Talk:Buraq

What sources are out there that provide description of a buraq?

One source I know of is the sahih hadith (traditions of the prophet Muhammad, with reliable Isnad). These texts are online and can be searched at "USC MSA's website"

• SAHIH MUSLIM, BOOK 1: The Book of Faith (Kitab Al-Iman)
• SAHIH BUKHARI, BOOK 58: Merits of the Helpers in Madinah (Ansaar)
• SAHIH BUKHARI, BOOK 54: Beginning of Creation

Leon Uris quote

Mel, why are you so attached to this Leon Uris quote? I imagine that other people are going to have the same reaction that I do, as in "Why the heck are you quoting HIM?" It detracts from the article. Zora 11:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It follows exactly the same pattern as other Wikipedia articles; an article on an obscure topic contains a quotation from or reference to a well-known work. I don't see your objection to it. If other people share your view, they'll presumably say so, and then we'll have the basis for a dispute. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:48, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You make a good point, Mel. Bu-but, shouldn't said "well-known work" be from a body of work/knowledge that is from the relevant or a close field of study? I mean if, for example, we quote a work by Robert A. Heinlein on, say, Lewis Carrol to provide basic information because the writer appears in one of his works of fiction, would that be useful?

Let me see if I can find something that fits your criteria—can anyone else?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 18:50, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what the problem is. A novelist does research, includes the creature in his novel, and we quote it. It's a mythological creature, and the quotation comes from a work of fiction (unlike the case of Heinlein and Carroll). The article on the Phoenix includes a quotation from Shakespeare — an English author writing about an ancient Egyptian–Greek legend. I'm unaware of any objection. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that Leon's description isn't based on any authentic Islamic source so it's irrevelent to put him as a source of an Islamic description of Buraq. Hence I request removal of this section as it only contribute confusion. Saleh 17:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It strikes me as kind of bizarre too - it's a bit like quoting Tawfiq al-Hakim for a description of Galatea. Still, within an "In art" subsection, I can see it having a place - although including a quote from such a comparatively minor work seems premature when the article still omits much better-known descriptions of it (like Rumi) . - Mustafaa 05:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh please please put in the bit from Rumi -- it would go so nicely with the miniature, and give a hint of the treasures of Islamic literature. Zora 07:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Described...

And in the intro; "described as a ..." described by who?

Maybe what we need to do is have sections on what the Islamic canon (Quran and Hadith) describe it as, and how it is represented in literature and art...

Just a thought.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 18:52, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Good solution, IFaqeer. I'm happy with the quote being there as long as it's in the "this is what artists have done with the idea" category. Zora 19:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A suggestion: given that the Buraq is typically envisaged as a four-footed and winged animal with a human head, and is of Middle-Eastern origin, it strikes me that it bears more than passing resemblance to a kirabu or cherub (even the roots k-r-b and b-r-q may be related). Could we have a line referencing the similiarity, with a link to cherub included?

Nuttyskin 04:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Quotations

I've noticed in a few articles the use of italics instead of quotations marks to mark quotations. It always looks odd to me; is there any reason for it? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What? For using italics, or for them looking odd to you? They don't look odd to me. Quotation marks (or double inverted commas) are really better described as "speech commas": they're for use when giving what someone has said. Italics, on the other hand, come from the early cursive hand used by humanist diarists of the Rinascimento, and are thus proper to giving what someone has written.

Nuttyskin 04:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

General question

(I should start by saying that I think that the article is looking much better — and if I hadn't mentioned it before, the illustration is beautiful.) It seems to me that the general "mythology stub" looks incongrouous here; what does a Welsh dragon have to do with the article? It would be nice to add some more specific mythology stubs, but I don't know what would be suitable as an illustration (perhaps none, or the Arabic for "myth"?), nor as a title ("Middle Eastern-myth-stub" seems to be too geographically specific and vague at the same time; would "Islamic-myth-stub" be acceptable?). Any suggestions or comments? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I doubt that "Islam-myth-anything" would be acceptable to a lot of people--a lot of very opinionated people. And that's just the emotional responses. On a more technical level, isn't there a distinction between a myth and a religious belief? Just thinking out loud...—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 01:33, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

It's true that there's often a large grey area, but I thought that even the devoutly religious distinguished between central doctrine and mythical elements (I mean, how many devout Muslims believe that the Buraq actually existed?). After all, no-one's complained about the "myth-stub" template on this article. Still, would you say then that the stub should be changed to:

Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The cynical (including me) would say that a "myth" is just someone else's religious beliefs that you don't agree with. But seriously, in a technical academic sense (which I believe the wiki article on mythology explains), the word "myth" refers to just a traditional story passed on, and doesn't imply whether it is true or not. Contrast this with the common usage, where people usually mean "lie" or "fairy tale".

