- 1 Buraq
- 2 Leon Uris quote
- 3 Described...
- 4 Quotations
- 5 General question
- 6 Merge into Isra and Mi'raj
- 7 This isn't a joke right
- 8 Borax and buraq
- 9 Yes, merge the Al Borak article
- 10 Cultural Impact
- 11 A Wrinkle in Time
- 12 Obama
- 13 Human Characteristics
- 14 Mecca to Jerusalem is wrong
- 15 Western Wall
- 16 Abraham
- 17 "The" Buraq
What sources are out there that provide description of a buraq?
- 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?
- 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)
And in the intro; "described as a ..." described by who?
- 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)
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)
(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
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... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 08:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
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.
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)
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
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)
- Is it ? I think it is the same. Just a transliteration variation.Eregli bob (talk) 10:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
Mecca to Jerusalem is wrong
al-Masjid al-Haram to al-Masjid al-Aqsa, is what I put in and was removed stated that I put original research, while you can see the reference directly to Quran Quran does not say Mecca and jerusalem can some one fix this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorman (talk • contribs) 04:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia content should be based on reliable secondary sources such as peer-reviewed scholarly papers or books published with an academic publisher. The Quran is a primary source, not a secondary source. The article already quotes the Quran, but "Mecca to Jerusalem" is the common interpretation of those verses. Huon (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
common interpretation of those verses BY WHO? there was no reffrence as to Jerusalem/mecca. Direct Quote from primary source is better than interpretation by no source. and since when we can not directly quot from bible, torah, quran? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorman (talk • contribs) 18:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
How can we request that prople with no account do not edit an article? people just change their IP and vandalize the article
I took time to make sure everything I put has a source if it is missing a source please notify me in the talk and I will add it or fix it. Removing half the article just because you do not like it is unacceptable and people who do that should be blocked.--Doctorman (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- If you feel this page is being vandalised, please report it to WP:RPP. Primefac (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Huon why did you remove the rest of the article? they were well referenced. Furthermore you do understand that you just over ruled Quran the main book of Islam with a random book that has collected stories and interpretations as reference? and the book you are referencing to does not open up to that page on google books.
Huon you removed EVERYTHING again. you do not care about the source or not. if you don't like it you just vandalize the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorman (talk • contribs) 00:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- What I removed is at best original synthesis and thus unsuitable for Wikipedia: Yes, the current-day al-Aqsa mosque was built long after Muhammad's death, but that's irrelevant to the Buraq, and I rather doubt the sources discussing the mosque's architectural history so much as mention the Buraq. Discussing the mosque's building date would be appropriate in the article on the mosque, but it's clearly irrelevant to an article on Muhammand's steed. Similarly, whether or not Jewish sources mention Abraham's supposed voyages to Mecca is irrelevant to the Islamic tradition which does mention these voyages by means of the Buraq. Huon (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your pointsHuon: Here are mine, the article starts by trying to connect Buraq to Jerusalem's Al-Aqsa Mosque as part of the story so adding the info about Jerusalem Al-Aqsa being built after death of muhammad and this story is relevant to show perhaps Burqa did not actually go to Jerusalem Al-Aqsa maybe it went to another place called Al-Aqsa or that Al-Aqsa is not a place but stating a "far place".
as for Abraham: one you introduce Abraham as a character, it become relevant that there are opninons that said he went to mecca and others that do not. you can not just introduce facts one sided. if you want to remove the whole Abraham paragraph that is fine but just to remove parts of it that is not fair to the reader.
If you want to remove the building info on al-Aqsa is fine if you remove the whole thing but just to chose what sounds right is not fair to the reader.
While Burqa is an islamic figure not all the reader are all followers of ISlam and come from different back ground.
- This is the article on Buraq. To my knowledge Buraq is a character exclusively related to Islamic mythology (please provide references if Buraq appears in other contexts). The article does not mention the al-Aqsa mosque in the lead; in fact it was you who made it say so. It's commonly accepted that the "farthest mosque" mentioned in the surah that discusses the Night Journey refers to Jerusalem. If you think the article should mention that maybe it refers to some other place, please provide a reference that says so. "Perhaps Buraq did not go to Jerusalem" is somewhere between speculation and original research without a reference backing up that statement - and by that I mean a reference explicitly discussing Buraq's target, not a combination of unrelated sources from which we then draw our own conclusions.
