Talk:Barakah

It's not purely an Arabic term

The Word Barakah means blessing in Hebrew and has been part of Judaism for thousands of years before Islam existed. Drsmoo 06:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Use in French

Can anyone provide a source for the use of "barakah" as a comtemporary French synonym for "luck"? --Saforrest 03:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Problems verifying spiritual definitions

This entry is written from an external perspective, so it reads, from an internal perspective, like a child relating that his mother has to say, "Not tonight, I have a headache", before she can fall asleep. Since personal experience is deprecated here, all we can do is poke at the elephant and talk about this feature or that.

Personal experience always occurs outside the Temples of Orthodox Truth: the Laboratory Frame, with its Standard Temperature and Pressure, and Authoritative Sources, with their italics, references, and footnote throw-weights. As Allah (subhannah wa ta' Allah) has ordained.

Walk from a darkened room into the sunlight and you will know all there is to know about baraka. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msml (talk • contribs) 11:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't just an Muslim term

There was a link to this term on a page on Spanish history that had everything to do with modern history and not Islam. That, along with other comments here lead me to believe that this is not term that is limited to Islam. Can this entry be broadened since this term is used in other contexts? 63.143.210.215 (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually it's the other way around, around 4000 words are borrowed from Arabic in Spanish:

Why are many Spanish words borrowed from Arabic? – Digglicious.com

It is not a term limited to Islam because it comes from the Semitic language including Hebrew and Aramaic however it is used in Arabic abundantly. Jawad2heaven (talk) 08:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Source vs Transmission

Just a thought or two from a non-Mulim. If you write an article with a lede stating, “God is the sole source of baraka” is it not then confusing to use the word “source” relating to other entities in the text? Using the terms “ultimate source” and “secondary source” muddies the waters somewhat. Surely there is one source, and only one source? It seems to me that, to be strictly accurate, the Koran, Mohammed etc. are all transmitters and distributors of baraka from God and not sources.

If one thinks of, and refers to, a shrine as a source rather than a transmitter, is it not that mindset that leads others to make accusations of idolatry as outlined in the final section, “Controversy of seeking Baraka”?

I have taken the liberty of changing one occurrence of “source” to “transmitter”.where it relates to saints, and seems appropriate, but would certainly not make that change relating to the Koran or Mohammed without knowing a great deal more about doctrine. Freeman501 (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Barakah meaning in Quran

Definition: Barakah (بركة) means abundance and establishment of goodness, derived from the word al-birkah (البركة). The root of the word "barakah" in Arabic is ب-ر-ك (B-R-K), which means "to bless" or "blessing". This root is found in various contexts within the Quran and Hadith, emphasizing the importance of seeking and acknowledging blessings in all aspects of life.

The word barakah (بركة) appears approximately 32 times in the Quran.

Muslims seek for "barakah" in their daily lives by supplicating to their lord. They may have a little bit of food but by seeking barakah and their food can be blessed to provide an abundance of nourishment and nutrients by Allah's will. One can seek for barakah from Allah in anything such as their wealth, time, consumables, business, etc... Allah can make blessings and good occur in one's hands while not found with others.

Examples:

Quran 19:30-31:

قَالَ إِنِّى عَبْدُ ٱللَّهِ ءَاتَىٰنِىَ ٱلْكِتَـٰبَ وَجَعَلَنِى نَبِيًّۭا ٣٠

وَجَعَلَنِى مُبَارَكًا أَيْنَ مَا كُنتُ وَأَوْصَـٰنِى بِٱلصَّلَوٰةِ وَٱلزَّكَوٰةِ مَا دُمْتُ حَيًّۭا ٣١

"Jesus declared, “I am truly a servant of Allah. He has destined me to be given the Scripture and to be a prophet.

He has made me a blessing wherever I go, and bid me to establish prayer and give alms-tax as long as I live,"

Quran 67:1:

تَبَـٰرَكَ ٱلَّذِى بِيَدِهِ ٱلْمُلْكُ وَهُوَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَىْءٍۢ قَدِيرٌ

"Blessed is the One in Whose Hands rests all authority. And He is Most Capable of everything."

Quran 7:96:

وَلَوْ أَنَّ أَهْلَ ٱلْقُرَىٰٓ ءَامَنُوا۟ وَٱتَّقَوْا۟ لَفَتَحْنَا عَلَيْهِم بَرَكَـٰتٍۢ مِّنَ ٱلسَّمَآءِ وَٱلْأَرْضِ وَلَـٰكِن كَذَّبُوا۟ فَأَخَذْنَـٰهُم بِمَا كَانُوا۟ يَكْسِبُونَ

"Had the people of those societies been faithful and mindful ˹of Allah˺, We would have overwhelmed them with blessings from heaven and earth. But they disbelieved, so We seized them for what they used to commit." (Dr. Mustafa Khattab translation)

Sahih al-Bukhari 2079: Book 34, Hadith 32:

حَدَّثَنَا سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ حَرْبٍ، حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، عَنْ قَتَادَةَ، عَنْ صَالِحٍ أَبِي الْخَلِيلِ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ الْحَارِثِ، رَفَعَهُ إِلَى حَكِيمِ بْنِ حِزَامٍ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ "‏ الْبَيِّعَانِ بِالْخِيَارِ مَا لَمْ يَتَفَرَّقَا ـ أَوْ قَالَ حَتَّى يَتَفَرَّقَا ـ فَإِنْ صَدَقَا وَبَيَّنَا بُورِكَ لَهُمَا فِي بَيْعِهِمَا، وَإِنْ كَتَمَا وَكَذَبَا مُحِقَتْ بَرَكَةُ بَيْعِهِمَا ‏"‏‏.‏

English Translation:

Narrated Hakim bin Hizam:

Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "The seller and the buyer have the right to keep or return goods as long as they have not parted or till they part; and if both the parties spoke the truth and described the defects and qualities (of the goods), then they would be blessed in their transaction, and if they told lies or hid something, then the blessings of their transaction would be lost."

