Talk:Abrahamic religions

Contentious Content

It is apparently biased that evangelism is attributed with christianity , including a litany of religious pogroms , while islam is squeaky clean of its 1400 years of religious pogroms .

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Wars and see the jefferson and madison papers regarding a response from the foreign diplomat which is similar with that recounted in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Zoroastrians - When asked by Yazdegerd, about the reasons for the unwarranted Arab aggression against Persians, an Arab soldier replied, "Allah commanded us, by the mouth of His Prophet, to extend the dominion of Islam over all nations." [12]

Indeed , perhaps wikipedia is concerned with the numerous entries in the qurayn where it is directed to " manifest the religion over all religion " ; perhaps wikipedia is concerned with the numerous entries in the qurayn directing unrelenting militancy ; believe me , it can be quoted !

A moderator should address the disparity immediately ; indeed , whereas the doctrine of fictional ishmaelism includes intolerance as objectives , even martin luther stipulated that fighting a war in the name of christianity was NOT valid !

It is authoritarians pushing nomian legalism that is debase ! GeMiJa (talk) 01:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

There are no moderators here. If you want the article changed, you will have to do the work of assembling reliable sources and re-writing the article yourself. ♆ CUSH ♆ 08:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Bahai, again

Years ago, there was a discussion that Wiki hamze participated in (so I can only assume he was aware of it at the time) where he made the same arguments he's making now to remove Bahai.

• The article doesn't say "top 3" or "major 3," it just says "the largest, in chronological order."
• The sources cited mention Bahai as the fourth largest religion (WP:DUE)
• The article also mentions other Abrahamic religions (which are all together only equal in size to Bahai), so the argument "otherwise a lot of others deserve to be there" indicates that Wiki Hamze did not actually read the article before editing it, or else he is specifically targeting Bahai for censorship
• "I am sure that 99% of earth's population has not heard Bahai" is not only unsourced original research, but it's still a poor excuse for what amounts to censorship of sourced material. That it is reliably sourced to academic sources indicates that a significant enough portion of academia has heard of it. Wikipedia is full of whole articles on stuff that most people haven't heard of.

Ian.thomson (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

And Wiki Hamze's accusation that I'm doing this because I'm supposedly Bahai goes against WP:AGF (not saying Bahai is a bad faith, but rather, Wiki Hamze is clearly assuming that the only possible reason I could be doing that is religious). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree, there's no good reason for removing that material. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but you seems to be friends supporting an obviously illogical claim! this is not a way to feel important guys. Wiki hamze (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a new argument, or would you like to keep repeating arguments that were dismissed years ago? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

first I am sure that you are Bahai and becase of this baised about your beleif. second, if you can remember, majority of readers accepted my claims and did a major change to page. don't you remember or I should remind you? what can be funnier that this that your want to put a strange, rare, unheard and recent religion among main well-known one? I am sure that even a kid can understand this. please find a rational way to feel important, not editing the reality. Wiki hamze (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

1) I'm Baptist, i.e. a Christian.

2) That's not what the talk page archives show at all. There, multiple readers point out the flaws in your arguments.

3) You didn't remove any of the other religions, nor did you move Bahai to that list -- demonstrating that either you didn't read the article (which would be in line with you not reading the edit warring warning), or you're censoring sourced material because you hate Bahai. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I do agree with wiki_hamze, who have heard name of this rare religion? it doesn't deserve to be beside famous ones.Hagarblue (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The reason you agree with Wiki hamze is because you probably are Wiki hamze.

The authors of the sources have obviously heard of the religion. If you don't care about sources, you don't care about Wikipedia.

If Bahai isn't famous, how come sources keep mentioning it? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention the references added above in the other section. Agreed there are easily enough references for notability in a restricted sense not in parallel with other religions as has been agreed successively for several years. --Smkolins (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Article protected for three days

This nonsense has to stop, and full protection is a temporary measure to achieve this. Later today, I may (unless another admin beats me to it) close Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki hamze, which has some bearing on the present issue. Favonian (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

What about Satanism?

All that bias aside, Satanism also has roots in Abrahamic thought, so shouldn't it be included as a minor faith or something?92.114.148.141 (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

We'd require sources that describe it as such (see WP:CITE and WP:V). There's also the argument that they've branched off enough to count as a distinct species (similar to how Theosophy is not counted as either a Abrahamic or Dharmic religion). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Satanism in the old sense, meaning worship of the biblical Satan, is just abrahamic religion with a different focus. Satanism in the new, LaVeyan sense is atheistic. Yazidis are not devil worshipers, as they are accused to be. ♆ CUSH ♆ 19:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

There're also forms of theistic Satanism that are properly neopagan, starting with the Wiccan claim that Satan is just an Abrahamic demonization of the Horned God, but diverging in deciding to "take back" the name Satan (where most neopagans go "Christians got it wrong, that figure doesn't exist"). Some such Satanists would be Abrahamic offshoots that adopted neopagan terminology, while others are neopagan offshoots reacting to the Abrahamic religions. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Wanted: Comparison chart

Why not introduce the article with a comparison chart sumarizing the most important differences? Which of the following sources are reliable and best to base the chart upon? [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Mange01 (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

name

change it to Semitic is more accurate?--Usvruefktpi (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

[6] 400k non-wikipedia references to "Abrahamic religions" and [7] 5.8k to Semitic. Hands down to my pov Abrahamic is far far far more common than Semitic. --Smkolins (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

it is not about common remember the policy WP it is about accurate i think semitic is more precise?--Usvruefktpi (talk) 02:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)