Talk:Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Untitled

I know it was only a stub to open the page, but we must be careful not to label everything 'arabic' as 'Islamic'. I am no expert on Islamic mythology, but suppose that for instance Alladin and Arabian Nights are 'Arabic' instead of 'Islamic'--TK

Excellent point! I agree 100 percent. I hope that those who know more will improve the page -- it sure does need improvement! -- Cayzle

I've moved this page from Islamic Mythology to Arabic mythology, not because I consider them the same but because they are clearly different. Most of the stuff here is Arabic rather than Islamic. I would recommend that we create a separate Islamic mythology article as soon as we have enough material to go in it. DJ Clayworth 21:28, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think that this is a very poor stub, and someone needs to report some actual studies and published works. My main concern is that what is being labeled Arabian Mythology is not necessarily Arabian. Many of the stories in the Thousand Nights and A Night are not Arabian at all, and the title was changed to 1000 Arabian Nights long after it was written. Persians and other people are responsible for much of this mythology. Michael Hancock (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Rewriting

i think i finished rewriting around 70% of this article and around 20%~30% of Arabian mythology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DesertDagger (talk • contribs) 04:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


Rewriting - 02

Ok i finished rewriting 100% of this artical and around 30%~35% of Arabian mythology, now my problem with ~70% Arab myth is that i cant link Arabic books as sources here and there is no english books talking about it, knowing that i didn't even finish writing about the City-State of Makka i still have to write about the early Arab Kingdoms like Kindah , Ghassanids , Lakhmids , Nabataeans , Banu Judham , Himyarite and the rest of the Arabs City-States and Kingdoms.DesertDagger (talk) 09:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Geography

Maybe this would be better titled Middle Eastern Mythology. That would incorporate both Islamic and Arabic aspects because people from both of those traditions are from the Middle East. I realize that Middle East is a broad geographic area but couldn't the article be separated into different sections? hdstubbs

Such a page would include a few dozen old mythologies from the Phrygians of Turkey to Persia to Mesopotamia to the Levant to Egypt... Castanea dentata 19:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

"Arabic" refers to the language. "Arabian" is the convention when speaking of the people and their archaic beliefs. I moved the page. Castanea dentata 19:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

ah this page is no where near complete is there a problem? ``

i hink the propoer term is neither arabic nor arabian, it is arab, arabian refers to the arabian peninsula full stop, while arab refers to pre and post islamic era, which include several mythologies in the arab culture, such as Joha (Goha, Juha, Djoha), and El-Shatir Hasan (Hasan the Good), Princess Yasmeen, and other folk tales and mythologies, such as Omena El Ghoula (our Beastly Mother), Abu Rjl Masloukha (the man of the burned Leg) etc...

the page should be redirected to the Arab Mythology, rather then Arabian. Arab League User (talk) 11:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"The Kaaba was instead covered in symbols representing the myriad demons, djinn, demigods and other assorted creatures which represented the profoundly polytheistic environment of pre-Islamic Arabia." Pre-Islam, people mostly worshiped god, in addition angels, demigods and jin (in a way different than demons) believing that they will help as a connection between them and god. In addition statues around kaaba where destroyed after Muslims won the fight and Mecca became the capital. Arabian Nights is a wrong name, its original name is One Thousand and One Nights as you can see if you click on the link of Arabian nights, the book is known in the western world as Arabian Nights. The stories are believed to be gathered from different countries and believes so saying it was "Arabian" mythology is totally wrong, Islam was against a lot of pre-Islam believes and consider them wrong (of the middle east area where it started, justice and other believes related to it where encouraged, so saying Islam was influenced by those stories and pre-Islam mythology cant be true as a lot of Muslims (and I mean Muslims of the time the book was first printed) were against a publishing it in Arabic as even though the meaning of the stories might ment nothing more than an advice, it was presented in a way not accepted in Islam, such stories contradicted the believes of Islam or had some parts containing nudity. by that "Islamic mythology has probably been influenced to a large degree by Arabian mythology and the two are often difficult to distinguish." is totally wrong.

"The Hand of Fatima is sometimes used to neutralize the effect of Evil Eye, though its use is forbidden in Islam" as a Muslim myself, i never heard of such thing as hand of Fatima, there are several tries to 'change' in Quran and Islam's believes, and there are several, how can i describe it, "Cults" that claims they belong to Islam, so please be sure of what you write as "Islam" hope i made a good addition/correction Lucifer-sama 12:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC) i think so...

Seriously flawed (gramatically) text

This sentence fragment makes no sense due to chaotic grammar (emphasis added):

  • "... one of the three chief goddesses of Mecca, Arabs only call upon her or Hubal for protection and victory before any war and that to show how important she was.[5]"

The following text is not written in modern English grammar but sounds like it was copied verbatim from some older religious or narrative texts, possibly creating a copyvio problem (emphasis added):

  • "All the Arabs used to venerate her and sacrifice before her. The Aws and the Khazraj, as well as the inhabitants of Medina and Mecca and their vicinities, used to venerate Manāt, sacrifice before her, and bring unto her their offerings... The Aws and the Khazraj, as well as those Arabs among the people of Yathrib and other places who took to their way of life, were wont to go on pilgrimage and observe the vigil at all the appointed places, but not shave their heads. At the end of the pilgrimage, however, when they were about to return home, they would set out to the place where Manāt stood, shave their heads, and stay there a while. They did not consider their pilgrimage completed until they visited Manāt.[6]"

I know very little about this subject matter but the writing style of this article needs serious cleanup to become encyclopedic. 66.97.213.94 (talk) 04:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Rewriting/More writing Needed

I felt the need to rewrite the part about Hubal but after reading it in the context of the whole thing, I think much of this article needs to be rewritten or added to to make a consistent article. So I may do some writing here and just wanted to make it known, this page doesn't seem very active and I think it is much needed.

Also, I feel that there needs to be more consistence with the use of phrases 'meccan religion' 'arabian mythology' 'pre-islam arabian'. They seem to be used interchangeably but there is not reason for this in my opinion. 'pre-islam' itself seems a little strange to me because it implies the mythology was eradicated and replaced which may be debatable TreboniusArtorius (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

pre-Islam?

Implicit in this page, others that refer to it, and a few other Wikipedia pages is the idea that "pre-Islam" equates to "before the prophet Muhammed" or before "the rise of Islam" (whatever that means). Most Muslims will agree that Islam is an ancient religion of which Muhammed was the last (and greatest) of prophets; in other words, Islam did not begin with the prophet Muhammed. This is important, because if care is not taken, this sloppiness of thinking leads to the great mistake amongst non-Muslims of calling Muhammed the "founder" of Islam (which can cause great offence). --The Lesser Merlin 14:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC) by ray dulnuan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.112.26 (talk) 07:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

...Muhammad is the founder of Islam. And Islam is as ancient as Muhammad is, no more and no less. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.222.205.242 (talk) 09:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Two things

  • Two things: like Hubal, Allah was worshipped as the father god in Arabian polytheism before Islam. Someone else will have to look for sources for this claim, mine are in languages other than English. Also, there was not one coherent system, but rather a lot of regional variation.
  • Pre-Islamic and Islamic Arabian mythologies should be distinguished. Jinns were probably known before Muhammad, but they remained part of mediaeval Islamic folklore and indeed most stories about them are from Islamic times; not so Allat, Manat etc, who disappear completely after Muhammad. The latter belong to Arabian pagan religion, and I find it POV that Islam is called a religion, but pre-Islamic Arabian belief systems are only regarded as a "mythology". --91.148.159.4 (talk) 15:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Allah added. This was a verious serious omission. Badagnani (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I removed your addition Allah was not a pre-Islamic god. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DesertDagger (talk • contribs) 21:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Is that your opinion? On the contrary, the sources do indeed indicate that the name "Allah" was used in the pre-Islamic religion in Arabia. Badagnani (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Isn't it recognized that Allah and Satan are title/identities, rather than names? 174.127.200.52 (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Allah as a Meccan god

All the verses of Quran I see used here about Allah among non-Muslims,I don't see one of them ever referring to the Meccans in the whole surah. The verses keep saying "They" but who is "They"? That is never even once mentioned or indicated. I think this "They" is actually the monotheists of Christians and Jews and when the Quran says "and have fabricated for Him sons and daughters without knowledge" in surah 6:100, I think it is referring to Christians believing that Christ was the son of God.

Not only that Karen Armstrong's Islam: A Short History although calls Allah as a High God but it doesn't use any original source. The only way to confirm that there was a pre-Islamic Meccan deity by the name of Allah is that if any text of that time would have mentioned it. Also she actually says that it "seems" the Kaabah was venetrated as a shrine of Allah, the High God. She never says this is definitely true and is only taking a guess. Additionally I think the sentence which says Allah seems to be High God is very confusing:

But by Muhammad's day, it seems that the Kabah was venerated as the shrine of Allah, the High God, and it is a mark of the widespread conviction that Allah was the same as the deity worshipped by monotheists that those Arabs in the northern tribes on the borders of the Byzantine Empire who had converted to Christianity used to make the hajj alongside the pagans.

I think she is saying that Allah, the High God was the same deity worshipped by monotheists (likely Muslims) and Arab Christians.

