades are relevant to that section. "to nominally fight pagans", you said, what do you mean nominally? That's exactly what happened there, it was Christians versus pagans and the pagans lost. It's not some sort of a minor, unimportant detail, as if there were only 100 or less pagans or something. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that the Russian Orthodox Church qualified as pagan. As I said, it wasn't just pagans they were fighting against. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
"it wasn't just pagans" -- that's not the point. I'm talking about the pagans. Are you saying it's not important or what? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

placement and undue

On the question of Undue weight:

  1. I didn't move the paragraphs to the lede.
  2. I removed the picture of the four religions as it was near the picture of the three.
  3. I reduced the total information in the article about the other religions by over-writing existing information at that point in the article as well as those cites (as it was a minor version of the same information.)
  4. I demoted the sections that resulted whereas before they were on par with other sections.

The article has grown significantly since it was negotiated by many to have a certain structure the other abrahamic religions not in parallel and down-article. I believe User:Telpardec acknowledges that the article has grown significantly when he took out the marker for expanding a section that had already grown from 4 paragraphs to 17 paragraphs. Most of the article has similarly grown creating entries for many topics. There is this sense a minimizing - the opposite of undue - in pushing the less well known abrahamic religions farther and farther down the article. How can this be addressed? My attempt was to place the information in the historical development section which is up-article but not at the top and thematically related (in that the Baha'i Faith is younger than the others and so in the line of historical development.) --Smkolins (talk) 10:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

As for a sense of notability itself the religion has, if anything, grown more notable since the compromises done in the past. See:

  • a prominent movie about the religion released first in Oct 2012 - see The Gardener (2012 film)
  • In Dec 2012, the special issue of the Journal of Religious History on the Baha'i Faith which had 10 articles one of which is public at

Lawson, Todd (December 13, 2012). Cusack, Carole M.; Hartney, Christopher (eds.). "Baha'i Religious History". Journal of Religious History. 36 (4): 463–470. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9809.2012.01224.x. ISSN 1467-9809. (which also specifically addresses "Abrahamic"ness)

the whole issue being commented on at Editors’ Report – The Journal of Religious History in Newsletter of the Religious History Association, No 2, March 2012, p. 2 underscoring the historic development of the subject.
  • The 2013 special mention of the growth of the religion over the last century and around the world at

Johnson, Todd M.; Brian J. Grim (26 March 2013). "Global Religious Populations, 1910–2010". The World's Religions in Figures: An Introduction to International Religious Demography. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 59–62. doi:10.1002/9781118555767.ch1. ISBN 9781118555767. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

  • The 2014 coverage of the religion in South Carolina - see

Wilson, Reid (June 4, 2014). "The second-largest religion in each state". Washtington Post.

which got echoed at NPR at
Weeks, Linton (June 22, 2014). "The Runner-Up Religions Of America". NPR. (and other places)

So while the notability of the religion has increased the position in the article continued to decrease by the growth of the rest of the article. --Smkolins (talk) 12:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The above being above and beyond various other stories in the last year like

followed up at "Indonesia's Baha'i Community Grateful for Long-Awaited State Recognition". The Jakarta Globe. Aug 07, 2014. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

:and the like --Smkolins (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC) Continuing…continued cites relating the Baha'is to the Abrahamic category:

--Smkolins (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

--Smkolins (talk) 10:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

--Smkolins (talk) Hi - another - [8] a text on religious reconciliation- check the preview page which singles out the Baha'i Faith ""that are able to be included as well." and another page inside the article saying (I can only find the excerpt from a google search) "Indeed, the ever-ecumenical Baha'i tradition has attempted something of this approach in quite serious efforts to achieve reconciliation." --Smkolins (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Yazidis be in here somewhere?

