Talk:Scrolls of Abraham (Islam)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Sources[edit]

As you can see from the edit war, this article needs reliable sources. Case reported to Mediation Cabal. MP (talk) 10:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The edit war seems to have stopped. But I'll be your mediator. SynergeticMaggot 11:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've removed the questionable material, but I expect Moroniidris to revert it soon. We'll wait and see... MP (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. If an edit war starts though, I'll request page protection. That way, no one will edit until its resolved. SynergeticMaggot 11:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
It appears that the editing has stopped. I've messaged the other user and they havent gotten back to me. I may have to go on a short wikibreak, so I'm going to have to resign as mediator from this case. I'm leaving the case open for you though. Regards. SynergeticMaggot 00:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Article messed up badly[edit]

This article has now suffered from a severe bout of anon's (or perhaps the same anon using different names ?) adding questionable info. into the article. It looks like vandalism to me. Therefore, I'm going to revert. MP (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I am a Mormon (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints), and we do not beleive we are adopted as children of Abraham. We believe if individuals are not literal descendents of one of the tribes of Isreal (grandson of Abraham) they are adopted into the tribe of Ephraim (great-grandson of Abraham). We have never used the honorific talked about in the article in any measure. Our church sees Abraham as an important individual, because of the covenants made with him by God. We do not see ourselves a some form of set aside Muslim group. Someone has been given a real tilted veiw on this subject with regards to the Mormons.EErick 21:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Moses/Musa and Abraham/Ibrahim LDS thought paragraph[edit]

This paragraph doesn't appear to have reliable sources and in this context it would have to be deleted unless references could be found. Addhoc 11:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend making the article a stub instead of deleting any more information. As long as the edit wars have stopped the mediation case should probably be closed, as the extract referring to a questionable source that required compromise/mediation is no longer a contentious issue any more. Jsw663 21:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The (removed by me) link supporting this paragraph ([1]) is dead. Google's cache ([2]) suggests it was original research (the author refers to it as "my theory") and all Google could come up with is sites that repeat this content from Wikipedia. However, I'm going to tag it with WP:WEASEL since I'm not an LDS scholar and I don't know that Google is either. And I don't want to start another edit war.
As an aside, I'm not sold on the addition of Peace Be Upon You, both because I'm not sure it's encyclopaedic, and because I was under the impression it is actually Peace Be Upon Him... But I'm not going to actually do anything about it apart from link to the relevant Wikipedia article.
TBBle 12:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

corruption of scripture & translations[edit]

the quran makes no reference to corruption of the word of god, or the scripture. it does state that some have attempted to add to the scripture, example such as the jews who made things unlawful for themselves that god had seen fit as lawful unto them. and mentioning of christians exulting jesus and joining jesus as partner unto god, whom has no partner nor equal.

within the quran there is mention of the scrolls, the scripture, the books, the tablets, the torah and the gospel, the hymns of david. moses is described as recieving the scripture, and so too is jesus described as being taught the scripture, later clarified as complimentary to the torah and gospel though distinct.

hence, one could conclude that it was 'the scripture' that formed the scrolls/books of abraham and moses and that the scripture itself hence still exists as recited by the prophet muhammad and preserved by scribes - this would perhaps be key as to the absence of punctuation.

the gospel presents a record of the confirmation that jesus brought both as the prophesised miracle in the torah to the miracles performed by him. the torah sent down to moses during the plight of the children of israel containing a convenant specific for these people, the torah itself being a miracle as the gospels were, the torah being requested as a proof of truth and validity in regards to the jews making things unlawful for themselves before the torah was revealed.

again we may consider the stories of abraham in his struggles to aquaint with god, testing the 'symbols' that idolators had presented as godly figures such as the sun and the moon, to find god as creator and master over all things. thus abraham was amongst the first to recieve the scripture.

it is assured that all things are recorded and hence although one may not be able to access the 'copy' of the scripture as written on the scrolls of abraham the scripture itself still exists and has again been recited through the prophet muhammad.

there is also reference to the 'guarded tablet' that can be understood to refer to a 'material' object, yet one that cannot be destoyed except by the will of god who can invariably turn mountains to wool or dust, neither can it be corrupted as the scripture is 'engraved' irrevocably from the tablet, that to do so would only be to produce another tablet, that is similar yet contains error and hence is worthy of destruction or purification at the least. it is not to be confused with a superstition, we must bare in mind that god is master over the heavens and the earth and the firmaments and all-kind man and jinn. it is not beyond god to bring into being even the false idols of the idolators, nor raise the dead doubly it certainly is not beyond god to convey parts of the book that are not currently percievable by any man if not also the prophets, such as the letters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.154.152 (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

i should also make clear that some qurans make reference to 'the religion of abraham', and other prophets, which is more likely a translational misdirection than actual possession of the religion belonging to any prophet or the prophets holding seperate 'religions', perhaps better translated as 'the belief of abraham'. clarified by reference of gods rejection of religions of folk that do not believe in god. also the forbidden nature of dividing the religion into sects, that the religion is one, and that the religion belongs to god, the soul owner of all his creation(s). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.154.152 (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)