Talk:Tay al-Ard

move

• google:Teleportation+in+Islam (result: 1)
• google:طی الارض (results: 1,010)

The English translation is a clumsy approximation (thus OR) and not an English lemma. It's POV too, indicating correspondence between an esoteric concept and exact science. I move it to Tai al-ardh. --tickle me 21:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Why did you move the article witout consencus? You were the only one at the afd to make this suggestion. Im moving it back, do not move without consensus. --Striver 21:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Tai al-ardh = 0 hits. --Striver 21:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Tai al-ardh = طی الارض (results: 1,010), but en:WP standards don't allow for arabic script in lemmata. "do not move without consensus": could you be bothered not to operate with threats and orders for a change? --tickle me 22:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

So how would you translate it TM, since eventually the phrase will have to be translated.--Zereshk 22:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"Traverse in a Glance" some suggest. However, either of us translating a complex concept on our own would do OR. I'm not going to check my old Arabic textbook as eventually an authoritative translation is needed anyway - talk about WP:RS. One thing's for sure: "Teleportation in Islam" isn't anything resembling a translation: it's wishful thinking or, possibly, Islamic science. Striver might want to stick to Svenska, as obviously neither العربي nor English are his forte.

As for the transliteration, the article will have to be moved again, so far I didn't bother to check Striver's expertise: per MoS (Arabic) it's Tay al-Ard (Ṭay al-Arḍ - strict translit.). Let's hope an expert pops up eventually. btw: google:"Tay al-Ard" - all of a sudden we have 3 hits. --tickle me 23:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Then at least bother to rename the article to the version that has more than 0 (zero) google hits. --Striver 00:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It's about accurate linguistic standards, the google hits are a trivial bonus. "at least bother to rename": could you be bothered to iron out the article's gross deficiencies? Did it occur to you to check for the words "teleportation" and Islam in طی الارض? They just don't appear in that phrase. We're not talking blunder here, we're talking about glaring inadequacies. --tickle me 00:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the name to Tay-Al Ard which is the closest transliteration of the Arabic term without the use of Lemmas. The tool Lexilogos can be used to testify to this fact. Cogitarus (talk) 04:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

sources/POV

{{sources}} because of sub-standard sources. Mostly it's OR too, so {{OR}} should be added. The article tries to establish superiority of Islamic science over it's western counterpart ("This concept has been around for centuries, and was in debate, long before its western contemporary counterparts surfaced in scientific and science fiction movies and circles) -> POV. --tickle me 21:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont like the arguement. Why is teleporting is a fantasy novel ok to be called "teleportation", but the Islamic consept can not? I view that as a pejorative look on Islamic culture. --Striver 21:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

do you have anything that shows the contrary, tm? After all, in the middle ages, Islamic science and philosophy WAS superior to that of the occidental. That's why Europeans sent students to the east for education and sources. I think this is a well established fact. unless you have anything that speaks of teleportation in western culture before the 20th century?--Zereshk 22:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"Why is teleporting is a fantasy novel ok to be called "teleportation", but the Islamic consept can not?": once you rephrase that so it can be understood someone might be inclined to answer. --tickle me 22:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, ill spell it out for you: "When people move from z to y in a fantasy novel, its called teleportation. When people move from z to y in a Islamic consept, you claim it can NOT be called teleportation. Why?" Do you understand now? --Striver 00:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Striver on this one. Beam me up scottie is the real blunder, whereas if you dig deep enough, tei ul-ardh leads you to some hard core philosophy (and God forbid...even quantum mechanical ideas).--Zereshk 01:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

tm, do you have a better translation? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (which is why basing an encyclopedia effort on google hits is an absurd thing to do). There is a lot that remains unknown about Islamic culture, civilization, and history.--Zereshk 22:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