Also no text of that time or any hadith or any Islamic historian ever records that there was a Meccan deity by name of Allah. KahnJohn27 (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This is well sourced in Gardet and Böwering, which are cited in the article. Your critique of one other secondary source using primary sources is not relevant - see WP:PRIMARY. I've therefore reverted you. DeCausa (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
@DeCausa: The source of Kirsten Armstrong says that it "seems" that Allah might have been a High God. Not only that she doesn't use any original research to cite this and her statement about pre-Islamic Allah seems really unclear and confusing. I understand you reverting my edits but the source of Kirsten Armstrong does not provide any definite information about this topic and seems to be a guess that too without citing any historical text. It therefore cannot be used as a source and should be removed. Also the verses of Quran used here never indicate in the whole surah who they are referring to. I think they might be referring to monotheists but that is just a guess. They should be removed too. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
@DeCausa: Also I am going to correct a mistake in the article. I might have been wrong about Allah as a Meccan god I guess. Allah is an Arabic word and it was used by some pre-Islamic Arabs to refer to a supreme deity of their pantheon. I'll mention that now and source it. KahnJohn27 (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you were wrong about that. And your recent change is also incorrect as it is presenting an Islamic POV. You have created a false use-mention distinction wiyhin the article. It now reads that Allah is the deity in Islam whereas "Allah" is a name used for a god in pre-Islam. In other words, the real Allah is as defined as Islam defines it. DeCausa (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
@DeCausa:The source I used quite clearly says that the word "Allah" was used by polytheistic pre-Islamic Arabs not just the Meccans. Thar's no Islamic POV but just the fact. Not only that the only thing I changed is that I added that Allah was used by other polytheistic Arabs too not just the Meccans. I never even once said that it appears to Allah couldn't be a part of the religious pantheon. However the name wasn't just used by the Meccans to refer to a supreme god. That is a fact. Your edit gives the mistaken assumption that it was solely used by the Meccans when it clearly can't be so. Don't remove sourced information especially over assumptions and don't try to enforce your opinion over others especially when they have sourced content. KahnJohn27 (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
That is the minor aspect of your edits, and if you introduce changes which solely indicate that it wasn't just the Meccans, then I have no problem with that. But the major change you are making relates to the use-mention distinction. Do not change references to Allah to being just the name used by polytheists. The article needs to state, as it curently does, that Allah was the creator god in the polytheistic pantheon. You are trying to change it to make it look like "Allah" was a name which the polytheists wrongfully used for one of their gods. DeCausa (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
@DeCausa: When did I ever say Allah was a name polytheists wrongly usedd for one of their gods? I never said that in my edits. I didn't ever say that. You are clearly mistaken. The only thing I ever said was that Meccans weren't the only ones who used Allah to denote a supreme god. Many other Arabic polytheistic tribes also used the word Allah as a name of or as a reference to supreme god of their pantheon. That's all my edits ever said. If you still feel that my edits were wrong then I'll modify it. Also notice that the source of Karen Armstrong you used never said that an idol or symbol of Allah was places in the Kaaba. I'm only going to enter that the Allah wasn't just used by the Meccans. Please don't remove sourced information. It seems that you are trying to dictate what can be added to this article. You cannot especially when it is sourced. Also as I already said the only thing I changed was that I added that Meccans weren't the only ones who used the word Allah as a reference to their supreme god. Now if you don't have any problem then should I proceed with adding that other polytheistic Arabs also used Allah as reference to their supreme god. I'll modify it and the only thing I will change is that I'll add Allah was also used by other polytheistic Arabs in reference to their supreme god.KahnJohn27 (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Usage of the word Allah in pre-Islamic Arabia

Should "Allah" even be capitalised in that section title? The word is, not just the name of god of Islam, but also the literal word for "god" (as in "Zeus was a Greek god"). Unless the word is actually being used to refer to the god of Islam, it should not be capitalised, just as the word "god" is not conventionally capitalised unless being used to refer to the god of Christianity.

Additionally that word "probably" marks the first sentence as blatant original research. Given that allah does indeed mean god in Semitic languages generally, and given that Arabia pre- Mohamed was polytheistic, it is far more "probable" that it was used simply to mean "god" in the generic sense, rather than referring to a specific creator god. Rhialto (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted the recent addition of "probably" because it's not supported by the source. That sentence is otherwise sourced. As far as the capitalisation of the initial "A" of Allah is concerned, that is correct and is supported by multiple sources. Allah doesn't mean "god" it means "God" i.e it is not a generic word for deities, it's a proper noun. "god" with a lower case "g" is a different in Arabic i.e. ilāh. DeCausa (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Quran and Allah's daughters

Apologies if this has been mentioned before, but I don't see it. From reading around, it seems that one of the main reasons scholars postulate that pre-Islamic Allah had daughters is that the Quran refutes the idea. This is explicit in Peters pp. 162–163 for example. Encyclopedia of Islam second edition also supports that the concept of "daughters of Allah" is derived from the Quran itself even though the phrase "daughters of Allah" is not there. The key sura's are 137:149 onwards:

So inquire of them, [O Muhammad], "Does your Lord have daughters while they have sons? Or did We create the angels as females while they were witnesses?" Unquestionably, it is out of their [invented] falsehood that they say, "Allah has begotten," and indeed, they are liars. Has He chosen daughters over sons? What is [wrong] with you? How do you make judgement? Then will you not be reminded? Or do you have a clear authority? Then produce your scripture, if you should be truthful."

(As always, translations may differ.) This cannot be a reference to Jews (who didn't give God any children), or to Christians (who gave him a son but no daughters). According to Peters, here the Quran is saying that Allah was going to have children he would have chosen sons, therefore the claim that he had daughters must be wrong. Zerotalk 23:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Please see Satanic verses. Also, Hawting has a thorough discussion of the issues surrounding these verses.
  • G. R. Hawting (9 December 1999). The Idea of Idolatry and the Emergence of Islam: From Polemic to History. Cambridge University Press. pp. 131–. ISBN 978-1-139-42635-0. - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
@Zero0000: I earlier misunderstood your statement. I somewhat agree with you. These Quranic verses seem to be a reference to children being attributed to God by various religions rather than him actually having daughters. And the translation of Peters most certainly seems somewhat correct. One thing however you are incorrect is that Jews didn't attribute any children to him. The Quran specifically mentions they attributed Uzair as a son to him:

The Jews call `Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is the saying from their mouth; (In this) they are intimate; what the Unbelievers of the old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the truth. [Qur'an 9:30]

Therefore it is also likely in the Quranic verses you gave, the "they" word is simply a reference to these monotheistic religions attributing children to Allah rather than the Meccans or other polytheistic Arabs. The Quranic verses however are anyway very unclear as to their meaning and cannot be used as a proof to claim that Allah had daughters neither any Quranic verse actually ever say anywhere that he did. KahnJohn27 (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: While I've read your source, one thing I remembered that even though some scholars postulate that Allah had sons and daughters in ore-Islamic Arabia, none of the tafsir (exegesis) of these Quranic verses in Hadiths or anywhere else ever said that Allah existed as a Meccan god or had any children or three daughters. Therefore using the Quran for the claim that Allah had daughters or children is incorrect and not valid since none of its exegesis gave ever claimed that it is such. KahnJohn27 (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
The Encyclopedia of Islam has an article Ilāh that shows a long history for the word Allah before Islam. Thanks for the information about `Uzayr, I didn't know that. No such belief is known from Jewish sources though. Zerotalk 09:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Daughters of Allah

@KahnJohn27: you have reverted here the inclusion of sourced/cited content making reference to the pre-Islamic Arabs having as one of their beliefs that Allah's daughters were the three goddesses Manat, Al-lat and Al-Uzzah. Your edit summary makes reference to "original research". I don't think you understand what that means in the context of Wikipedia. See WP:OR - original research is when an editor includes text unsupported by a source. This text is supported by cited sources. Here is a selection of that reliable sources that support this:

In fact, it is purely your original research that this reference should be deleted and you have provided no reason why these sources should not be accepted, except your own personal belief. You have a personal POV on this which you must set aside and recognise what the reliable sources. the long-standing stable text of this article always referred to the three goddesses being allah's daughters until you began editing this article in April e.g. [1] If you don't self-revert I'll call an RfC to get other editors involved. DeCausa (talk) 08:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: I don't have no personal POV or anything. The reason why I removed them was already given. Tell me even one source of them that uses any ancient text to verify that their were in fact daughters of Allah. That's what I meant. None of them does. The only real way to verify that there were daughters of Allah and Allah was a god in Meccan pantheon is if any ancient pre-Islamic text or Islamic text says he was and had daughters as well. However there isn't. These specualtion are either just merely based on specualtion or have nothing to back them up. And the verses of Quran which sometimes are used as a source that Allah existed in Mecca are very unclear and its not even clear anywher ethat they are either talking about polytheist Meccans or the monotheistic religious groups like Christians or Jews.

You are simply trying to impose your opinion. The sources being used to say that Allah existed in Mecca as a god or had daughters give no real definite proof. Hence the edits are made is correct. Entering that Allah had daughters or was a god in Mecca without any ancient pre-Islamic or Islamic text saying this was true is enteribg false or speculatory information. Please don't revert them or start an argument over them unless there is a source using any pre-Islamic or Islamic text which says that Allah was indeed a god in Mecca and had sons and daughters since these ancient texts are the only way to verify whether it is true or not. KahnJohn27 (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You are using original research to ignore the overwhelming weight of reliable sources, which is not permitted. As you believe you know more than the 15 reliable sources I've cited I'll guess I'll begin a Request for Comment.DeCausa (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
@DeCausa: I'm not claiming I know more, and what I'm saying is not original research at all. The only way to confirm whether a historical source existed is any hiatorical or ancient text saying it did. That's common sense. However none of the sources use any ancient text. They are either speculatory or cite no ancient text in support of what they're saying. Please stop imposing your opinion and trying to remove and needlessly argue over legit edits. Let it remain there as it is until any source uses any historical ancient text whether Allah was really a god in pre-Islamic times and he had chikdren because without it the information is false and speculatory. KahnJohn27 (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
No, you're trying to ignore what the reliable sources say. You haven't produced one source in support of your position. You should read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS because it describes what you're trying to do. I'm done with you and I'll initiate an RfC. DeCausa (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
@DeCausa: No you're trying to ignore that they are just speculatory and do not use any historical texts to prove their information. Let me see even one source here that is using any real historical text. Hence, they should be considered unreliable sources. It seems that you're just trying to enter it back due to personal POV without clearly verifying the content of the sources. Therefore I ask you again not to start an unnecessary argument over this issue and leave it as it is since there are no reliable sources that verify this thing satisfactorily with any real proof. KahnJohn27 (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC):
@KahnJohn27: You are going about this the right way. You can't keep something out of the article when it is supported by multiple sources that satisfy WP:RS. What you need to do instead is find sources that dispute the identification of these three as actual daughters of god. Then you can insert that contrary opinion. For example, even though the 1st edition of Encyc. Islam supports the story, the second edition does not. It says that the three were traditionally called banat Allah but expresses doubt over its meaning, suggesting instead that banat Allah was just a general name for celestial beings. Zerotalk 14:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
There is undoubtedly multiple sources that support the contention, but if there are sources that dispute it then, of course, I would have no problem with the article saying that. What is quite wrong is to make no reference to it at all in the article. Btw, do you really mean "you are going about this the right way"? DeCausa (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@Zero0000: You are asking me foe aomething that is clearly stated with thing the sources. Even some of the sources that they are speculating or these thing and say that they don't have any real historical foundation. I could even mention the text of the sources here saying thar. And none of them use any historic texts at all for their claim. KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@DeCausa: From your comments on my talk page. After my block you saw an opportunity to restore your dubious edit since you would be able to confront meabout my behavior and threaten me with another block. You called my edit similar to the ones which had me blocked. But a thing you forget my behaviour is in now way similar to that. That was over sources which I xouldn't access and I was indeed proved wrong later. I had acted rashly and forgot the Wikipedia rule that just because you can't access it, doesn't mean it's reliable. I later realised that and apologised for that although I was unhappy for blaming for other stuff. However, here I can access all sources anyway. And as far as I've seen none of your sources cite any hostorical research. And that's no OR. It'a a common sense. I hope you do not resort to dirty tricks again to imposs your opinon. Please do not restore your edits unless you find a source that definitely proves its claim along with any historical text as its claim. KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

