Talk:Muhammad and the Bible

Solomon 5:16

This should not be listed on Wikipedia. The thought that the name "Muhammad" can be interpreted from the Hebrew word "muhammadim" the root word for which is "machmad" or like something desired, is nonsensical. This is about the love between Solomon and his bride. Adding Muhammad in here would be absolutely ridiculous. Even suggesting it could be an interpretation should not be anywhere on the page. Sure, maybe some desperate people try to interpret it as such, but to even give it mention is a disgrace to the Old Testament. 32.214.74.121 (talk) 21:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Religious whatevers is often nonsensical to people not of that religion. The source seems good enough, a Christian publisher but that doesn't make it unusable here, and "disgrace to the Old Testament" is not a problem per Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Other people probably find other parts of this article objectionable. Some would object to the use of the term "Old Testament" in this context. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

See Talk:Song_of_Songs#Name_of_Muhammad for previous discussion as to why this is deeply stupid, and not included on the "Song of Songs" article. AnonMoos (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense that's it's not WP:PROPORTION to include there. You don't find anything about The Christ-Krishna Connection in those respective articles either. People like it when words sounds similar, I guess. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

For the interested, here's a couple of not-RS:[1][2] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Found this [3], but not sure how good it is per [4]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Notable Passages from Bahai Interpretations

Looking for help in providing appropriate references to add a section:

START

TITLE: Notable passages in Bahá'í interpretation The Bahá'í Faith claims there are several passages within the Old and New Testament prophesying Muhammad, Ali and the other eleven of the Twelve Imams, as well as the rise of the Islamic nation.

SECTION 1: Old Testament

Genesis 17:20, God promises Ishmael twelve princes and a great nation. The twelve princes are considered by Baha'is to be the Twelve Imams, and the great nation is interpreted as one of the fruits of Muhammad's revelation; a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi states, "it is not the City State, but the National State which Muhammad's teachings fostered." Additionally, references to Paran made in Deuteronomy 33:2, Genesis 21:21, Numbers 12:16, and Numbers 13:3 are considered references to Muhammad's Revelation.

SECTION 2: New Testament

According to ʻAbdu'l-Bahá, the eleventh and twelfth chapters of the Book of Revelation prophecy the dispensation of Muhammad, Ali, and the Umayyad Caliphate, the latter of which is described as an enemy of the religion of Muhammad and is considered the beast and the dragon mentioned in Revelation. 'Abdu'l-Bahá claims that the two witnesses are Muhammad and Ali while the prophecy of "forty-two months" and "a thousand two hundred and three score days" is the 1260 year duration of the Qur'anic Dispensation, as Baha'is hold that in the Islamic year 1260 AH, or 1844 AD, which is the year the Báb's revelation began, was the end of that era. He further states that at the end of Muhammad and Ali's testimony, "the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit", who are the Umayyads, went to war with 'Ali and his descendants, and saught to kill members of the lineage of Muhammad because they feared the advent of the Mahdi. The seven heads of the dragon are considered to be the seven dominions and kingdoms of the Islamic world under the reign of the Umayyads: Syria, Persia, Arabia, Egypt, the dominion of Africa (Tunisia, Morocco, and Algeria), Andalusia, and the Turkish tribes of Transoxania; the ten horns are the ten names of the fifteen Umayyad rulers: Abu-Sufyan (the former chief of Mecca and founder of the dynasty), Mu'awiyah, Yazid, Marwan, 'Abdu'l-Malik, Al-Walid, Sulayman, Umar, Hisham, and Ibrahim. Further, 'Abdu'l-Bahá states that the three woes refer to Muhammad, the Báb, and Bahá'u'lláh. Book of Ezekiel 30:1-3 is referenced as the explanation for the word Woe: "The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying, Son of man, prophesy and say, Thus saith the Lord God; Howl ye, Woe worth the day! For the day is near, even the day of the Lord is near." In other words, the day of woe refers to the woe of "the heedless, the sinners, and the ignorant".

END

References provided include letters from Shoghi Effendi and 'Abdu'l-Bahá, both of whom are considered interpreters of Baha'i religious texts authored by the religion's founders and authors, the Bab and Baha'u'llah. As this section is intended to provide the religion's official perspective, these were the primary sources used, as their statements are considered official positions by that religion. Additional sources may be found at the UC Merced website by Stephen N. Lambden: https://hurqalya.ucmerced.edu/journals/bsb. Trying to find other sources as well, but could use some help if these three are not sufficient. Looking for clarity. Thanks! FortisVault (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Baháʼí

I removed this section, recently added:

The Bahá'í Faith claims there are several passages within the Old and New Testament prophesying Muhammad, Ali and the other eleven of the Twelve Imams, as well as the rise of the Islamic nation.

Old Testament

Genesis 17:20, God promises Ishmael twelve princes and a great nation. The twelve princes are considered by Baha'is to be the Twelve Imams, and the great nation is interpreted as one of the fruits of Muhammad's revelation; a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi states, "it is not the City State, but the National State which Muhammad's teachings fostered."