Similarity between the word in Arabic and Hebrew and Aramaic:

"בְּרָכָה" (B'rakhah). The Hebrew word "בְּרָכָה" closely mirrors the Arabic "barakah" (البركة) in both its sound and meaning, reflecting the common linguistic roots shared by Hebrew and Arabic as Semitic languages.

In Aramaic, the language historically related to both Hebrew and Arabic, the concept similar to "barakah" (blessing) can be found with the word "ܒܪܟܬܐ" (brkta). Aramaic, like Arabic and Hebrew, belongs to the Semitic language family.

Sources:

Definition of Barakah: Commentary on Kitab At-Tawheed (Volume 1) Shaikh, Muhammad bin Salih Al-'Uthaimeen [Darussalam Print], Page 199. Jawad2heaven (talk) 08:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Do not revert reliable sources

Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources for an explanation of why edits which remove reliable sources on the grounds that the editor prefers something else are not acceptable. Also see Wikipedia:Ownership of content for why editors may not replace properly sourced articles with their own work. Wikipedia:NOTESSAY, Wikipedia:NPOV & MOS:PBUH explain other problems. UrielAcosta (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

You have no authority to determine whether a prophet receives an honorifics or not, God does. If your platform wishes to omit these then you MUST omit ALL contents about Islam to begin with. It's not your religion to pick and choose. So far all of the curators that have undone legitimate changes have turned down reference of a prominent Muslim Arabic scholar citation and honorific to all prophets including Jesus (PBUH). If you don't like it, remove Islam as a subject ENTIRELY from Wikipedia. Extremely disrespectful towards my beloved prophets. May God guide us all. @UrielAcosta @StephenMacky1 Jawad2heaven (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The fact that you say "You have no authority to determine whether a prophet receives an honorifics or not, God does" leads me to assume that you have not read WP:NPOV, MOS:PBUH, or WP:ONUS which were cited in reverting your changes and which are among those I have also explained that you need to read to understand the problems with your changes (as the only other possibility is that you HAVE read them but are still disregarding them)
To be clear: Wikipedia doesn't believe that any religion's gods and prophets are really gods or really prophets, because Wikipedia is neutral and those are not verifiable facts. Wikipedia has no religion,and the guidelines for Wikipedia articles are not the same as for writing religious essays.

You should also read Wikipedia:Civility to understand that derogatory comments about other editors are not permitted. UrielAcosta (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I have clearly read and understood the MOS:PBUH and hence my explanation of how disrespectful this platform is. You do not believe in it; does it mean you should disrespect the prophets because of your beliefs? And resume open discussions about them and turn down someone of that religion that brings authentic reference and corrections? This is opposite to inclusivity. Whatever your beliefs are, this is again not your religion to cherry pick and God is the ultimate authority.

Just because the Nazis did not like the Jews, does that give the Nazis the right to oppress the Jews and disrespect their ethnicity and religious beliefs and openly talk about what they do not know? Nonsense! Would you go to an atheist to discuss Judaism, Christianity or Islam?

Moses, Jesus, Noah, Isaac and Mohammed Peace and blessings upon ALL of them, whether Wikipedia likes it or not. Not your religion to cherry pick.

@UrielAcosta Jawad2heaven (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

If you have read the guidelines then you have read that your changes are not allowed and at openly refusing to follow them. This is, of course, not acceptable behavior in a eyes editor. You still do not seem to understand that Wikipedia is not an Islamic site and is extremely disrespectful to non-Muslims to order them to accept phrasing in Wikipedia's voice that praises your gods and prophets. UrielAcosta (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you not see the contradiction? You feel "disrespected" because you want to word a religion you do not follow. A non-Muslim dictating how to word Islam? I thought Wikipedia was about being factual and I guess freedom of speech includes disrespecting others just because of your "feelings".

If Wikipedia is not a site about Islam and does not wish to respect to honor all prophets including Jesus, Noah, Moses, Abraham, etc... then remove Islam entirely from this website.

And you said "your gods" you clearly haven't a clue about Islam do you? There are no gods except for God.

@UrielAcosta Jawad2heaven (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is not about the nature of Islam, it is about the nature of Wikipedia. Your claim that this article must be written only from an Islamic point of view demonstrates that you either do not understand or do not care about Wikipedia's rules requiring neutrality, and therefore should not edit it unless and until you do understand them and are willing to follow them. Please note that persistently and knowingly violating these rules can result in a ban on editing Wikipedia. UrielAcosta (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello Jawad2heaven. You should not have taken the reverts personally. I appreciate your attempts to contribute, but there are policies and guidelines to be followed here. We are trying to give you constructive feedback here. Perhaps we shouldn't overload you with the policies and guidelines since you are a new editor, but if you want to keep contributing here, then you'll have to learn them eventually. Wikipedia as an encyclopedia cannot take the side of a religion over the rest. Information has to be written in a neutral manner. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)