(uninvolved editor) As Wikipedians, we are not supposed to evaluate reliable sources. WP:NPOV says we should summarize what the reliable sources say, representing all the views that exist fairly and proportionately. Using our own judgement to rule in some sources and rule out others constitutes WP:OR. On the other hand, the sources should be reliable for the topic. For historical information WP:HISTRS provides guidelines for what constitutes reliable source. So, if the sources being talked about are HISTRS, their views should be included, whether we agree with them or not. If the sources are not fully confident about their conclusions, we should accurately represent the level of confidence they express, but we should not censor them. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I'm questioning the reliability of the sources and they aren't reliable. As far as I know questioning reliabilty isn't wrong. Most of these sources themselves express doubt about their claims and say there isn't any historical evidence to support it. But the editors here seem to completely ignore that and enter it like these sources are saying that Allah was definitely a god in Mecca and he had sons and daughters. If it had been he "might" have had been a god and "might" have had sons and daughters. As long as it is kept true to the content of the sources which themselves express doubt at these then I'll have no problem but saying that this thing was definitely true I am against that since it is against the content of the the sources which themselves express doubt about its historical authenticity. KahnJohn27 (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I am happy to help you guys to reach a consensus. However, I don't know the sources and I don't know the subject. But by focusing on the sources and focusing on the guidelines, we can get there. So, first of all, are there any sources in DeCausa's list that don't meet the HISTRS requirements? If so, please mention them, and I will strike them out so that we don't need to discuss them. Are there other sources that you know that contradict the conclusions? If so, please provide them. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Nothing is "certain" in pre-Islamic Arabia. But most sources refer to these goddesses as the daughters of Allah. But, as I said earlier, I have no problem with including an appropriately cited counter-view or qualifications such as "believed to be". I don't think such words as "might" are to be found in the sources. I await KahnJohn's response to Kautilya's post with interest - this is much more along the lines of a "normal" talk page discussion than heretofore. DeCausa (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I took the liberty of striking out some of the sources. Gyan Publishing is not considered RS for anything. Some of the others are questionable as well. I have kept all the academic publishers, including University Presses, BRILL, Routledge etc. Please let me know if you object to any of the strike outs, or if you want to eliminate any others. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of sources

@Kautilya3: @DeCausa: These are the sources being used to source the claims on these articles and I'm mentioning here what they actually say:

This source used to source these claims of Allah being part of Meccan religion and having children itself casts doubts on these claims and contradicts them. It clearly says that these claims have dubious historical foundations saying, However, even this story, which forms such an important part of many traditional Muslim narratives of Islam's origins, has recently been shown to rest on dubious historical foundations.

This book interestingly only uses the verses of Quran for its claims that Allah was a Meccan god. However none of these verses that it used ever makes it clear or anywhere else in their respective surahs which religious group is being referred to here. And it doesn't use any historical proof for its claims.

This source itself casts doubt on whether al-Lat, al-Uzza and Mannat were Allah's daughters several times calling them so-called daughters and "daughters of Allah" (meaning its casting doubt on this) in the page number 108 being used to source this article here. While it claims Allah was the high god of Kaaba it presents no historical text as proof.

This source too casts doubts on whether the three were Allah's daughters and calls them "purported" daughters. Again here while it claims Allah was known to Meccans, it does not provide any historical proof. Also it says that Allah was used more as a title instead of a name, It is not so much as a name as a title, a contraction of the word "al ilah" ("The God"),.

Clearly we can see that none of these sources are nowhere reliable enough to prove that Allah was a god or had daughters. They even themselves cast doubt on these claims and contradict them. My edits were never based on OR, they were based on the sourced themselves. And I'm completely sure that DeCausa never even carefully read and examined these sources. KahnJohn27 (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Let us be clear about what we are trying to establish. Whether Allah had daughters or not, nobody knows. That is not what historians can talk about. What they try to discover is whether people believed that Allah had daughters and worshipped them. So, for example, the use of "purported" is perfectly all right. It is saying that the people of Arabia purported the daughters to be those of Allah. I am looking at the sources now. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: The source is not saying that the people of Arabia "purported" those to be the daughters of Allah. The meaning of "purported" is appear to be or do something, especially falsely. The actual quote from the book Muhammad, Prophet of God is Their attention seems to be more focused on his three puprpoted daighters-. Clearly it is visible from the way the word is used here, it isn't saying that Arabs puprported the three to be Allah's daughters but us casting doubt on whether they were his daughters. And your statement of whether or not he had daughters, nobody knows is right. That's why I said we should instead use the words "may be" and "might" instead of definitely saying Allah had daughters. KahnJohn27 (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, we use "purport" when we want to say that somebody claimed X, but we are not claiming it. So, "purport" has a sense of disassociating ourselves from the claim. Scholars are careful to disassociate themselves from the claim because Muslims today don't believe that Allah has 3 daughters. They probably find it offensive to suggest that. (In contrast, in Hinduism, my religion, people continue to believe that Krishna is an incarnation of God. So the scholars don't use such careful language in talking about it. I have never seen a scholar write "people worshipped Krishna, who is a purported incarnation of God.") But my reading of the sources is that, according to the scholars, there is no doubt that the people of pre-Islamic Arabia believed that the three goddesses were the daughters of Allah. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: The actual meaning and usage of "purport" is appear to be or do something, especially falsely not disassociating from claiming something. Hence, the correct meaning is that they appeared to have been the daughters of Allah, this means it is casting doubt. And I think you didn't read the other sources. Formation of Islam does not say that the pre-Islamic Arabs definitely believed they were daughters of Allah. It even casts doubts on it saying it rests on dubious historical foundations. Muhammad and the Origins of Islam too casts doubt on this as already said. Hence what I said was correct. The language of this article should be changed from definitive to "may be" and "might". KahnJohn27 (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: Why aren't you replying? As I suggested, changing the language from definitive to "may be" or "might" will be the best way to solve this and it will be true to the sources. Do you agree with it? Please let's solve this thing as soon as we can so we can all go back to our businesses. KahnJohn27 (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I said I am looking at the sources. Berkey's book does raise questions through his statement about "dubious historical foundations." So we need to find out what is dubious, what isn't, and who else says this. As I noted earlier, we have to represent all viewpoints found in scholarly sources. If it is the case that the scholars that study religion say one thing and the historians say another, we need to represent that difference of opinion. I don't know yet. As I said, I am an outsider here. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
This revision is an excellent illustration of weasel words, and hardly represents a compromise. If more involved editors wish to take this back to ANI, I will support a longer block, as a pattern of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is emerging.OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ohnoitsjamie: Those are no "weasel words". I did it as per the content of these sources which cast doubt on these claims. You are being agressive here without reason and seem to be abusing your position as an administrator. Please stop making threats and simply discuss this matter. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
This edit is about WP:COMPETENCE. It's as illiterate and careless in its execution as it is in its (mis)use of the source. That you went ahead with this reckless and poorly thought through edit while discussion was ongoing, and before consensus had been reached, is typical of your disruptive behaviour. I don't have sufficient time this evening to reply to all the points raised, but will respond more fully tomorrow. DeCausa (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@DeCausa: I've revised the article as per the sources. So I don't see how it's illiterate and careless in execution or misusing the source. I've even added Uzair being referred to as son of Allah by Jews and Jesus being identified with Allah or as a son of him as it is mentioned in the source. In fact, my edits are much more closer to the sources than yours. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: I suggest that you take a break from editing, and spend some time reading sources. There are certainly interesting issues here, and we shouldn't be editing the article until we get to the bottom of it. I would advise you not to be confrontational (for your own good). The threat of a long block is real. It is your behaviour that is being mentioned, and it doesn't matter whether you are correct or not. Wikipedia needs you to collaborate with editors. Please keep that in mind at all times. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 21:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: here's why your edits are illiterate and careless in execution and use of sources:
from the lead -
  • "Allah might have been one of the gods of the Meccan religion to who might have been considered..." nonsense English.
  • "...to who might have been considered the master of the shrine". Not in cited source.
from the body of the article -
  • "In pre-Islamic Arabia, including inat Mecca" typo
  • "Allah was used to probablybe refer to a deity..." typo, poor English and failure to follow the Use-mention distinction
  • "He might have been considered the master of the Kaaba, although it seems he might have had little relevance in comparison to other deities." Poor English and "master of the Kaaba" is not in source.
  • "The Arabic Jews referred to Uzair as son of Allah". Missing definite or indefinite article.
DeCausa (talk) 09:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
@DeCausa: *Typos happen frequebtly especially when editing on a small mobile screen. It gets difficult to notice any mistakes made. Illiteracy or incompetence has nothing to do with it. You can correct that yourselves in seconds.
  • When I said "Allah might have been considered the master of the Kaaba" it was to say that shrine belonged to him. I couldn't say "The shrine might have been dedicated to Allah" since it would be repeating the sentence of "The shrine was dedicated to Hubaal" just with a different name. As far as English is concerned, there's nothing wrong with it.
  • "The Arabic Jews referred to Uzair as son of Allah". Again there's nothing really wrong with it.
So basically you're exaggerating things. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
No I'm not. Some of what you have written is incomprehensible, and "Master of the Kaaba" is just a bizarre phrase which can't be traced to anything in the source. Typing on a mobile is no excuse for this. There is a "Show preview" which you can use. Are you going to correct your errors? And are you going to learn how to properly indent your posts? (I'll correct your last post again). DeCausa (talk) 13:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
@DeCausa: The "Master of Kaaba" meant that he might have beeen it's supreme god and it might have been dedicated to him. It's still true to the source. I've already mentioned saying "it was dedicated to Hubal" so it will be pasting this sentence again with a different name. And besides I guess you've never edited on a mobile. I don't have a high-end smartphone. While editing Wikipedia many times keep crashing due to probably many small nenories of my phone, there is no "Show Preview" button on Wikipedia's mobile site. Also due to the small screen size I'm not able to notice the mistakes. So yes it's not my fault. You can correct the typos yourself. If not I'll try to do it myself. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
"Master of Kaaba" is something you've made up and means something only to you. DeCausa (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
@DeCausa: It was meant that the shrine might have been dedicated to him. Anyway I've already changed "Master of Kaaba" to "the shrine might have been dedicated to him". So there's no point in beating a dead horse. KahnJohn27 (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Berkey

Here is a quick summary of Berkey's Chapter 3.