---

tm,

the POV tag doesnt belong here. There is no "dispute" about this topic, in the sense of being refuted. You yourself mentioned 1100 google hits. So the topic actually exists. The best thing you can do is insert {{Fact}} tags in the text, if you feel that a particular statement needs to be sourced.--Zereshk 22:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• "which is why basing an encyclopedia effort on google hits is an absurd thing to do": correct, that's why I don't - I evaluate the differing lemmata's relevancy.
• "do you have a better translation?": see above - the better transliteration is a free extra.
• "in the middle ages, Islamic science and philosophy WAS superior to that of the occidental": ...until it regressed to the lamentable present day status, beginning with Al-Ghazali (11th century) who preferred intuition to ratio - good thinking. Besides, Islamic science was great because it preserved the sciences of Europe's antiquity, when that continent had lost it. But that's OR of both of us and completely irrelevant to the article.
• "the POV tag doesnt belong here": The article suggests a superiority of Islamic science over it's western counterpart - and it doesn't refer to the 9-11th century status. Besides, I'm not inclined to put behind most paragraphs. Maybe I'm not making myself understood: I know of the lemma's existence: it just deserves a better article, to put it mildly - and I won't write it for you. Without me, you wouldn't know how to spell the article's name in the first place. "in the sense of being refuted": nobody bothers trying to refute an esoteric concept: it's presentation is contended. Zereshk and Striver, would you mind consulting someone knowledgeable on the subject? I admire your unabashed self confidence. Should you be interested in Islamic science not yet made a grueling laughing stock check e.g. this guy. --tickle me 00:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

tm,

• • I dont see where exactly youre referring to, and Im not sure what u mean by a "free extra". We're open to suggestions for a better translation. "teleportation" is the best match I could come up with. If you check my edit history, youll see that I actually discussed the question of the best translation with Striver b4 creating the article. Indeed, English sources on this matter are sparse and rare. Not surprisingly of course.
  • If there was a Ghazali, there was also a Ghiyath al-Kashi, Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi, Nasir al-Din Tusi, Omar Khayyám, and Biruni. Besides, this all doesnt negate the fact that the concept of teleportation was extant at least in philosophy before modern 20th century scifi and science came along and introduced it.
  • You say: "The article suggests a superiority of Islamic science over it's western counterpart." Why? because of that one sentence? And besides, can you prove its counter? When Sufi mystics spoke of Tei ul-ardh, was there a European equivalent? I think not. This was not some Greek concept safekept by muslims.
  • You say: "it doesn't refer to the 9-11th century status". Well in fact it does, although not obvious. Tei ul-ardh was being discussed, and reportedly claimed to be observed, even then. Look at the names. Muhammad al-Baqir, Jafar al-Sadiq, Abu sa'id Abolkheir, Bastami.
  • You say: "it just deserves a better article, to put it mildly - and I won't write it for you." Thanks for the incognito show of offer tm. But we dont need you to write the article. Your energy and paramount erudite knowledge would be best used elsewhere. Leave this poor shabby article to us lowly amateurs. We will add to it gradually and improve it, as better and better sources become available. I thought it was obvious to you that I dont have resources such as Ibn Rushd and Ibn Arabi available to me at this time. And Im not exactly free as I used to be to cruise the stacks of PCL like I used to, but I did feel such an article necessary, and I will add to the article gradually, as I have been doing to all articles steadily.
  • And finally, your amusing claim: "Without me, you wouldn't know how to spell the article's name in the first place." lol. That's a good one. Occidentals correcting me on my own native language. I get that once in a while. Did it not occur to you that we didnt want to use the native term? I dont exactly concur that translations equate to OR.
  • peace.--Zereshk 01:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

---

All 3 tags are currently unwarranted. Unless tm has any other specific objection to present, or re-iterate his stance vis a vis the new changes.--Zereshk 02:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• "We're open to suggestions for a better translation": did so
• "The article suggests a superiority of Islamic science over it's western counterpart." Why? because of that one sentence?": Because of that and of the corresponding mapping of teleportation to the lemma -> OR to make a point = POV. "And besides, can you prove its counter?": neither of us is supposed to prove our POVs, the concept of WP:OR is lost on you - it shouldn't.
• ""it doesn't refer to the 9-11th century status". Well in fact it does, although not obvious": would you mind making the article's statements obvious? Though the article's subject is esoteric, the article should not be.
• "I thought it was obvious to you that I dont have resources such as Ibn Rushd...": would you mind engaging in proper research using WP:RS first - and writing later, instead of sandboxing WP to make your point that quantum physics is of Islamic origin - as everything?
• "And finally, your amusing claim: 'Without me, you wouldn't know how to spell the article's name in the first place.' lol. That's a good one. Occidentals correcting me on my own native language": translating طی الارض as "Teleportation in Islam" when "Traverse in a Glance" is a good approximation and neither "Teleportation" nor "Islam" are remotely connected in terms of linguistic accuracy doesn't speak well of your mastering the "native language" - it makes me speechless that you stress it. However, you unabashedness is impressive.

"All 3 tags are currently" unwarranted. --tickle me 13:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Look tm, your less than decent tone isnt going to get anyone anywhere. Instead of sly remarks and repeatedly pointing fingers at what I do and dont know (which you have no clue of anyway), lets just focus on the topic, shall we? And I implore you to conduct a proper discourse instead of repeatedly using ad hominems as a device in your arguments. I dont care who you are and I expect you to be the same vis a vis me.