- The story of Abraham riding Buraq to visit Hagar is also mentioned in the book I cited for Jerusalem; apparently that too is a common theme in Islamic mythology regarding Buraq. Since Buraq is not a figure in Jewish mythology, it's entirely unsurprising that voyages using Buraq as a steed are not mentioned in Jewish mythology; pointing that out explicitly doesn't really improve our readers' understanding of Buraq.
- While not all readers of this article are followers of Islam, we can safely assume that they all want to learn about Buraq - not about other mythologies that don't mention Buraq.
- Cobb (and another reference) was lost to changes to the article; I'll restore the full citation. Huon (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
"began to be referred to as the Al-Buraq Wall (by Muslims). It was given this name because it was said that Muhammad had tied the Buraq to that wall during his Night Journey. Cobb, Gary L. (2007). Three Religions One Temple Mount. Xulon Press. p. 14. ISBN 9781602665583.
I have looked at the Three Religions One Temple Mount, cobb book and the content placed here as reference are taken out of content. Cobb is saying that such claims by some muslims has no Historical base. to Qoute him in the opposite way is deceiving the Wikipedia readers.--Doctorman (talk) 12:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- I've looked at it too. Such useless polemics have no place here. Zerotalk 05:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
According to any non-Islamic source, the quote here about Abraham is wrong. Just because you found a source who says otherwise it doe snot make it factually true. any bible or Torah that you check clearly states Abraham lived with his wife Sarah in Canaan (current day Hebron) and Hagar was daughter of Egyptian Paroh that was Sara's servant. Torah- Genesis chapter 16. While it is an uncomfortable fact for Muslims to accept it does not mean that you can change the facts in Wikipedia, I mentioned before and I will continue to do so. Once you introduce the name of Abraham al facts about him is fair game and you can not pick and chose the one you like. If you want to remove Abraham topic all together I am okay with that and sounds fair but just to mention his name and present one side of story that is not acceptable.Doctorman (talk) 02:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- This is an article about Islamic tradition, so what it should present is the Islamic tradition. It isn't an argument about Abraham. The Jewish tradition is reported on other pages. Zerotalk 05:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I have looked at the source for the Abraham section in the "Journeys in Holy Lands by Firestone", that part is also taken out of content as p117 of that book the writer is listing 3 different version of the story according to Islamic sources. to take one sentence that is in obvious conflict with other views and present that as the only Islamic view is deceiving the Wikipedia reader. Furthermore to ignore major direct sources and post a controversial comment from an unpopular book shows that the editors of this wikipedia page trying to hide facts and push their own views and what appeals to them, which is not a surprise. Obviously in the same source the book of "Journeys in Holy Lands by Firestone" I can find comments exactly opposite of what is posted in the article. I do understand that Islamic sources have trouble accepting Haggar was servant of Sarah that was later repelled from Abraham's home with her son Ishmael, and the fact that only Genealogy of Sarah's Son Issac was followed in the literature and Ishmael seams to be lost and not mentioned any more. However that does not mean that Wikipedia can serve to one view instead of presenting the facts. Again I know that this will never be put to bed and even if we agree to make any changes to this article in the TALK page the account-less IP war will keep turning this page in a useless biased page that it is now.--Doctorman (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- The story is not presented as the only Islamic view. It is presented as a tradition written by a particular famous writer. There is no reason why other traditions can't be mentioned too, but they should be traditions about Buraq, which is the topic of this page. There is a different page about Abraham where traditions about him are described. This is definitely not the right place to have a shoot-out between Islamic and Jewish traditions, unless you can find Jewish traditions about Buraq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zero0000 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Hehe " unless you can find Jewish traditions about Buraq" there is barely any reliable source for Buraq in Islam, certainly not in Quran. I hear your argument but I do not agree, you are saying this is islamic topic so only islamic sources, the problem with your argument is that, you are introducing non islamic sources into this, Abraham, Jerusalem, Western wall. Furthermore there is contradictions and argument about all these topics in Islamic sources and the ones presented here are hand picked and deceiving if presented alone.