  • The traditional accounts of pre-Islamic Arabia are mostly drawn from Islamic sources, which were written about 150 years after the events and thus unreliable.
  • In addition to what we are calling the "Arabian mythology," Arabia also had significant amount of Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism and a monotheistic hanafi (?) religion.
  • The "mythology" had mostly do with practical concerns. There were jinns and gods/goddesses. It was certainly polytheistic.
  • There are signs of litholatory (worship of stones?) and several hundred deities, the most prominent being the trinity of goddesses we are familiar with. "Three daughters of Allah" is put in quotes and the footnote says what they were is difficult to say. (Hawting is cited, which I am going to look at next.)
  • Allah was known, but he wasn't worshipped as such.
  • Sacrifices and pilgrimate were practised, although Berkey dismisses the traditions surrounding Kaa'ba.
  • The rest of chapter is concerned with monotheistic religions, which is off-topic for us.

More later. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick comment, the quote from Berkey is "...those identified by the Arabs as the three 'daughters of Allah'". There's not much equivocation about that. There is no "might" or "possibly" about that. The footnote you refer to where he says it's difficult to say what they were, from the context, isn't a specific reference to being the "daughters of Allah" but is broader comment on their function in the system of belief. One other comment, I don't see anything that says that Allah "wasn't worshipped as such". DeCausa (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: So if I revert regardless of the reason is right or wrong, I deserve to be blocked. But I guess you do not even though you too earlier too reverted me on other pages many times.Besides I've read the sources well. Let me do a quick summary for you. There are almost no pre-Islamic Arabian sources and none of them ever mention about any Allah or three daughters. The only ones that we can derive our information is from Islamic texts. "Three daughters of Allah", here the author is expressing doubt whether they really are daughters. Not only that this article mostly talks about only the polytheistic Arabs. As it is an "Arab mythology" page it should also talk about other religions as well. KahnJohn27 (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@DeCausa: You clearly can't comprehend it. When inverted commas are used to highlight something it means that it is either doubtful or not true. KahnJohn27 (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
It also goes on to say However, even this story, which forms such an important part of many traditional Muslim narratives of Islam's origins, has recently been shown to rest on dubious historical foundations. Therefore it is completely certain that it is casting doubt upon this thing not confirming it as true. KahnJohn27 (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
WP:COMPETENCE. "this story", in the quote, refers to the Quaraish tending the shrine. It's not a reference to the "daughters of Allah. And as for the quotes, it's in your head that that means it's doubtful. It's obviously quoting an appellation. He even says "those identified as..." It's a title. Sheesh. DeCausa (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think KahnJohn27 is correct in his interpretation of the text. Remember that the whole discussion is prefaced with the comment that the traditional account is unreliable. The point of putting "three daughters of Allah" in quotes is that it is part of the traditional account (which is unreliable). Hawting has an entire chapter on the subject. I suggest that everybody look at it. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm seriously starting to doubt whether you read the whole thing. Not only does it doubts the claim of Allah's daughters but is unsure whether Allah was known to pre-Islamic Arabs as well. It clearly says that and uses the words probably, may, apparently and such.
  • Behind the specific deities the Arabs were also "probably" aware of Allah.
  • For some he "may" have represented a remote creator god,.
  • Allah "apparently" played little role in the cult,"
My changing of the language of the article from definitive to possibilty by adding the words "may be", "might", "apparently" is correct and as per source. KahnJohn27 (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3:, I don't see where you get that from. This is the full sentence:
Several hundred Arabian deities are known from Muslim sources, the most prominent of which were those identified by the Arabs as the three "daughters of Allah" – Manat, Allat, and al-Uzza – a trinity which was, according to the later Muslim tradition, accorded a special place among Muhammad's tribe of Quraysh and their allies around the advent of Islam, and to which prominent (although ambiguous) mention is made in the Koran.
It's quite clear it's in quotes simply because it's referring to a name given to them by the Arabs.
@KahnJohn27: here's the full context of the "dubious historical foundations" quote - at this point Berkey has moved on from talking about the three goddesses, has discussed the role of Allah and is now addressing cultic practices generally. Essentially he has over several sentences dealt with three different but related topics: the goddesses, Allah, and cultic practice at shrines generally:
Cultic life focussed on a number of practices which survived, in a revalorized form, in Islam, including sacrifice and pilgrimage to shrines. It is often assumed that the most important of those shrines was that centered on the Kaaba at Mecca, and that it was the object of a widely-shared pilgrimage cult among the pre-Islamic Arabs. This cult, so the traditional story goes, was tended to by the Quraysh, the tribe to which Muhammad belonged, and who acquired thereby a special and privileged status among the pre-islamic Arabs. However, even this story, which forms such an important part of many traditional Muslim narratives of Islam's origins, has recently been shown to rest on dubious historical foundations
So, "this story" is about the "traditional story" of the cult at Kaaba and specifically that the Quraysh tended it. Berkey is not dealing with the three goddesses being the "daughters of Allah" at this point. DeCausa (talk) 09:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
@DeCausa: That thing about Arabs would have ben true if he had definitively said that Allah was definitely a pre-Islamic god. He however nowhere does say that, infact he uses the words like "maybe", "probably" and "apparently" to express doubt which you avoided to mention. If he was definitely saying they were daughters of Allah then he wouldn't have put then in inverted commas, becauss inverted commas are put in place to express doubt this. From the reading of the book it's quite visible he nowhere says this thing was definitely true. About the "dubious historical foundations", you're right sbout that but the other part of him expressing doubt at claims of Allah being a God and their being three daughters of Allah is correct. Therefore using the words "maybe" and "might" is more true to the source instead of saying this is definitely true. KahnJohn27 (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Quotation marks in English "are punctuation marks placed on either side of a word or phrase in order to identify it as a quotation, direct speech or a literal title or name." That is their primary use. There's no evidence that these are "scare quotes". DeCausa (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
@DeCausa: Talking about evidence, do you see this source by Berkey or any source showing that they were daughters of Allah. Berkey himself doubts that Allah might have been a god in pre-Islamic Arabia. So do you really think that he would call somebody daughters of something ge himself doubts. Quite certainly the quotation of the words is to express doubt at it. You clearly did not carefully read the passages. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
@DeCausa: Yes, taken on its own the sentence from Berkey might seem to imply that the (pre-Islamic) Arabs called them "three daughters of Allah." But note that a reference has already been made to "Muslim sources". There is a footnote referring to Hawting, whose first sentence is: Central to the traditional image of the idolatry of the jahiliyya are the three deities or idols Allat, al-Uzza and Manat, said to have been viewed by the Meccan opponents of the Prophet as daughters of Allah. I think it is quite certain that there were such deities of the Meccans. But whether they called them the "daughters of Allah" is unknown. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
The plain words of the source are "the most prominent of which were those identified by the Arabs as the three "daughters of Allah". (my underlining) It's not for us to divine a hidden meaning in a source. DeCausa (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
What can I say? Not all authors use mathematically precise English. But he has given his source, which clarified the situation. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
@DeCausa: Again you did not notice the type of language he uses to describe about Allah in Mecca. Behind the specific deities the Arabs were also "probably" aware of Allah. For some he "may" have represented a remote creator god, Allah "apparently" played little role in the cult,".
The entire time he is uncertain about existence of Allah so do you think he is saying that they were definitely his daughters? Let me answer that, he isn't because he isn't certain. He's expressing doubt. Simple as that. KahnJohn27 (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
FFS stop with the WP:OR. When are you going to get it? DeCausa (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: Hey don't use any vulgar language here. And besides it's not OR. These are statements directly from the source. You're not getting that. KahnJohn27 (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

it's WP:OR because the source doesn't expressly say what you claim it says. You are saying the source says X and Y, therefore, when he says X he can only really mean Z because X + Y = Z. That's WP:OR and we can't do that. From those sources all we can say is "the source says X" and "the source says Y". we cannot bridge the gap ourselves and conclude Z. Get it? DeCausa (talk)
Berkey's reference to the Quraysh cultic practices having "recently been shown to rest on dubious historical foundations" is cited (footnote 7) to Patricia Crone's book "Meccan Trade and the rise of Islam". Interestingly, R.B. Serjeant critiqued Crone's book in the Journal of the American Oriental Society, and described it as a "confused, irrational and illogical polemic, further complicated by her misunderstanding of Arabic texts, her lack of comprehension of the social structure of Arabia, and twisting of the clear sense of other writings, ancient and modern, to suit her contentions." DeCausa (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
We don't have a policy of discounting sources because of one negative review. Such scholarly debates and disagreements are not uncommon. There a number of reviews of Crone's book at JSTOR [2] and my impression is that her work is regarded as extremely important and trend-setting. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I didn't suggest discounting it. But clearly it needs to be treated with caution.DeCausa (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
@DeCausa: It's called using a brain and common sense, not OR. I didn't make my own conclusions. If one is expressing doubt upon something's existence, then you cannot come and say that this thing related to it is definitely true. The one doing OR here is you. And I am not even referring to the "dubious historical foundations" anymore simce actually it's referring to the tradition Quraysh tended to the religious cult and acquired a special place among pre-Islamic Arabs. KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
No, it's called OR. DeCausa (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
@DeCausa: No what you're doing ie., saying this related to a doubtful thing is definitely true is what is called OR. KahnJohn27 (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Towards resolution

Dear all, after looking at Berkey and Hawting, and the Satanic Verses article which has a very good discussion of all aspects of this issue, here is what I gather. What we know about the Arabian mythology is mostly through the Islamic sources. These were constructed a couple of generations after Mohammad and are coloured by the Islamic prejudices about the pre-Islamic culture/religion. Many reliable sources that deal with the History of Islam narrate what the Islamic scholars wrote. They are historically accurate only for the narration, i.e., they only establish that the Islamic scholars believed those ideas about the pre-Islamic culture. However, the scholars that study the pre-Islamic history (Berkey, Hawting, and numerous other sources cited in their books) doubt these narratives to be factual. The idea that the three goddesses of Mecca were "Allah's daughters" is essentially in the Quran. As far as I can see, there is no corroboration from non-Islamic independent sources. So, the scholars are right to doubt it.