I think an encyclopedia like wikipedia would probably use the more academic definition, and those who are offended at first are free to look up and learn the various meanings of the word "myth" and how it is used differently in academics than it is in casual conversation.VatoFirme (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge into Isra and Mi'raj

As this article is likely to remain scant on much reliable information, it's going to be rather short, and hence should be merged into Isra and Mi'raj. ---Mpatel (talk) 09:54, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:Isra and Mi'raj for my opinion. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Um, I think I agree with Mel. If someone runs across the word Buraq and tries to look it up on Wikipedia, the info should be under Buraq. The article is a good size, it seems to me. Zora 11:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

This isn't a joke right

I've heard people say this is BS...this almost sounds like the Xenu article..a joke? Is it or is this for real, and this is a serious question, because I've seen Muslims say this isn't something to be taken as something real.--Jerluvsthecubs 01:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

All muslims have to believe in whatever Muhammed said, & in their daily lives they try to immitate his actions. They believe that the Hadith that tells the story about Isra & Mi'raj is true and valid with its very details. So, it's no wonder to find religious muslims believe in Buraq. 21:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

That's fairly presumptuous. All Muslims do not "have" to believe in anything, and all Muslims do not agree on everything - just like all Christians don't think the same thing. As for the Buraq, it's no less plausible than a talking snake handing out enchanted fruit to the first woman, or a giant whale swallowing someone and they survive it, or a deity flooding the earth and rescuing two of every animal on a wooden boat, or turning someone into a pillar of salt, or a talking donkey, or a man walking on water and coming back from the dead... All religions have folkloric elements, and in every religion there are some who take their myths literally and others who recognize them as metaphors.VatoFirme (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

---

About the part with Abraham - it's not true.. I'm Jewish myself and I've learnt about Abraham a lot - and that's just not true...

Borax and buraq

Someone added a note to the effect that the element boron was named after the buraq. My Arabic is close to non-existent, but I think that borax and buraq are different words.

البوركس borax

البُراق buraq

Zora 01:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, merge the Al Borak article

Merge. That other article was created by someone who didn't know the ordinary spelling of buraq in English. We should leave a redirect so that anyone else with the same notions of spelling well be led to the buraq article. Zora 00:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there any information in the Al Borak article that you feel isn't sufficiently covered in this article? If so, that should be moved over here, and as soon as that's done it can be made into a redirect. I don't know enough about the subject matter to merge them myself. Mak (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The Al Borak article had no references and seemed to be based on a "man in the street" understanding of the idea. There didn't seem any information in the article that should be merged. So I turned it into a redirect. I may have done that too quickly but ... we'll see if anyone objects. Zora 01:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Mak (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Cultural Impact

As a "Burak" myself, I have edited this section to mention the common use of this name for male children, seemingly in Turkey only. I have not observed this to be a widespread practice among Muslims at large, but cannot make a substantial claim due to the lack of a credible source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dburak (talk • contribs) 00:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

A Wrinkle in Time

I don't think the creature Mrs. Whatsit becomes is a Buraq; it's certainly never said to be one. 98.199.17.3 (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Obama

When the article refers Barack Obama as an example of the pop culture impact of Al-Buraq it seemed incorrect to me: isn't Barack a unrelated (tough with origin in the same seemitic root BRK) arabic name? Lususromulus (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Human Characteristics

In many representations of the Buraq, the creature has a human head and neck, yet retains the horse body and winged thighs. From the excerpts of the Qur'an this page shows, I never saw anything about the creature containing any sort of human body parts. Could anyone explain where these depictions of the Buraq got their influence from to give the beast a human head? Kostantino888Z (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)