- The name "Abraham" belongs to the Islamic tradition as well.
- See Abrahamic religions.
- There is not a good version and bad ones. And this article focuses on the Islamic one.
- Pluto2012 (talk) 03:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
That is not my point, the islamic version is the only one that has completely changed and goes against everyone else, even against some of the earlier Islamic sources.
- 1) Abraham did not live in Syria, He lived in Euphrat and moved to Canaan after a detour in egypt to drought in Cannan.
- 2) Abraham never had a trip to saudia arabia, mecca, medina
- 3) Hagar was daughter of Egyption king that was given to Sarah as a servant
- 4) Hagaar was sent away with ishmael from home
- 5) Abraham and Sarah are burried together in Hebron in the same cave as adam & eve
Jews & Christians stand by these facts together because they are explicitly mentioned in the Torah. Muslims say they believe in the Torah but then they do not agree with what is in it, claiming it has changed while the oldest found Torah in the world from 800-1000 CE I think is the same exact same torah that is in the use today, there is not a single Torah that says a single letter different from another one. That make the Torah the most reliable source for any historic fact. Yet I see muslims here try to bring proof from an unreliable article written 100-200 years ago about 4000 years ago Abraham. all these articles referred to here by islamic source against the Torah have no valid, reliable source and are at best the writers quote of someone else. Problem is that people read these pages thinking they are reliable, people who are actually looking for truth and facts. Again as I said these pages will never be reliable as long as they are open to be edited by just an IP address and even then...--Doctorman (talk) 03:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Doctorman,
- "Abraham did not live in Syria, He lived in Euphrat and moved to Canaan"
- In truth, Abraham never existed. It's a fancy.
- In this article we report their tale, we don't compare tales between themselves.
- Pluto2012 (talk) 06:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- There is no reason to believe that Abraham was a historical figure rather than a literary figure. It's not impossible; there is just no significant evidence for it. The Torah was written at least 1000 years after the time Abraham supposedly lived. But that's irrelevant anyway since this is not the article on Abraham. As for Buraq, I don't believe in magical beasts. That is also irrelevant because this is not an article on history. It is an article on a particular tradition. Zerotalk 12:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I understand you point of view now. While to you these are stories with no real meaning to most people history means something, perhaps you should mention VERY clearly that these are merely a very weird and completely untrue story. The problem is that Most people do not believe that to be the case. Adam & Eve, Noach, Abraham, Isac, Jacob, Moses etc. are just as much part of the real history as Abraham lincoln or other dead figures in history. You can not dismiss it by saying it never happened. There are lessons to be learnt from history and there are consequences because of history. Again here you are saying this whole thing is fictional creature which is not presented as fictional nor by the article nor by the sources used. It is pointing to the real things in current day like western wall and adding Islamic claims to it with real consequences. Referring to real people in history and presenting as real history but with fictional untrue detail. let me remind you muslims kill just for a wrong picture of Muhammad, or comical note about him. You must think twice before presenting fictional stuff as true facts without CLEARLY marking it as such. --Doctorman (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- It is already clearly marked. Look at the first sentence: "Al-Burāq is a steed in Islamic mythology,..". Note the key word mythology. Also, it is not Wikipedia's business to declare whether religious traditions or myths are true or false; we just report what is written about them. Zerotalk 13:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I question the use of "the Buraq" on this page. The name in Arabic indeed uses the definite article, but that is a common feature of Arabic names that makes little sense copied directly into an English article. I.e., in the case of names, the Arabic article and the English article do not have the same meaning. We never call Muammar Gaddafi "the Gaddafi" even though his name was actually "al-Gaddafi"; it is the same here. Looking in scholarly literature, most sources use "al-Buraq" or "el-Buraq" and a few use "Buraq". I see few or no uses of "the Buraq" except as a reference to the Western Wall. I'll change it unless there is a good argument not to. Zerotalk 23:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)