Is there a reason why they're not included? Serendipodous 11:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Serendipodous They used to be! arg! for example way at the bottom here --Smkolins (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Serendipodous here's the edit that killed it - it started with one bit as above, was expanded perhaps out of bounds but then the editor may have over-reached deleting it. גור אריה יהודה - care to explain? -Smkolins (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Yazdanism is not an Abrahamic religion; why would we include a non-Abrahamic faith in an article regarding Abrahamic religions? Ariel ✡ 22:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree - you deleted several references in an earlier edit that frame it pretty closely if not directly on Abrahamic standards - seeThe Kurdish national movement: its origins and development, Wadie Jwaideh, pp. 20–21), (see Global Encyclopaedia of Education (4 Vols. Set), Rama Sankar Yadav and B.N. Mandal, p. 513), and sometimes they are even described as Zoroastrians (see Debating Muslims: cultural dialogues in postmodernity and tradition, Michael M. J. Fischer and Mehdi Abedi, p. 487) --Smkolins (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
While it is true that the Yezidi do not believe they are descendent of Abraham. They do believe that they are linked to Adam through his asexually reproduced son Shehid bin Jer.
If you base the criteria of being an Abrahamic religion on literal decent from Abraham, Christianity might not even make the cut. Clearly Yazidism is based on other Abrahamic religions and
is monotheistic. So I think it could be included.Jonney2000 (talk) 03:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Technically Christianity claims that their founder is descended from Abraham, as do some Muslims. It might be worth a single line with heavy sources on both sides saying that some scholars consider it Abrahamic, others do not. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Yazidis live just north of where Abraham was from. But do you have evidence they consider him a founder or practitioner of their religion? Unless you do, they are not Abrahamics. Khestwol (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Yazidism is derived from Iranian religions (like Zoroastrianism) which predate the abrahamic religions. In contrast to what abrahamic religions claim, the first Abraham stories do not predate the 1st millennium BCE, and Judaism (the first abrahamic religion) only came into existence in the 7th century BCE or even later. The beliefs of Israelites or even Hebrews do not count as abrahamic religions, since they were not monotheistic. ♆ CUSH ♆ 07:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Some scholars consider a religion Abrahamic if it believes in the God of Abraham.
Yazidism may not even be derived from Zoroastrianism. Kurdish propaganda sometime presents Yazidism as being the original religion of the Kurds and based on Zoroastrianism. Yazidism is non-dualist unlike Zoroastrianism.
Some modern scholars consider Yazidism to be a relatively modern extreme offshoot of Shia Islam like the Alawites. Also Zoroastrianism probably does not predate the 6th century BCE so I don't know where you are going with that.Jonney2000 (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Bahai, again

Years ago, there was a discussion that Wiki hamze participated in (so I can only assume he was aware of it at the time) where he made the same arguments he's making now to remove Bahai.

Ian.thomson (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

And Wiki Hamze's accusation that I'm doing this because I'm supposedly Bahai goes against WP:AGF (not saying Bahai is a bad faith, but rather, Wiki Hamze is clearly assuming that the only possible reason I could be doing that is religious). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree, there's no good reason for removing that material. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but you seems to be friends supporting an obviously illogical claim! this is not a way to feel important guys. Wiki hamze (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a new argument, or would you like to keep repeating arguments that were dismissed years ago? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

first I am sure that you are Bahai and becase of this baised about your beleif. second, if you can remember, majority of readers accepted my claims and did a major change to page. don't you remember or I should remind you? what can be funnier that this that your want to put a strange, rare, unheard and recent religion among main well-known one? I am sure that even a kid can understand this. please find a rational way to feel important, not editing the reality. Wiki hamze (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

1) I'm Baptist, i.e. a Christian.
2) That's not what the talk page archives show at all. There, multiple readers point out the flaws in your arguments.
3) You didn't remove any of the other religions, nor did you move Bahai to that list -- demonstrating that either you didn't read the article (which would be in line with you not reading the edit warring warning), or you're censoring sourced material because you hate Bahai. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I do agree with wiki_hamze, who have heard name of this rare religion? it doesn't deserve to be beside famous ones.Hagarblue (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The reason you agree with Wiki hamze is because you probably are Wiki hamze.
The authors of the sources have obviously heard of the religion. If you don't care about sources, you don't care about Wikipedia.
If Bahai isn't famous, how come sources keep mentioning it? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Not to mention the references added above in the other section. Agreed there are easily enough references for notability in a restricted sense not in parallel with other religions as has been agreed successively for several years. --Smkolins (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Article protected for three days

This nonsense has to stop, and full protection is a temporary measure to achieve this. Later today, I may (unless another admin beats me to it) close Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki hamze, which has some bearing on the present issue. Favonian (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Contentious Content

It is apparently biased that evangelism is attributed with christianity , including a litany of religious pogroms , while islam is squeaky clean of its 1400 years of religious pogroms .