As far as our article is concerned, we need to state that there is the tradition narrated by Islamic sources that state various things. However, we also have to state that the historians express considerable doubt about whether these narratives were actually true in pre-Islamic Arabia. I can point you to Somnath#History and Ayodhya#Legacy, where I had to grapple with similar issues of separating tradition and history. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of Islam has an article Ilāh that shows a long history for the word Allah before Islam. Thanks for the information about `Uzayr, I didn't know that. No such belief is known from Jewish sources. Zerotalk 09:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: in principle, I think the approach you suggest is on the right track but disagree with stating categorically that historians "doubt these narratives to be factual". The critique of the traditional view is couched in terms of, as Berkey puts it, "It is in fact difficult to say much with confidence regarding pre-Islamic Arabian religion." His viewpoint is that there is insufficient corroboration to be certain that the traditional view is correct. Set against that, is that most sources do indeed simply accept the traditional view. So I believe a principle closer to the sources would be as follows:
Based on Muslim tradition, it is believed that xyz. However, some historians consider there is insufficient corroboration of Muslim tradition to be certain that this was the case.
I think it's important to remember the principle of WP:NPOV: "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." We can't ignore the fact that the "traditonal" view is simply widely replicated by historians but that some historians (probably quite rightly) say there is not enough to be certain. But I don't see any source saying that they think the tradition view is untrue. DeCausa (talk) 09:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
@DeCausa: I guess you have't read the last section about the Wuran by Zero0000. And there are some sources which contradict that there were daughters of Allah. The basic reason that some of the scholars postulate that there might have been daughters of Allah is that they base it from the Quran which actually nowhere calls the three goddesses as daughters and seems to be refuting the idea. This is explicit in Peters pp. 162–163 for example. Encyclopedia of Islam second edition also supports that the concept of "daughters of Allah" is derived from the Quran itself even though the phrase "daughters of Allah" is not there. So basically we can't take their opinion into account as completely true if they're simply based on the Quran.
Also saying that Muslims traditions say Allah was a Meccan god or had daughters will be going against the fact and is OR since none of the Muslim traditions say such a thing.
Therefore considering all the above reasons using the words "might" and "maybe" is much more truer and closer to reality and the sources. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
This is the fundamental problem with you and why I have little hope that your behaviour will improve. We have sources explicitly saying that it is by Muslim tradition and Muslim sources that we know of "Allah's daughters" but that some of the sources say that is not enough to be sure that was Arab belief. But you say they are not reliable because it is not correct that Muslim tradition asserts this. It's circular. DeCausa (talk) 13:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
@DeCausa: Instead of starting to blindly blame just because you don't agree with me, try reading the whole comment first. Besides what "Muslim tradition" are we talking about here. Quran? If that is so I've already given several sources saying that this postulation by scholars is based on Quranic verses even though these verses in actual most certainly appear to be rejecting such things and none of the Quranic verses refer to the three goddesses as daughters of Allah. Or are you talking about the Hadiths, tafsirs etc and we already know that none of them say such a thing. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
"I" am not talking about anything: it's the sources, such as Berkey and Peters, that are making reference to Muslim tradition. It's not for us to critique reliable sources in that way. That's original research. DeCausa (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I am happy with DeCausa's interpretation of my solution. I should point out however that the historians always dependent on multiple independent sources to determine the historical truth. So if there is no corroboration from other sources independent of the Islamic scholars then it is "not true." (That doesn't mean it is false. It is just that it is not established and unknown.) So we shouldn't report it as a fact. It is fine to use words like "according to Islamic scholarship" etc. See for example what I did at Somnath#History. @KahnJohn27:, "might", "maybe" etc. constitutes weasel-wording as Ohnoitsjamie has pointed out. A reader reading it is completely in the dark about why there is uncertainty. Instead, it is better to be positive about the information we have so that the reader can make up his/her own mind. When there are reliable sources presenting multiple points of view, we have to present all of them in a positive way. We can't censor some sources because other sources disagree. As WP:NPOV says this principle is "non-negotiable." Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: None of the Islamic scholars even say that Allah was a Meccan god or he had three daughters. "Might", "Maybe" isn't weasel-wording especially when the sources themselves doubt this thing. Also as already pointed out the reason some scholars postulate that Allah was a Meccan god and had three daughters as from the Quran itself, however the Quran actually seems to be rejecting this notion and never says anywhere that Allah was a god of Mecca and Kaaba or Al-Lat, Al-Uzza and Manat were his daughters. As far as I've seen none of the sources given here or anywhere else cite any historical proof independent of Quran. Therefore their claims cannot be considered be completely reliable. Hence in light of this saying that Arabs "belived" Allah had daughters or was a god is wrong and can't be used. Using the words "may be", "might", "apparently" etc is true to reality and the sources. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Regarding Allah, you can verify whatever sources have been cited for the idea he was a Meccan god, and check if there are HISTRS. That kind of a question is easily settled. Instead of "might"/"maybe", it is better to say "According to X, he was a Meccan god" but "Y doubts the assertion." Regarding, the "historical proof independent of Quran," you are merely repeating your argument. We cannot do that kind of evaluation. If the reliable sources say it, we have to report it. Non-negotiable etc. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: I've already given you proof of why some scholars think of Allah being a Meccan god or Allah having daughters. They only postulate this verses of Quran whose meaning is something else and they never say he was a god in Mecca or he had daughters. Repititive or not, it is the simple truth. These sources therefore cannot be considered reliable and are dubious at best. Therefore you cannot use them to claim that Allah was definitely a Meccan god and had daughters. That is unless you have reliable sources who confirm such a thing with any other historical text. This is non-negotiable, if you or anyone else doesn't agree with it then it doesn't matter. KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
When we say that some source is "reliable" or not, we always always mean whether it meets the requirements of WP:RS. We never use our own judgement about whether they are "reliable." In contrast, you are doing the opposite. I should remind you that this is not permitted according WP:RS and WP:NPOV. So, I am afraid that, if you are going to participate on this Wikipedia, you have to follow its rules. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: Wrong, I'm not using my own judgment. I have provided proof how they are unreliable. They only use the Quran as a source for their claims which as already proved is incorrect to do so since the Quran in actual never makes such claims. What's wrong is wrong. And maby even express doubt on such claims. And do not makes comments like "if you are going to participate ob this Wikipedia". I'm not someone you can threaten and force me into accepting what you want to do. Anymore threats or taunts and this conversation is over. KahnJohn27 (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
KahnJohn27, you simply don't get WP:OR. Here's an example. F.E.Peters is an eminent historian of Islam. As a result his monographs are considered reliable sources. He uses the Quran as a source for some of his statements. If you, KahnJohn27, say that he is unreliable because he mistakenly uses the Quran in this way, that is WP:OR and will be ignored. However, if you cite historians X, Y and Z who say that F.E. Peters got it wrong because he mistakenly used the Quran in that way, then, by consensus, we can determine that F.E. Peters is unreliable for this purpose. But the two caveats are: (1) it's other reliable sources that critique him, not the opinion of editors and (2) because F.E. Peters has got a heavyweight reputation, then you have to have criticizing reliable sources of at least equal heavy weight reputation and probably more than one to show that such criticism isn't WP:UNDUE. Do you get why your personal criticism of a reliable sources is irrelevant? DeCausa (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
@DeCausa: This never was a personal critique. You should have read my statements. From Peters 162-163, it is clearly noticeable that scholars postulate that Allah had children because Quran itself refutes this. This is also supported by the second encyclopaedia of Islam that scholars assume that he had "daughters of Allah" even though the Quran never once says that he had any daughters. Peters mentions that the Quran is actually saying that if Allah wanted to have children he would have chosen sons, not daughters. Not only that no sources that say that Allah definitely had daughters present any historical proof. That's common sense, not any personal criticism. And clearly based on all these points the critisicm is completeky due not undue. Despite this, I still agreed that we should write it as that maybe he had daughters. But you blindly believing without understanding and properly reading, want to dress it up as a fact. The language which I used is more closer to sources. You can agree to it but if you don't want to then it's not my problem. KahnJohn27 (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Move proposal survey

I think there is a case for moving the title of this article from Arabian mythology → Pre-Islamic Arabian religion or Pre-Islamic Arabian polytheism. The reason is twofold. (1) Mythology, mythos, means specifically a set of naratives or stories that underpin a religious belief [3]. However, none of these are known in pre-Islamic Arabia. F.E.Peters has said this explicitly: "one of the characteristics of Arab paganism as it has come down to us is the absence of a mythology, narratives that might serve to explain the origin or history of the gods."[4] This article is about the supernatural beings that pre-Islamic Arabs may have worshipped, their names and characteristics. But that is not the same thing as "mythology". There are no narratives. (2) It's insufficiently clear from the title that this article is about Pre-Islamic Arabian mythology. In fact, this title could potentially overlap with the Islamic mythology article. I think it needs to jnclude the word Pre-Islamic and it needs tmo swap the word mythology for a word that more broadly indicates it's about "pagan" religion instead of specifically mythos. DeCausa (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I think changing it to religion is fine. It will also allow you to discuss the influence/practice of Judaism and Christianity. - Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
That's a good point. DeCausa (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
@DeCausa: @Kautilya3: Completely oppose changing it to "Pre-Islamic Arabic polytheism". We have little information about the religion of polytheistic pre-Islamic Arabs except the Meccans. And also we have even much more little information about the pre-Islamic Arabic Jews and Christians and especially the Hanifs and such a small amount of information won't be enough to create a separate article for them. I don't see any problem with this article. I don't see any reason to separate it to a specific polytheism article. KahnJohn27 (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: Also I'm not trying to be offensive but please don't keep saying "Cheers" again and again. Hope you don't mind but it's kind of annoying. Thanks. KahnJohn27 (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
You basically don't understand what the word "mythology" means, do you? DeCausa (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
@DeCausa: I was objecting to separating it into a separate polytheism article. Besides I know what "mythology" means. As far as changing it to "Pre-Islamic Arabian religion", I don't see any problem with that. I can agree on changing it to that. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
@DeCausa: Although I mostly agree with on " Pre-Islamic Arabian religion", I think it might be not be completely suitable since people might be confused that it's just about one religion. I would suggest the name should rather be "Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia" or "Pre-Islamic Arabian religions". KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I think "religion" is the right word for the context. It means religion in the abstract, i.e., all religious beliefs. If you start counting "religions," then you will have to face the issue of whether they are "Arabian" religions. Better not go there. ("Cheers" is a friendly greeting, meant to spread cheer around. I think you need to cheer up!) - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: Yeah I somewhat agree with what you're saying but the title "Pre-Islamic Arabian religions" meant to convey it's about the religions that existed in Pre-Islamic Arabia. I think "Pre-Islamic Arabic religion" might be confusing since people might think it's talking about one religion. That's why I think it might be better to use the title "Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia". (Also I think you might have somewhat misunderstood me. I never had any objection to you saying Cheers, it's just that you were saying it repetitively in every comment of yours. I wasn't being offensive at all but if you might have felt offended by my earlier comment, I apologise.) KahnJohn27 (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd forgotten we seem to have consensus for this page move - so I've moved it. I've added stub sections for Christianity and Judaism just as placeholders - but they need expansion. DeCausa (talk) 10:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, well done! - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Why should "Arabian" mean "pre-Islamic"?