Additionally, references to Paran made in Deuteronomy 33:2, Genesis 21:21, Numbers 12:16, and Numbers 13:3 are considered references to Muhammad's Revelation.

New Testament

According to ʻAbdu'l-Bahá, the eleventh and twelfth chapters of the Book of Revelation prophecy the dispensation of Muhammad, Ali, and the Umayyad Caliphate, the latter of which is described as an enemy of the religion of Muhammad and is considered the beast and the dragon mentioned in Revelation. 'Abdu'l-Bahá claims that the two witnesses are Muhammad and Ali while the prophecy of "forty-two months" and "a thousand two hundred and three score days" is the 1260 year duration of the Qur'anic Dispensation, as Baha'is hold that in the Islamic year 1260 AH, or 1844 AD, which is the year the Báb's revelation began, was the end of that era. He further states that at the end of Muhammad and Ali's testimony, "the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit", who are the Umayyads, went to war with 'Ali and his descendants, and saught to kill members of the lineage of Muhammad because they feared the advent of the Mahdi. The seven heads of the dragon are considered to be the seven dominions and kingdoms of the Islamic world under the reign of the Umayyads: Syria, Persia, Arabia, Egypt, the dominion of Africa (Tunisia, Morocco, and Algeria), Andalusia, and the Turkish tribes of Transoxania; the ten horns are the ten names of the fifteen Umayyad rulers: Abu-Sufyan (the former chief of Mecca and founder of the dynasty), Mu'awiyah, Yazid, Marwan, 'Abdu'l-Malik, Al-Walid, Sulayman, Umar, Hisham, and Ibrahim.

Further, 'Abdu'l-Bahá states that the three woes refer to Muhammad, the Báb, and Bahá'u'lláh. Book of Ezekiel 30:1-3 is referenced as the explanation for the word Woe: "The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying, Son of man, prophesy and say, Thus saith the Lord God; Howl ye, Woe worth the day! For the day is near, even the day of the Lord is near." In other words, the day of woe refers to the woe of "the heedless, the sinners, and the ignorant".

References

I'm not against mentioning Bahai if there is some coverage on this in independent scholarship, I think I actually looked for that at one point, but this is exclusively based on internal religious writing. And the amount of it is not WP:DUE IMO. I'm no Baháʼí scholar (or any scholar) but the writings of ʻAbdu'l-Bahá appears to fall under WP:RSPSCRIPTURE as well, though some scripture quoting is of course reasonable on this topic. I have no view on the WP:RS-ness of the other refs cited, though "sic" is not a good way to write a ref. @Cuñado, @Gazelle55, other interested, do you feel like having an opinion? Ping also @FortisVault who added the section and commented on my talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Just to add from my previous post in talk, which is now a duplicate (apologies for adding to the confusion):

References provided include letters from Shoghi Effendi and 'Abdu'l-Bahá, both of whom are considered interpreters of Baha'i religious texts authored by the religion's founders and authors, the Bab and Baha'u'llah. As this section is intended to provide the religion's official perspective, these were the primary sources used, as their statements are considered official positions by that religion. Additional sources may be found at the UC Merced website by Stephen N. Lambden: https://hurqalya.ucmerced.edu/journals/bsb. Trying to find other sources as well, but could use some help if these three are not sufficient. Looking for clarity. Thanks!

I believe this article is POV neutral as it's intent is to state the position of the Bahais using their official interpreters. It is not intended to speak to the validity of the religion's claims. FortisVault (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we were writing our posts at the same time, it happens. We'll see if more people have opinions. I don't dispute there are some Bahai views on this, but would like to see some Bahai-independent sources who bothered to notice. I'd like to see well-sourced views on Muhammad and the Bible from Judaism as well, but I haven't found any. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me. I don't think the ones that are currently included are WP:RS, but I imagine there is something about this in a reliable source. Peter Smith wrote a 2000 book called A Concise Encyclopedia of the Baha'i Faith or something like that... you could look under the entry for Muhammad. There is also a 2022 (or 2021?) academic volume edited by Robert Stockman, which may have something in one of its articles. Beyond that I would just have to look at some of the other academic publications on the Baha'i Faith (could check the references at Baha'i Faith for more). Gazelle55 ^{Let's talk!} 20:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The Smith book is here:[5] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything in Smith, but did come across this: https://hurqalya.ucmerced.edu/sites/hurqalya.ucmerced.edu/files/page/documents/bsb_1-3_c.pdf

See pages 11 and 12. Dr. Lambden also sites a couple of other sources, such as Rigg's "The Apocalypse Unsealed" which can be found at. https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupid?key=olbp27119

Let me know what you think. FortisVault (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything in Smith either, but I may have missed stuff mentioning specific parts of the Bible, Exodus, Revelations, etc.

The first document appears to me, based on page 2, to be a WP:SPS (and fwiw, there are a lot of spelling errors, I'm thinking scanned type-writer text).

The second [6] says "Early draft of the later book Apocalypse - An Exegesis. See the updated version of this book, Apocalypse: An Exegesis. See also a review." It is published by The Philosophical Library (not a good WP-article), doesn't seem like, well, academic press.

