Talk:Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Arabian mythology)
Jump to: navigation, search

Daughers of Allah redux[edit]

A dispute regarding on this point was temporarily put on hold over a year ago, and hasn't been revisited since. The user who argued for keeping current phrasing has been indeffed, so I'll just paste here the sourcing for the change given earlier by DeCausa and go ahead with it.

  • Berkey: "Several hundred Arabian deities are known from the Muslim sources the most prominent of which were those identified by the Arabs as the "three daughters of Allah" – Manat, Allat and al-Uzza..."
  • Robinson: "He [Allah] was not, in their [Arab pagans'] view the sole deity for they ascribed daughters to him, including the goddesses Allat, Manat, and al-Uzza."
  • Peters: "the other popular deities of the Meccans and their neighbours, the so-called daughters of Allah were named al-Lat, Manat, and al-Uzza."
  • Peters: "Allah has begotten? But they are surely liars! Would he choose daughters rather than sons? Quran 37:149-153) It is in this way that the Quran establishes that the three goddesses were not the 'daughters of Allah'.."
  • Peterson: "As part of the polemic against the Meccan belief in the three goddess daughter's of Allah the Quran repeatedly asks Muhammad's opponents why, when they crave sons so much, they believe that God himself has only daughters."

It's clear that according to Peters the Quran states that the goddesses weren't the daughters of Allah. It doesn't state that the Arabs didn't believe that they were the daughters of Allah. Eperoton (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

My edits[edit]

Oshwah Why did you revert my edit? I was shifting the content added by the IP, not outright deleting it. The section is about polytheism and native religious beliefs. Therefore I was shifting it. Sorry as I didn't mention that originally but you should have waited for some time or contacted me instead of reverting so soon. 117.199.89.177 (talk)

Ah, this is why I was confused. Your edit here gave input on the content itself, but didn't explain exactly what you were doing and why. In the future, just make sure that you explain this with edits in your edit summaries; it helps other editors to understand what you're doing, why, and avoid confusion and mistakes (like this, for example... lol). Were you able to undo the revert I made? Or do you need my assistance doing so? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah I'll remove it myself. I have added the material to other sections where it is relevant. Also I've removed content that is not related to here. Most of it is about the languages spoken by people in pre-Islamic Arabia. That might be appropriate for an article about pre-Islamic Arabia or its languages or culture or people etc but this is solely about religion. And the rest has been shifted to where it belongs. Thanks for understanding anyway. 117.199.89.177 (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The text about Christians in Eastern Arabia could go either into the section on Christianity or the section on Eastern Arabia, but the passage I just restored is clearly relevant to the article and should not be removed. Eperoton (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
On closer inspection, I agree that the placement was inappropriate, and I see that you've already moved one of the sentences. I moved the sentence which talked about the liturgical language. Eperoton (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Eperoton Why have you restored the whole thing? What you restored is about languages spoken by the people. While it may make sense on an article about pre-Islamic Arabs or Arabia as a whole or their languages or about the Bahraini people, this is strictly for religion. There are a lot of regions and tribes and civilizations here, the article will become unnecessarily large if we add everything to them. I can understand your point about liturgical language, but the rest of the content is irrelevant. Also the use of Syriac is very ambiguous. It isn't stated whether it was used as liturgical language by a particular group or by everyone or was used by most. I didn't think it was relevant. I don't see any rational reason to restore it. I might be okay with liturgical language as it at least have something to do with religious affairs, but the other things are irrelevant and the liturgical language is ambiguous. 117.215.225.124 (talk) 01:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
You have a point. Let's keep just the part about liturgical language. Eperoton (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Eperoton Thank you for doing that. 117.199.89.61 (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Removed the sentence that claimed Christianity was the dominant religion in Eastern Arabia. The sources attached to that claim do not say so. CaliphoShah (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)