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Wars and see the jefferson and madison papers regarding a response from the foreign diplomat which is similar with that recounted in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Zoroastrians - When asked by Yazdegerd, about the reasons for the unwarranted Arab aggression against Persians, an Arab soldier replied, "Allah commanded us, by the mouth of His Prophet, to extend the dominion of Islam over all nations." [12]

Indeed , perhaps wikipedia is concerned with the numerous entries in the qurayn where it is directed to " manifest the religion over all religion " ; perhaps wikipedia is concerned with the numerous entries in the qurayn directing unrelenting militancy ; believe me , it can be quoted !

A moderator should address the disparity immediately ; indeed , whereas the doctrine of fictional ishmaelism includes intolerance as objectives , even martin luther stipulated that fighting a war in the name of christianity was NOT valid !

It is authoritarians pushing nomian legalism that is debase ! GeMiJa (talk) 01:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

There are no moderators here. If you want the article changed, you will have to do the work of assembling reliable sources and re-writing the article yourself. ♆ CUSH ♆ 08:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

What about Satanism?

All that bias aside, Satanism also has roots in Abrahamic thought, so shouldn't it be included as a minor faith or something?92.114.148.141 (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

We'd require sources that describe it as such (see WP:CITE and WP:V). There's also the argument that they've branched off enough to count as a distinct species (similar to how Theosophy is not counted as either a Abrahamic or Dharmic religion). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Satanism in the old sense, meaning worship of the biblical Satan, is just abrahamic religion with a different focus. Satanism in the new, LaVeyan sense is atheistic. Yazidis are not devil worshipers, as they are accused to be. ♆ CUSH ♆ 19:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
There're also forms of theistic Satanism that are properly neopagan, starting with the Wiccan claim that Satan is just an Abrahamic demonization of the Horned God, but diverging in deciding to "take back" the name Satan (where most neopagans go "Christians got it wrong, that figure doesn't exist"). Some such Satanists would be Abrahamic offshoots that adopted neopagan terminology, while others are neopagan offshoots reacting to the Abrahamic religions. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

ref tag defined multiple times with different content

Two different references had <ref name='Britannica_stats'> and three had <ref name='Britannica'>. These were flagged in red among "References", as, e.g., 'Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "britannica_stats" defined multiple times with different content.'

None of the "ref names" were actually used. I could have deleted the names with no impact on what was actually displayed. Instead, I added something to each name to make it distinct.

As discussed in Template:Ref, names are not required. If used, the text for, e.g, <ref name='Britannica'>something</ref> can later be referenced via <ref name='Britannica'/> DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Wanted: Comparison chart

Why not introduce the article with a comparison chart sumarizing the most important differences? Which of the following sources are reliable and best to base the chart upon? [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Mange01 (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

This article is taking the flawed approach of "comparing Abrahamic religions" when instead it should peruse relevant sources to discuss the origin, meaning and political application of the neologism. Such a "comparison chart" would only be a further step into the already misguided direction the page has taken. --dab (𒁳) 14:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Blanking of Bahá'í

UeditorW blanked all of the information on the Bahá'ís and I've reverted that. I appreciate that there will be some people who object to their inclusion but a better approach would be to include information on them, and give fair coverage to the controversy concerning their Abrahamic status.Ordinary Person (talk) 10:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