Limiting an article under this name to pre-Islamic period doesn't seem like a good choice to me. First, many pre-Islamic beliefs of Arabs likely continued as folk mythology into the Islamic period and it's often impossible to separate pre-Islamic strata from later developments. Secondly, it leaves no place to discuss later Arab mythology that can't be classified under Islam as religion, which is how the article "Islamic mythology" is interpreted. Msubotin (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

As discussed above, this article doesn't cover Mythology at all as there is no knowledge of pre-Islamic mythology. The correct meaning of "mythology" does not refer to the generality of religious belief such as the identification of gods or goddesses or other beings, but specifically to the narratives, such as creation narratives, concerning those beings and/or humanity. DeCausa (talk) 08:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Names of deities, their relationships and ways to propitiate them are all part of mythology, although in this case it came down to us in a very fragmentary form. The change of article name solved the contradiction between the name and stated scope, but it created a couple of other problems. First, the scope of the term "religion" is circumscribed in a hard-to-define way, and it's not clear which of the "other supernatural beings" belong here. Second, there is scant pre-Islamic evidence for those beings (except, it seems, some archeological evidence for worship of jinn). Third, we need a new article for post-Islamic "folk" beliefs and legends. A number of Arabian Nights-themed articles point here, which is now clearly wrong. I propose creating an article called "Arab mythology", and making "Arabian mythology" redirect there. Does that sound reasonable to y'all? Msubotin (talk) 18:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, we have to be disciplined about the use of the word Mythology. It doesn't mean, as popularly supposed, "anything to do with the gods or supernatural beings". It has a very specific meaning: stories telling the origin and deeds of those beings or their interrelationship with humanity. The essence of mythology is "stories" or "narratives". So no, "names of gods" is not mythology. We have no knowledge of pre-Islamic mythology. Per F.E. Peters now quoted in the article: "one of the characteristics of Arab paganism as it has come down to us is the absence of a mythology, narratives that might serve to explain the origin or history of the gods." In fact, all we have for the pre-Islamic period is, literally, names of gods, nothing more except some speculation on their attributes. That's not mythology. So any article entitled either "Arab mythology" or "Arabian mythology" pretty much by definition has to exclude the pre-Islamic period. For the Islamic period we have Islamic mythology which quite clearly is insufficiently exclusive. So what do we have left to write about? The mere existence of Jinn etc isn't mythology. There needs to be a story not simply the belief in the being. If you look at the archives for this article you'll see discussion on whether to include 1001 nights etc. You will see that the conclusion was that that and similar stories might be Arabic (i.e the language) mythology or Arab (i.e. the cultural descriptor of peoples populating much of the middle east post 8th century) but there is little evidence for it being Arabian (i.e originating in Arabia). The article that is missing is how the pre-Islamic beliefs persisted or were transmuted into the Islamic era specifically in Arabia. The place for that could be Arabian folklore. DeCausa (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
It's difficult to come up with a perfect title for a general article devoted to Arabic narratives about supernatural beings. "Arabic mythology" seems like the best choice to me, under a broader interpretation of the word "myth" which doesn't limit itself to stories believed to be true, and may include literary storytelling. "Arab mythology" seems less good, because we don't want to (and often can't) limit authorship to those self-identified as Arab. "Arabic folklore" would sometimes be more to the point than "mythology" here, but it would at other times unnecessarily exclude contributions by learned authors. "Islamic mythology" might have been appropriate, but it's clear that the authors of that article interpret it to refer to Islam as religion, similarly to "Christian mythology". Trying to change its scope seems like a recipe for endless edit wars. Besides, there's nothing particularly "Islamic" even under the other meaning of the word about creatures that were apparently part of pre-Islamic lore, even if none was recorded until later. Finally, I think that saying that known vestiges of pre-Islamic religion are not mythology is rather like saying that badly preserved ruins are not architecture (both were once a part of the lost whole), but this point can be set aside. Msubotin (talk) 00:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Neal Robinson on Christians in Arabia

This passage in Robinson's book seems highly speculative and in part rather muddled. His point seems to be that Arab Christians used the word "Allah" for God (as they still do), but he says it in a bizarre way: "God" and "Jesus" aren't the same concept. As for inferring a special theological status of Mary among Arabian Christians from this one Quranic passage, that strikes me as very far fetched, and that's the first time I hear it. Msubotin (talk) 02:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Msubotin: The passage of the book isn't speculating at all. It's based on clear references in Quran which say that Jesus was associated with Allah and Mary and Jesus were considered deities by Christians. Also you say God and Jesus aren't the same concept, but in fact Jesus is considered as God by many Christians. Since the source was clear, I have added back the sourced content. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@KahnJohn27: First and foremost, you must be aware that the Qur'an is not considered to be an authoritative source on Christian beliefs except by some adherents of one religion. Secondly, even if you think the Qur'an is infallible, there's no reason to suppose that the verse in question refers to some eccentric views on Mary unrecorded elsewhere in history. The verse is polemical rather than descriptive in nature and the words "min duuni-llahi" (lit. to the exclusion of Allah) already involve a rhetorical exaggeration. Why would it waste its firepower on some obscure local variant of Marian cults? No other commentary I'm aware of reads it as anything other than a general criticism of Christian theology. Certainly, Muhammad had access to more mainstream views of Mary through his cousin-in-law, the Nestorian monk. So, yes, Robinson's take quite plainly involves loads of interpretation and your revert doesn't make sense to me. Msubotin (talk) 05:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@Msutobin: Certainly you never paid attention to why I reverted it. I reverted it because of the source. And I am not taking Quran as the authoritative source about Christians or infallible. Also comments like "Quran is considered authoritative source on Christians by some adherents of one religion" indicates that you made the edit have a personal POV and self-interpretation influenced by your POV. Quran is used by the authors of the sources in the article. Cause it along with other Islamic literature is one of the few written texts about pre-Islamic religions. Back to the topic, the Quranic verse clearly references Jesus and Mary as deities which it wouldn't if they never were. So there is perfect sense as to why I reverted your edit since the source used for the text backs up what it says with proof and we go with academic and reliable sources here. KahnJohn27 (talk) 06:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@KahnJohn27: I don't think I can put it any more clearly. Since I'm not getting through on this one, I'll let others take it from here. I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say with the POV comment, but it looks like you're trying to twist my statement of fact into some expression of bigotry, which I strongly reject. Msubotin (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
It's ironic that KahnJohn27 insists on using Robinson in this way, as Robinson also makes an unqualified assertion that Allah was a god in the polytheistic pantheon - something KahnJohn27 refuses to accept (see threads above). Anyways...turning to the question in this thread Robinson is clearly just describing how the Quran interprets Christianity. He seems to have "bought" what the Quran says about Arab Christianity in a slightly naive way. However, Robinson has said what he's said and it's a WP:RS. Although I think it really tells us more about the Quran than Christianity, I've left the text in but amended it in three ways: (1) I've made it clear that this is an interpretation of a particular author i.e. Robinson (2) I've made it clear, as Robinson does himself, that he's using only the Qu'ran as the source of the information, and it's not based on anything else and (3) the beliefs were unorthodox. However, leaving it at that is still WP:UNDUE as there is no evidence that this is a widely held view of pre-Islamic Arab Christiabnity. I therefore added the interpretation of Professor Mircea Eliade, which basically says that Muhammad had an imperfect knowledge of Christianity and explains why the Quran says what it says about the "God-Jesus-Mary triad".
@Msubotin: You didn't understand my comment. I didn't accuse of you bigotry. I said you were basing it on personal POV especially seeing as you just are editing because it uses Quran as source. KahnJohn27 (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@DeCausa: You're forgetting what the threads were about. You yourself wanted to add that Allah was a polytheistic pantheon but now you're calling the same thing as an "unqualified assertion". Not only that if you clearly read the comments above I didn't say that Allah wasn't a polytheistic god, I said that the authors use unclear verses of Qu'ran as a source to say Allah was a polytheistic god even there is no verse that saya that Allah was a Meccan god, that's what the whole thread was about.
Also your recent edit is what I will really call WP:UNDUE. Because you clearly didn't read that both my edit and Robinson himself said "Some Christians believed in the divine triad of Allah, Mary and Jesus". Not only that the association of Jesus with Allah isn't unorthodox in Christianity since many Christians identify Jesus as God. Also never once the source anywhere said that it was a widely held view and hence is correct. Also this article isn't about what Muhammad knew about Christianity or not. So your edits about what Muhammad knew about it is completely WP:UNDUE and straying from the topic of the article. Therefore I am reverting them. KahnJohn27 (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@DeCausa: Instead of reverting, I have just modiefied your edit instead. The belief that Allah was associated with Jesus is mentiones clearly in Quran:
They have certainly disbelieved who say, " Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary" while the Messiah has said, "O Children of Israel, worship Allah , my Lord and your Lord." Indeed, he who associates others with Allah - Allah has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers.
As such it cannot be considered an inference by the author Robinson in anyway especially seeing how many Christians associate Jesus with Jesus with God. I have changed your edit however have added "According to the Quran," before "some Arab Christians associated Jesus with Allah" so as to represent that it is based on the verses of Quran.
At the same time also I have let your edits about divine triad of Mary remain the same since other scholars offer contrary convinvcing explanation about the divine triad in Quran. KahnJohn27 (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I've reverted you because per WP:PRIMARY we shouldn't let our own interpretation of a primary source take precedence over a reliable secondary source. If we're going to use Robinson you can't cherry pick the bits you like and the bits you don't. DeCausa (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Neither I've made the edit based on any of my own interpretation nor I am cherry picking. That the Qur'an says that Christians associated with Allah there is no doubt. It mentions it clearly and so does Robinson repeat the same. It's as it is in the sources. I have to say the only one who's editing based on their own interpretation is you. Now please stop needlessly edit warring. KahnJohn27 (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Where does it say "Christians" in the Quran quote you gave? It requires interpretation to say it refers to Christians and you are not entitled to do that under WP:PRIMARY. Also, Robinson clearly associates Allah = Jesus as being unorthodox in Christian belief and you want to override that with your own WP:OR. You're back to what you've been so widely criticised for. Robi son couldn't be clearer: They too called God Allah, but we may infer from the Quran that some of them had unorthodox beliefs about Him. The Jews of Arabia apparently regarded Uzayr (Ezra?) as Allah's son (9.30), and some of the Christians identified Jesus with Allah (5.72), whereas others seem to have worshipped a divine triad in which Allah was thought of as the Father, Mary the Mother, and Jesus the Son (5.116). To you black is white if it suits your POV. DeCausa (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@KahnJohn27: I agree with DeCausa. You're interpreting the primary source to read it as a reference to special beliefs held by some Arab Christians rather than to beliefs held by all Christians. I'm reverting to DeCausa's wording and adding discussion based on a source that puts these interpretations in context. Msubotin (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@DeCausa: I can see now you're resorting to deflection. From the verse it can clearly be seen it's referring to Christians. And now regardless of whether Robinson calls it unorthodox, the fact is clear from the Quranic verse and Robinson's sourcw that Quran says that Christians associated with Allah. Instead of blaming me, stop enforcing your personal POV and making edits upon your own interpretations. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@Msubotin: You agree with DeCausa because you have a personal POV about Quran being used as a source for Christian beliefs. And no I'm not interpreting as a reference to Christian beliefs. I even clearly said "According to Quran, some Arab Christians associated Jesus with Allah." to show this is only said in the Quran. The only one doing interpretations is you that too probably deliberately. I'm therefore reverting your POV edit. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
That's utter nonsense and this edit summary is a personal attack against Msubotin for which you could be blocked. I suggest you self-revert and aplogise to Msubotin. It's also your 6th revert in the last 24 hours. DeCausa (talk) 21:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@DeCausa:Your argument is just a mere harassment tactic. It was no personal attack. I was describing Msubotin's actions since he is indulging in editing that is biased and based on POV. That's it. If you feel or he feels offended by it, then that's purely your own fault. And as for being blocked, no threats are going to work against me. I am not going to apologise for describing a person based on what they did and neither am I going to revert since the edit was correct and you want to impose your own POV. And from now on please stay off from my talk page. Oh and about reverKahnJohn27 (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@DeCausa: Also about reverts, you've reverted 3 times, mine is 5 times. Mine is higher because 2 editors have constantly been edit-warring with me because of their POV. Not only that earlier you removed the text about Jesus associated with Allah and divine triad because according to you it had no source. That too despite I had pasted the wrong source by accident and the actual source for it was in the article itself which you yourself had read and added into the article few months ago. The real purpose behind your edits seems clear. KahnJohn27 (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
You seem unaware that to exceed 3 reverts in 24 hours is a bright line that results in a block even if you are "in the right". As explained at WP:AN3, before someone is blocked they need to be given the 3RR warning template on their talk page, which is what I did. I suggest you self-revert and apologise to Msubotin. DeCausa (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I fully well know the 3 reverts in 24 hours but it doesn't mean that a person would necessarily be blocked and isn't the only definition of edit warring. Slow over the time and deliberate reverts are also edit warring. Also based on that it in actual you have exceeded the revert limit too. Including the edit where you reverted my edits because of them being "sourceless", that makes it 4 reverts in 24 hours which means you can be blocked over the same reason as well especially seeing your edits are based on your personal POV and OR. Also you can't block me as you're not an administrator and I fully well know about blocks and edit warring, so I do not need to be presented with a warning notice again and again which is completely a harassment tactic on your part. And last thing there is no reason for me to apologise to Msubotin, I simply described his actions and also neither there is gonna be self-revert. I suggest you move on instead of trying to impose your own opinion and telling me what to do. KahnJohn27 (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@KahnJohn27: For the record, your characterization of my POV has no basis in reality. Msubotin (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@Msubotin: Does, based on your own behavior and comments. My edit was a simple moving of a few sentences from one section to another but you turned into completely something else because you didn't consider it ok for the author to use Quran as a source and felt that Christians don't hold any of suxh views mentioned in it. You've wasted a whole lot of time of everybody over nothing. Instead of constantly warring and arguing over something that is in fact there in both the primary and secondary sources, I suggest you move on. KahnJohn27