Now: lets discuss your objections one by one:

---

The title:

"Traverse in a glance". Fair enough. I have also seen such an expression here and there. But we're talking of a suitable translation here. And your expression is not what طی الارض literally translates to (which brings the question, do we even need a literal translation or not). e.g. how do you justify leaving out the word ardh from the translation? "Traverse in a glance" . Traversing what? time, dreams, ....what? Your proposed expression doesnt carry the full meaning of طی الارض while "teleportation" does a better job. "Teleportation" is not a trademark and does not have a patent or belong to anyone. Lets look at Meriam Webster's definition for teleportation:

"the act or process of moving an object or person by psychokinesis"

Fits the bill right on target, I say. The definition is pretty clear.

Furthermore, I dont agree with your claim about "lemma --> OR". A lemma is (by M-W's def.) "an auxiliary proposition used in the demonstration of another proposition". Notice keyword: another, (meaning that youve already declared that the two are different). And how do you know the two are different? Just because it's a different language? Pascal's Triangle was independently invented by the Chinese, the Europeans, and Omar Khayam. Does that make their product different? Fine. So we dont have sources to back up my claim, for now at least. So it technically may count as OR. But I dont think it would be OR to mention similarities in meaning or parallels between طی الارض and "teleportation" in the article. After all, striver is right: When some lame Scifi flick or novel uses "teleportation" left and right, everyone's cool. But if the slightest reference of any precedent in the most speculative form is made of Islam in teleportation, then all hell breaks loose...Oh those retard muslims are now claiming they invented Quantum Mechanics!

I suggest that lets just keep the tai al-ardh title and add all the teleportation stuff in the text of the article.--Zereshk 00:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Your superiority accusation:

You say the article is a show of superiority of Islamic science over western science because of the sentence:

This concept has been around for centuries, and was in debate, long before its western contemporary counterparts surfaced in scientific and science fiction movies and circles.

and because "of the corresponding mapping of teleportation to the lemma". You hence claim this is the reason for the entire article being POV.

When I ask you to provide any evidence to back up your claim, you say "neither of us is supposed to prove our POVs".

That's not a persuasive answer tm. What you call POV is fact: There is no western counterpart to tai al-ardh in the middle ages.'

As for the "lemma" thing, Ive already posed you a challenge, show us that "teleportation" is a different thing from tai al-ardh (aside from their geographic origins).--Zereshk 00:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

What you call POV is fact: There is no western counterpart to tai al-ardh in the middle ages.

Errrm, apart from the whole Christian tradition of "miraculous transport" - stories of teleporting saints, religious statues, etc. There's also the Jewish equivalent Kefitzat ha-Derekh. Tearlach 02:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Good answer. Except that "the west" isn't exactly equivalent to Christianity and Judaism. By The west, I mean Western Europe, the Rennaissance cultural domain, and Hellenism and the Greeks in particular. Otherwise Judaism and Christianity are both from the Middle East. Churches were already built in Iran way before Europe accepted Christianity. And the center of Islam was Jerusalem (al-Quds), before it was moved to Mecca. And Daniel and Esther and Mordechai and Habakkuk all lived and died in the same exact area where many Sufis and Imams walked the earth.--Zereshk 02:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Claims of article being unclear:

You say:

"would you mind making the article's statements obvious?"

Please be more specific. Eaxctly which sentence? And obvious as in what?--Zereshk 00:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"Though the article's subject is esoteric, the article should not be"

Be specific what you mean and where you mean it. You keep throwing accusations around without any specifics to back you up.--Zereshk 00:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Your claim on not having reliable sources:

"would you mind engaging in proper research using WP:RS first - and writing later, instead of sandboxing WP to make your point that quantum physics is of Islamic origin - as everything?"

I'll ignore the sly undertone. I never claimed "QP is of islamic origin". Max Planck is immortalized in that respect, as are Wilhelm Wien and all the others who contributed to the Black body radiation. When one talks of "contribution" though, one has to admit that even QP rests on some foundations that were well developed and contributed to by Islamic tradition, among others.

