Talk:Lot in Islam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Islam (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Inaccurate[edit]

According to the Bible, Sodom was destroyed because its inhabitants broke Jewish law by not being welcoming to foreigners. There is even disagreement over whether homosexuality is in the story at all. There are two tellings of the exact events but both agree qith my first sentence. In light of this, is this article inaccurate in relation to Sodom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.192.35 (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Historicity[edit]

As with any stories relating to religion, this is one that is taken from books like the Quran and Hadith, and may not be real history. Depends on your view really. DigiBullet 08:45, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Should this be moved to Luth?[edit]

  • Well should it?--58.105.62.86 10:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Erm ... I don't think so. Currently Luth redirects to Leatherback Sea Turtle, which is a little strange. Is "Luth" an alternative romanisation of the Arabic name? Dr algorythm 12:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

In my view, the Qur'anic character, Lut, is fully identified with the Biblical character Lot. The two sets of information should be linked. However, since Jewish and Christians traditions about Lot do not encmpass the traditions of the Qur'an, it would be best for Wikipedia to maintain two separate articles, but to include in each one a reference to the other.

My proposal:

Lot (person) will contain the undisputed views, while the two other versions will be sub-articles that the main article link to and will include the more specific views. This will link all articles together, remove the bias of one article having the prefered and only correc english title, and will also eliminate any confusion regarding mulitple persons. -striver

  • Oppose - I say merge them all. None of them is long enough to justify its own entry, but all of them together makes a nice article. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose the Oppose - If this and Lot (Bible) are to be merged, under what title would that be? Would Lut redirect to Lot or visa verca? Either way I predict accusations of favouratism. It seems to me that the character of Lot receives attention solely due to the central role he and his family play in the tale of the destruction of Sodom. The Sodom and Gomorrah article is well written and covers Christian, Islamic, Jewish, and secular views. So this article and the Lot (Bible) article are inevitably going to be little "satellite articles", and I don't think the fact that they are both short is a sufficient reason to combine them. Dr algorythm 12:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
So, can i have more input on my proposal? I do agree that merging might not be a good idé.--Striver 09:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - I would oppose any attempt to merge them, as there would be no neutral name. We have many short articles in wikipedia, and the separation allows the separate traditions to be read separately, but linked. William Quill 11:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Taliban[edit]

The Taliban note seems out of place, but I did not remove it. --Error (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Major Revamp[edit]

As is obvious, a major chunk of the article contains direct cites of verses from the Glorious Qur'an. While the Qur'an IS considered to be the MOST authentic text on subjects it chooses to speak about, directly citing verses into WP doesn't help much to WP's goals as an encyclopaedia. I am thus re-vamping the article, (taking subject matter from my own contributions to Biblical narratives and the Qur'an) and hope to see positive edits from everyone else as well InshaAllah. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Islamic views on Abraham which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Abraham in Islam which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

In Islam[edit]

Why is the Bible repeatedly used as a source?!--عبد المؤمن (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you talking about this article or another one? There are 29 different references in this article and 23 of those are from the Quran and 0 from the Bible. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)