(talk) 23:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: I'm not going to rebut your ad hominem attacks and mind-reading attempts. They have no place on Wikipedia and don't deserve a response. Msubotin (talk) 06:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I've expanded the material directly relevant to the article and shrunk later portions, whose goal here is to place it in context by mentioning alternative interpretations of the same verses. I've also reinstated identification of Robinson's statements as an inference and the reference to Sirry's book, removed here [[5]] with no substantive justification. I hope @KahnJohn27: takes this opportunity to stop casting aspersions and stick to the subject matter. Marking the first sentence in the previous revision as an inference or interpretation is not a matter of my POV. This is explicitly stated by Robertson himself and demonstrated by alternative interpretations of the same verse discussed in Sirry, which are incompatible with the statement "According to the Qu'ran, some of the Arab Christians identified Jesus with Allah", first because under the "polemical" reading it refers to Christian doctrine in general and not "some of the Arab Christians", and secondly because under that reading it is not intended as an accurate characterization. These are different interpretations of a primary source, and they should be identified as such. Msubotin (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Msubotin: You're doing the same thing again and using POV to make edits just to make it seem only what you think is true and seem intent on dragging this thing which was originally a simple move of sentences unnecessarily out. As you're edits are based on bias I have restored the old content and removed your changes to it especially since adding verses makes it unnecessarily long. Now please stop edit warring. KahnJohn27 (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Msubotin. With Kautilya3's revert you have been reverted by 3 different editors. You're the one edit-warring. I suggest you stick to the talk page. What is quite clear is that you don't seem able to comprehend the Wikipedia original research policy. DeCausa (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

More on Quranic interpretations

Paraphrasing Sirry's use of "claim" as "according to" is indeed a misuse of the source, because he's using the word to refer to statements that aren't meant to be accurate (on the preceding page: "When the Qur'an claims... the Qur'an in aware that Christians did not say that"). However, that's not the main problem with KahnJohn27 latest addition [6]. The main problem, like DeCausa suggests, is that it doesn't belong here. It's the variant "Allah is Jesus" from which peculiar Arabian beliefs discussed in this paragraph have been inferred. "Jesus is son of God" is just standard Christian doctrine and mentioning it here adds nothing but confusion. The use of the word "Allah" for "God" by Christians is a different topic.