Apocalypse: An Exegesis is here [7] says "The original exegesis of the Apocalypse, written by the author, was reviewed by the Bahá'í Universal House of Justice and was approved by the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States." This makes me believe that Riggs also is writing "from the inside." @Gazelle55, care to comment? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I put a note at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Muhammad_and_the_Bible, the Reference desk has been known to work miracles on occasion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that Baha'i authors submit all their publications to their NSA for review first. We haven't been saying sources aren't RS simply because of this, or because the author is Baha'i -- e.g., Peter Smith is a Baha'i who presumably submits his academic writings for review. So I think it comes down to whether or not we regard Philosophical Library, the publisher, as a reliable source. They are not a Baha'i publisher but I don't know enough to say whether they should be counted as reliable. It is possible for a source to be reliable but also biased or opinionated (this is covered at WP:RS), in which case we would want to attribute the author in text to make clear this is their perspective. Anyway, I don't have time to look into the details of this case right now, but I think those are the general principles to keep in mind. Best, Gazelle55 ^{Let's talk!} 20:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I just noticed I was pinged here 8 days ago. I generally avoid using Shoghi Effendi as a source on Baha'i topics. In this case, it would be easy to argue that the entire section is UNDUE and just delete it. I have developed a stack of reliable sources on the Baha'i Faith and I could easily put together sources and reword the section. If at least one person thinks that's worth it, let me know. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cuñado If you can add something well-sourced and WP:PROPORTIONATE, I absolutely support it. There is no doubt in my mind that this view exists, the problem (for me) is banging it into WP-shape. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Please do, and thanks! FortisVault (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Any luck putting something together? FortisVault (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Hm yes, it's been 2 months. @Cuñado? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cuñado Trying another ping. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Tahrif and Muslim View of changing the Bible

Hello. For several days I have been trying to post important information - the Muslim view on changing the Bible. It is extremely important in the context of the Paraclete because it was here that Muslim scholars made these claims. The Muslim view on this issue is important. Wikipedia should be an impartial place, not Christian apologetics without the ability to respond. Please accept the edit 2A00:F41:803E:CCE9:854:C44F:A88E:CEDF (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

We can only accept additions where all the claims are cited to reliable sources. Firstly, you unilaterally changed "scholarship" to "Christian scholarship" or variations thereof, which was not accurate as some of the cited scholarship was secular in nature. Regarding the primary addition, you first cited an explicitly confessional outlet (Aims: To spread Islam and call people to it. To spread Islamic knowledge and dispel ignorance among Muslims.), as opposed to a critical academic source, which has a much better chance of being reliable for claims about Muslim views. Later attempts either were similar or didn't cite anything, as if that were better. Remsense ‥ 论 08:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I guess you can ignore my ping ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. So I understand the mistake I made that I wasn't aware of. I believed that in theological matters, a source that constituted a religious authority was sufficient. So I'm going to present a critical source that I managed to find on a related wikipedia page. Here it is: The Syrian scholar Ibn Abi Talib al-Dimashqi (d. 1327) asserts that the verses were generally believed to be about the coming of a prophet, until the reign of Constantine I (r. 306–337) when the Christian priests altered the verses to refer to the Holy Spirit, fearing that Constantine would recognize the true faith. Source: Fitzpatrick & Walker 2014, p. 436. 2A00:F41:803E:CCE9:854:C44F:A88E:CEDF (talk) 08:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

A title of the Fitzpatrick & Walker book might be helpful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, [8]. And Ibn Abi Talib al-Dimashqi. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Here [9] is the page in question. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

According to the source cited, can I obtain permission to add this information? „ The Syrian scholar Ibn Abi Talib al-Dimashqi (d. 1327) asserts that the verses were generally believed to be about the coming of a prophet, until the reign of Constantine I (r. 306–337) when the Christian priests altered the verses to refer to the Holy Spirit, fearing that Constantine would recognize the true faith.” 2A00:F41:803E:CCE9:854:C44F:A88E:CEDF (talk) 09:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Note that taḥrīf comes up in the Muhammad_and_the_Bible#History, third paragraph. How about if we add to that paragraph

"Syrian scholar Ibn Abi Talib al-Dimashqi (13th-14th century) supported this view, stating that the Paraclete verses had referred to Muhammad, but had been altered by church leaders to influence Constantine the Great." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Yes, I think it's a good idea and in the right place — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:F41:4822:B2BF:F10F:9504:A612:C7E1 (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for using the talkpage. WP:COMMUNICATE is important on this website. Ping @Remsense if you wish to comment.

Afaict, the sources you have been using are not WP:RS, just because something is online does not mean it's good for WP-use. This [10] is WP:OR as written, consider also WP:RSPSCRIPTURE.

That said, I made this change:[11], do you think that's improvement? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2024

I request to add some more Details and Prophecies about The Prophet Muhammad S.A.W. in The Bible. Alhamdulillahirabulalameen (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --AntiDionysius (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)