It's certainly an interesting discussion. It's not abrahamic in the sense that it has a direct tradition of inheriting the faith of abraham, but it sort of inherits (or claims to inherit) every "inspired" figure which ever existed, including not just abraham, moses, jesus, muhammad, but also the buddha and zoroaster. However it is more Abrahamic than Indian/Iranian despite this. It has all the Abrahamic bona fides. Monotheism, prophets, angels, messiah, the world to come. It's universalist, but it's a universalist Abrahamic religion. Sorry for the not using the shift key a few sentences ago, I'm feeling lazy today. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
While I too have observed things through my own inspection such as what Monochrome Monitor lists it has been argued in the past that wikipedia needs sources, not opinions. So I dug up ones such as these:
  • "Why "Abrahamic"?". Lubar Institute for Religious Studies at U of Wisconsin. Retrieved 3 March 2012.
  • Lawson, Todd (December 13, 2012). Cusack, Carole M.; Hartney, Christopher, eds. "Baha'i Religious History". Journal of Religious History 36 (4): 463–470. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9809.2012.01224.x. ISSN 1467-9809. Retrieved September 5, 2013.
  • Collins, William P., reviewer (September 1, 2004). "Review of: The Children of Abraham : Judaism, Christianity, Islam / F. E. Peters. -- New ed. -- Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press, 2004". Library Journal (New York) 129 (14): 157, 160. Archived from the originalon September 27, 2013. Retrieved Sep 13, 2013.

In the present list. In the past I've made the case by diverse sources such as:

Then there is the issue of notability by the numbers. It is true that Baha'is number about half of those of Judaism but Growth_of_religion#Bahá'í_Faith shows notability another way - growth and growth around the world and growth despite severe opposition at times. And I'm not arguing that simply because Baha'is number half of Judaism that means we should have half the coverage on the page compared to Judaism. No straw men please. But the point is that diverse fields in newer sources tend to include the Baha'i Faith while the traditional mainstream do not and have been criticized for lack of mention of it.--Smkolins (talk) 03:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The number argument is just disingenuous. I mean, Judaism is such a small religion that it's often included in "other" in pie charts.--Monochrome_Monitor 08:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
But you find the materials provided a breadth of sources making the case that the Baha'i Faith is Abrahamic, (though I like what you said: It's universalist, but it's a universalist Abrahamic religion.) and notable to include in some proportion? --Smkolins (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Of course! Sources are always good if they are reliable. Well, unless you put a bunch after a single sentence making the text read like this [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] But yes, some of the sources you found would be great to include. Like "The Baha'i faith and its relationship to Islam, Christianity, and Judaism: a brief history". --Monochrome_Monitor 18:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The novel thing for an abrahamic faith is the "unity of religion" tenet, which I think confuses people. It's what makes Bahai unique, but not just among Abrahamic religions, really in world religions in general. Other universalist religions are universalist because of a lack of creed, not because of a strict adherence to universalism as a creed.--Monochrome_Monitor 19:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Agreed it is novel. There have been explorations of how far Baha'is can go - see for example:

--Smkolins (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I have to admit, when first seeing that section, I was inclined to credit it as maybe a little synthy. But having reviewed the sourcing, I have a hard time disputing that they are good quality and that the content represents them pretty faithfully. Still, I figured there must have been some debate about this section all the same, so I decided to check here on the talk page and, lo and behold! ;)
Anyway, I tend to feel that the sourcing is just too substantial to warrant the section being removed. That being said, there might a WP:WEIGHT arguments to be made with regard to some of the details of the religion that are presented here; the demographics for its growth are probably superfluous in this article, and the events surrounding the death of the founder's son feel a little WP:OR insofar as they are shoe-horned in to try to defend the link between this faith and the Abrahamic tradition (Christianity in particular, it seems). I feel that given the less established status of this religion as "Abrahamic" (compared against the other faiths discussed here) and given that we ought to stick to those (fully attributed) statements that explicitly discuss the link between these faiths, that a single paragraph ought to suffice here--those who wish to learn more about this particular religion can always click on the link, and meanwhile the clutter of those details will not be presented in this article where they might be mistaken as part of a major current in what is general regarded as "Abrahamic thought", which would seem to be an overstatement, whether we are talking about scholarship or the layperson usage. Anyway, I don't have any particular strong feelings on the topic, but those are my general Wikipedia thoughts, based on the sourcing. Snow let's rap 01:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Previous generations of compromises exist in the histories of the talk page approximating your conclusion though not down to a single paragraph. Some of the entry is made just to suite the issue of prominence and every time it has been stripped it was stripped more and more and the rinse-wash cycle continued. Many generations ago others had built up the presence to be in parallel with the other three which we all agreed was too much. AN initial agreement of a section by itself was then created and it was at the bottom of the article - then the article got about 3x larger. SO relative to the last compromise the Baha'is have already been more reduced and now you are suggesting it be more reduced. I don't agree. However other's can have their views…. As I read it the Baha'i Faith takes about 1/50th of the page (counting references too.) That seems too small to me. --Smkolins (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Another analysis - how many times are various terms used:

  • Christ* - 171
  • Bible - 28
  • Gospel - 4

—203

  • Islam - 124
  • Muslim - 55
  • Qur* - 42

—221

  • Jud* - 89
  • Jew* - 72
  • Hebrew - 20

—181

  • Bah* - 65

--Smkolins (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC) by that count the Baha'is have 1/10th the total coverage and about or less than a third of any of them. By that estimate it sounds ok by me as is.--Smkolins (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough; if the current content reflects the outcome of a consensus process, I for one won't make arguments to supplant it with my own perspective (and, anyway, my observations are based on only tangential understanding of the topic). I will say, just for the record, that I continue to think that there's something a little synthy-feeling about the way Baha'u'llah's son is mentioned, and I'm not sure that the demographic growth of the religion is terribly salient to its relationship with the Abrahamic tradition, but those are minor details. Snow let's rap 01:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

name

change it to Semitic is more accurate?--Usvruefktpi (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

[14] 400k non-wikipedia references to "Abrahamic religions" and [15] 5.8k to Semitic. Hands down to my pov Abrahamic is far far far more common than Semitic. --Smkolins (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No, not all followers of Abrahamic religions are Semites (e.g. most Christians and many Muslims), nor are all Semitic religions Abrahamic (e.g. Canaanite religion). Ian.thomson (talk) 10:47 am, Today (UTC+8)

they are Semitic even if not ethnically then culturally they are--Usvruefktpi (talk) 03:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

You need professionally published academic sources that show that mainstream academia agrees. Otherwise, it's just your opinion as far as WP policy is concerned. The reason the article is currently structured the way it is, and the reason why we have not bothered providing sources is because Smkolins and I are defending the currently sourced version. The burden of proof is on you to provide sources necessary for change. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

it is not about common remember the policy WP it is about accurate i think semitic is more precise?--Usvruefktpi (talk) 02:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

As I explained before you deleted my post, not all followers of Abrahamic religions are Semites, and not all Semitic religions are Abrahamic. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

and how is that??--Usvruefktpi (talk) 03:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Most Christians and many Muslims are not Semites (so not all followers of Abrahamic religions are Semites, even if those followers adhere to a religion that derives its authority from Abraham). There were many Semitic religions that had nothing to do with Abraham at all (so not all Semitic religions are Abrahamic). It's really not that hard to understand, and can easily be seen by consulting any source on the topic. If you want to argue otherwise, you'll need to present evidence that the majority of professionally published mainstream academic sources supports your view. Not just "a couple of websites by someone we don't know," you're going to need to show that publications from folks like Brill publishers, Wiley-Blackwell, or Oxford University Press not only consider the terms "Abrahamic" and "Semitic" to be synonymous, but also (per WP:COMMONNAME) that they favor the use of Semitic instead of Abrahamic when describing religions that derive their authority from Abraham. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

image it is not very accurate there is nothing as Abrahamic symbols --Usvruefktpi (talk) 02:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Those images are all Abrahamic symbols. If you don't think they are, either you don't know what Abrahamic religions are, or you're here to push your own interpretation. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

i do know what Abrahamic religions are the image does not represent them--Usvruefktpi (talk) 03:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Echo of exactly what Ian.thomson said. On both points above.--Smkolins (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Usvruefktpi, can you be more explicit? These are the symbols of the four most common remaining Abrahamic faiths. What images would you include?Ordinary Person (talk) 11:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


i think we need to consider that as a brahma was the creator of 'the universe' according to Hindu religions that there is an argument that we need to include them too. you may agree with me that we would have to accept that abraham was descended from him, but, that would be the lesser of your needs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.134.125 (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Brahma being the creator according to Hindu belief is not relevant at all, since Hinduism is not an Abrahamic religion. The attempt to connect Brahma and Abraham is a False cognate. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abrahamic_religions/Archive_5&oldid=1136491828"