On a different point, I'll grant KahnJohn27 that my phrasing was taken specifically from Griffith's argument, but Sirry clearly identifies all three authors as representing a shift from the "heretical explanation" of the verses, and this is plainly the second alternative interpretation I was referring to in the sentence removed by KahnJohn27 here [7]. Msubotin (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Sirry quotes the Quran as saying Crhistians believe "Christ is the son of God", for the purpose of condemning Christianity. The context of the passage in Sirry is to discuss the Quran's criticism of Christianity. In other words, it is about the Quran, not Christianity. So, KahnJohn27 translates that into "According to Quran, Christians called Jesus as the son of Allah." Apart from KahnJohn27's poor ungrammatical English, and the slight of hand change of "God" to "Allah", no purpose is served in saying that. Belief in Jesus being the son of God is just a basic precept of Christianity and the Quran is not WP:RS for that. KahnJohn27 seems to think the section is actually the "Quranic view of Christianity", which it isn't.DeCausa (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
@DeCausa: I guess you're right. Jesus being son of God is the basic teaching of Christianity, so there is nothing special in the Quran saying Christians call Jesus as son of Allah. I notice you've edited it yourself but if think you should be removed, then it's ok. It's irrelevant to the topic. And DeCausa don't make any witty remarks about my " grammatically poor English". I never claimed to be excellent at English. I'm not a native English speaker and that is one of the reasons why my English may be poor. My English being poor, isn't relevant to the topic. If you think it is poor then you can most certainly edit it yourself and correct my mistakes. No big deal. KahnJohn27 (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
@Msubotin: I removed your sentence here because you said that "However, according to other interpretations these verses do not refer to beliefs peculiar to Christians in Arabia." However, the only one making this interpretation is Mircea Eliade. No one else. That's why I removed your sentence. Also Sirri did not have anything to do with it as his source never says such a thing. That's it. KahnJohn27 (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to revert again because of 3RR. You should self-revert and remove the sentence. DeCausa (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
It's for edit warring. And we aren't disputing over the edit anymore, we're in agreement. But anyway as the text of Jesus seemed irrelevant I've removed it myself. I hope this solves the complaint. KahnJohn27 (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
@KahnJohn27: According to Sirry, Griffith interprets these verses as a polemical distortion of Christian doctrine, not a descriptive characterization of any particular heresies, hence in his view they do not refer to beliefs peculiar to Christians in Arabia, as I wrote. The same goes for the other two authors, but I don't care much about mentioning that. What I want is to give the paragraph a clear logical structure: on the one hand, inferences about Christians in Arabia, and on the other hand, alternative readings of the verses that don't make any such inferences. The problem with the sentence about Watt's proposal is that Sirry doesn't mention whether he locates any of the heresies he refers to within Arabia (IIRC; Google books won't show me that page anymore). If someone wants to looks that up in his paper, we could discuss it appropriately, but Sirry's summary alone is not enough to use it here. Msubotin (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
@Msubotin: I've just checked Mircea Eildae again and in actual she never says that such beliefs weren't peculiar to Arab Christians. She talks about Monophysite Christianity extremely venetrating Mary. And as we already Monophysitism was present in Arabia. KahnJohn27 (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
No, that's not the point about the Eliade piece. What Eliade is saying is that Muhammad had an imperfect knowledge of Christianity and that he may have thought that a tenet of Christianity was the worship of Mary because one of his sources may have been informants who knew the Abyssinian church where Mary was excessively venerated. It's nothing to do with describing Chiristianity in Arabia - it's about explaining why the Quran's reference to the worship in Arabia of a triad including Mary may not be reliable. That whole paragraph is in danger of becoming WP:UNDUE. Essentially Robinson posits that the Quran should be taken at face value and Arab Christians included Mary inna divine triad. Eliade says essentially it's a mistake because Muhammad misunderstood. And the remaining authors say the Quran is just using it as an dxaggeration to attack Christianity. This may be interesting for an article on the Quran's view of Christianity, but I don't think it's really telling us much about pre-Islamic Arab Christianity. The whole paragraph could aruably be deleted. DeCausa (talk) 00:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
@DeCausa: You didn't get the point did you? My comment was whether Eliade ever said that these beliefs were particular to Christians. He never did. Besides the topic wasn't whether it was reliable or not, it's about what it says. Not only that based on your logic the parts about Allah probably being a polytheistic God and having daughters should be deleted as well since the same source ie the Quran where it is postulated by some scholars from never once says that he was a polytheistic god or had any daughters or children. KahnJohn27 (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
@KahnJohn27: The section is about Christians in Arabia, and the paragraph is about using the Qur'an as a historical source on this subject, so its reliability on the subject is paramount, and we have three different assessments it. On the one hand, Robinson takes it as essentially reliable. On the other hand, Eliade considers it unreliable on the subject (extreme veneration is not deification) and Griffith et al consider the verses to be non-descriptive and not specifically about Arabia. We had gotten briefly sidetracked into a debate about whether the Qur'an definitely makes a certain statement, but the main subject is still Arabian Christians rather than the Qur'an. Msubotin (talk) 01:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
@Msubotin: I know the topic. But it cannot be completely dismissed as completely unreliable. Not only that the main fact here is that never once anyone claimed it as completely accurate. I just put it here cause it is one of the few written texts about pre-Islamic practices, a primary source regardless of whether people consider it reliable or not. KahnJohn27 (talk) 01:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
@KahnJohn27: I'm all for that, as long as our discussion reflects different scholarly assessments, pro and contra, which I think it does, except for unclear paragraph structure. My original (not very well expressed) objection way back was about using the Qur'an as a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense, which we've addressed by now. I believe we're now discussing a binary pro-and-contra division of the paragraph for logical clarify, which was the intent of my sentence about "other interpretations". Msubotin (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
@Msubotin: The "other inteprations" or "assessments" have already been added. Also I've added the two other authors you talked about alongside Sidney Griffith, Hawting (G.R. Hawting) and Gabriel Reynolds. KahnJohn27 (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
@KahnJohn27: Thanks for expanding the last sentence. I've made another attempt to improve the structure. I'm introducing a transitional sentence to make it clear that we'll be discussing authors who do not consider the Quran to be a source on Christianity in Arabia, for different reasons. I've deleted the sentence about heretical sects, which seems to be referring to Watt. As I wrote above, it could be useful to discuss his proposal here, but Sirry's summary doesn't tell us whether he locates those sects in Arabia. I suspect that's the case, but we don't know for sure without reading his paper. Msubotin (talk) 02:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
@Msubotin: You're reason about removing Watts' argument isn't rational and well-founded. You're cherry-picking what and what not to remove. Even if Watts' means Christians outside Arabia, then it still belongs there as it is another intepration of the verse just like the polemic caricature one. I am restoring it as it is another interpretation of the verse and thus belongs in the paragraph. KahnJohn27 (talk) 03:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
@KahnJohn27: Yes, if we knew what Watt argues (where those sects were located and whether the Quran accurately describes their beliefs), we could have appropriately incorporated it into the discussion one way or another. But as it is, we don't know where Watt stands with respect to the subject, which is using the Qur'an as a historical source on Christians in Arabia. If he thinks that the verses accurately characterize Arabian sects, then the sentence doesn't belong where you placed it, among discussion of reasons not to use the Qur'an is a reliable witness. Msubotin (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
@Msubotin: You're coming back to the same thing over and over again to not use Quran as a reliable source and wasting everybody's time over it even though it's been mentioned several times that nobody is claiming it or using it as a completely reliable or accurate source. That's the reason why I agreed with and added "according to the Quranic verses" in first place. You said there should be different interpretations about the verses included which was a sound rationale and as such I've included Watts' argument because it's an interpration of the verse regardless of which Christians he's talking about. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
@KahnJohn27: You didn't understand my last response. It wasn't expressing my opinion about using the Qur'an as a source on Christians in Arabia. I'm saying that the paragraph discusses opinions of different scholars on this point and we can't tell from Sirry's summary what opinion Watt had on it. That would be fine if the subject was Quranic criticism of Christianity, but it's not. The subject is precisely the one on which we don't know Watt's opinion. Msubotin (talk) 04:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
@Msubotin: Just because you feel Watt's source is unclear if it's about Arab Christians because it doesn't mean it shouldn't be there. It's an interpretation and you yourself said there should be other interpretations and there is no requirement for it to be even about Arabs. Placing requirements for a scholarly source means you're forming your own judgment about reliable sources. Watts' statement can be used regardless. Now please let's stop wasting time over what you think about a source being used. As already said countlesd times Watts' argument can be used anyway as it concerns the verrse. Now let's move on. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
@KahnJohn27: Ok, compromise proposal: I've changed the phrasing to make it fit better what we know about Watt's thesis and tried to integrate it into the logical flow of the paragraph. Msubotin (talk) 05:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
@Msutobin: That is self thesis about a source. You're modifying it and adding your own POV about it. That is not allowed. Not only that you placed the not about particular Arab Christian beliefs even though Eildae never once says that these beliefs weren't particular to Arab Christians. Not only that I've already added the argument of the three auothors, Sidney Griffith, G.R. Hawting and Gabriel Reynolds about it being a polemical caricature. So basically you're adding the same context in different language. Reverting it. Your edits are looking like a personal POV. I am therefore revertibg it. The text is accurate to the sources, let it remain as it is.
@KahnJohn27: My goal here is to remove an implicit editorial POV. The placement of the sentence between two "contra" arguments implied that Watt agrees with them, which was not supported by the source. Further, the phrase "some scholars" implicitly applied to the "polemical" view proponents, which is wrong. I've expanded the discussion of Watt's views relevant to the subject based on his book "Muhammad at Medina". With this new context, I think Watt's thesis discussed in Sirry has also become more relevant here. And please stop calling on others to "move on" when there is a substantive disagreement. Thanks Msubotin (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
@Msubotin: I can tell you to "Move on" as you haf been constantly been arguing for hourse because you did not want Quran to be used as a source cause you conaidered it unreliable. Having said that I think the new arguments you added are ok since they are close to the source material and are relevant to the topic. I have however removed the Quranic verses you cited in the article and the sources of Muhammad's knowledge about Christianity according to some scholars as they unnecessarily prolong the paragraph, stray too much from the topic and are unneeded as it's already been said in schlorarly arguements posted in the paragraph knowledge about Christianity wasn't completely. KahnJohn27 (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
@KahnJohn27: I've already told you that the allegation about my motives you keep trotting out is false, and it's amply demonstrated by my edit history. It shows your persistent refusal to assume good faith. The only reason I have to argue for hours is that some key points just don't seem to be registering with you, in particular the fact that the section is about Christianity in Arabia and the paragraph is about using the Qur'an as a historical source on it. Details about Christians in Arabia are directly relevant to the section and details about Muhammad's Christian informants are directly relevant to the paragraph. You can't delete relevant, sourced material just because you think it's "unnecessarily" long. And what on earth is wrong in specifying which verses the statement refers to? That is standard practice both in books and on Wikipedia. I'm also restoring the book as ref for Watt's thesis, which is needed to source his view that the criticism of "sonship" refers to unorthodox "physical sonship". Msubotin (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
@KahnJohn27: @Msubotin: You yourself stated that it shouldn't be used for Christiani beliefs in your earlier comments cause you considered it unreliable. can delete the supposed Muhammad sources because they are unnecessarily long and irrelevant. The Christian informants is just an argument and is not necessarily true. The argument that Muhammad had approximate knowledge of Christianity has already been mentioned and there is no need to add the argument who his sources were or not. I am removing it and if you add it again I'll remove it again. Besides the source about Watts was removed accidentally. Neither are the exact numbering of verses important. There is other information based from Quran here too, but the exact verses haven't been cited. Similarly there are other articles who's information comes from verses from religious books but many a times they do not cite the specific verses. Reverting part of your edit and if you unnecessarily add it again, then it will be removed. Now stop behaving like a master of this article who thinks he has the only rigjt to decide what goes in or not. KahnJohn27 (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Continued in new section -> Synthesis, relevance, consensus-building

@DeCausa: Now about your latest edit regarding the Meccan goddesses, FE Peters never says that the phrase "daughters of Allah" is being used for angels. It clearly says the three godesses along with others were angels whom polytheists gave female names. Here's the quote:

The last verse shows the direction in which Muhammad's thinking was going: the three godesses, and perhaps others as well, are actually angels, the Quran argues, whose intercession is permitted by God, and to whom the unbelievers have given female names. KahnJohn27 (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Which "Arabia" should be used?

I expect the title to be confusing. The issue here is what does "Arabia" mean here? Is it just the modern country of Saudi Arabia or the whole Arabian penisula containing Yemen, Oman, Bahrain, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar? Because in the article Pre-Islamic Arabia, the "Arabia" being talked about is the whole Arabian peninsula and the civilisations located in modern Yemen, Oman etc. are mentioned as well. We need to decide what definition should of "Arabia" should be used here. If Arabia here is used to mean Arabian penisula, then ancient beliefs of modern countries other than Saudi Arabia should be added as well. KahnJohn27 (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC) KahnJohn27 (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Arabia means the whole peninsula, not Saudi Arabia, hence Arabia is a re-direct to Arabian peninsula. As far as I was concerned, I've been adding text about the whole peninsula, hence, in the Christian section I've added text about Yemen. DeCausa (talk) 12:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@DeCausa: Alright but we need to add about other ancient beliefs and the beliefs in other countries as well. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Proper paragraph in lead section about Iranian religions

I've recently added about Iranian religions in pre-Islamic Arabia. There should be a paragraph about it in the lead section. I will like others to suggest what should be added in it based on the "Iranian religions" section. KahnJohn27 (talk) 11:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Not a whole paragraph. Per WP:LEAD the lead should summarise the elements of the article in proportion to how they are covered in yhe article. Also, an article this size should have a lead of two possibly three paragraphs. The Iranian section probably wants no more than one or two sentences added to the second paragraph. Judaism also needs to be covered. As currently written, it warrants one sentence (though that section should be expanded in which case the expanded coverage in the lead should be reflected). As currently written, I would say 2 sentences on the Iranian religions and one sentence on Judaism be added to the 2nd paragraph. DeCausa (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I've added 3 sentences to the lead. DeCausa (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Almost stepped on your toes. I've expanded a couple of others. Msubotin (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
No problem. Btw, we should do something about the Judaism section - Zeitlin (cited in the section) seems to be a good summary of the existing scholarship. This has the potential of becoming quite an interesting little article. DeCausa (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I'll take a crack at it. Msubotin (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

"Other supernatural beings" section

This follows on from a discussion I had with Msubotin above (section: "Why should "Arabian" mean "pre-Islamic"?"). I'm wondering whether the "Supernatural beings" section should be taken out and put into a new article Arabian folklore? The reason I'm saying this is that what's covered by it transcends pre- and post- conversion to Islam. In fact, looking at the admittedly not very good sourcing, it is mostly post conversion. We could leave behind a shortened single paragraph giving a summary per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. The new article would give the opportunity to expand on the folkloric aspects which are limited here. Views? DeCausa (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: Yes, the info there seems to be partly post-Islamic and partly nonsense. I've confirmed that the material on marids is based on fantasy novels while replacing a similar description in the eponymous article. There's just one bit of archeological data I looked into here [[8]] for jinn. I'm sure there are inferences out there regarding pre-Islamic beliefs about jinn based on the material in the Quran and Abbasid-era belles lettres, but I haven't come across a thorough discussion. I'm not yet ready to start an article about Arabic folklore or mythology, but I would argue that the current content of this section should be removed. Msubotin (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Religion_in_pre-Islamic_Arabia/Archive_1&oldid=1087719144"