"...Engaging in proper research...". Meaning exactly what tm? Why dont you just spill it out clearly that you have a problem with the sources already used? or more candidly, that you have a problem with Islam being even mentioned when it comes to the history of science? because it seems to me that your objections all seem to be coming from that direction (which also would explain the rude undertones you keep directing at me and Striver).--Zereshk 00:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Good answer Zereshk, much better than my "i-lost-my-temper" answers, keep it up and you will gain the support of those who are neutral and are reading this. --Striver 01:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Verse

"27:40: "Said one who had knowledge of the Book: ". I have heard a knowledgeable person state that it should be ""Said one who had some knowledge of the Book: ". Can anyone confirm? --Striver 02:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

dispute?

"When I ask you to provide any evidence to back up your claim, you say "neither of us is supposed to prove our POVs": I'd have to backup my claim if:

1. I were to introduce it to the article - which I didn't.
2. If I were to engage in trolling - which I'm not inclined to

However, you are supposed to prove your POV, when you introduce it to the article - which you did.

"What you call POV is fact: There is no western counterpart to tai al-ardh in the middle ages.": underlining doesn't make it any better, you are to present authoritative sources stating so, else it's your OR - and here we have the fundamental twist to the whole discussion again. --tickle me 12:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"I were to introduce it to the article - which I didn't."

Yes you did. You claim that the Europeans did have similar knowledge on a contemporary and indigenous basis.

But then again, it really doesnt matter, tm. You can play all you want. No matter for me. The article will continue to be updated with more and more references. And I'm sure that's what you'd like to see as well.--Zereshk 23:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

References

There is a valid reference but it's in Persian .مهر تابان. This is told by Allameh Tabatabaei. Therefor it's valid.--Sa.vakilian 01:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It would need translation, however. See WP:RS#Sources in languages other than English, a guideline that applies to all non-English sources. Tearlach 12:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Select translations already appear in the article with links given. There is even a link to manuscripts scanned on this topic.--Zereshk 22:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Equivalents

Reverted. What's the problem with the following?

Tay al-Ard is analogous to, and shares roots with, miraculous teleportation in other religious traditions originating in the Middle East: notably Kefitzat ha-Derekh ("the jumping of the road") in Judaism, and the "miraculous transport" of Christian religious figures.

From its simple description - figures in religious narratives teleporting - "analogous to" is accurate. I believe there are Buddhist analogies too. As to "sharing roots", the first accounts concern religious figures - notably Solomon - common to Islam, Judaism and Christianity. Tearlach 23:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It's irrelevant what you consider accurate and what you believe - WP editors are not to engage in WP:OR. Please find WP:RS for your claims. --tickle me 02:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've no idea what your agenda is. This is not OR but straightforward description. If narratives in different traditions have the same motif - teleporting religious adepts - why are they not analogous? Compare afterlife, which makes similar comparative statements. Tearlach 12:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of contemporary status and other confusions

As someone who's encountered this article as a casual reader, the following things aren't clear to me:

• Is the existence of Tay al-Ard regarded by modern Koran faiths as literal truth or allegory?
• Are there any claims of this being practiced or observed outside of the Koran?
• The article uses the phrases "tay al-ard" and "tei al-ardh" - are these merely different transliterations or quantifiably different concepts?
• The article refers to a report by Eric W Davis to the United States Air Force. No link is provided to identify this individual, and no citation is provided for the claim (although there is some reference identifying the report). Presumably the United States Air Force receives any number of reports in a given year, some commissioned and some not, so some context would be helpful here.
• As a casual observer I am given the impression that the faith-based viewpoint is generally well-presented here; however the article would benefit from the context provided by third-party scholars and some placing of the material in a cultural and geographical context, if such scholarly analysis exists.

Not trying to step on any toes - the above is just what would have helped me as a reader to follow the subject matter of the article! DustFormsWords 06:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

I would like to revisit the deletion process on this article since it does not appear to exist in the record and I am actually astounded at the presence of this article. Teleportation in Islam? Seriously? Encyclopedic? Um... No. Not notable, perhaps a hoax. Ogress _smash! 08:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Your iman is weak, sister. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 08:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha. I can do a lot of tricks with my iman, sister, but "foldin' up the Earth" ain't one of them. *wink* Ogress _smash! 08:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

On a serious note, this is actually a semi-important concept. In Twelver hadith, whoever knows but one letter of Allah's name is able to do this. We'll see what sources we can find though to show notability, if any. On a nationalist note, I'm not shocked that such few people are capable of learning the single letter of Allah's beautiful name and gaining power; after all, how many people are familiar with the Pashto alphabet? --♥pashtun ismailiyya 09:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

What's the point of untranslated Arabic in this article?

Most English language Wikipedia users don't speak it. So please translate. -- 92.229.144.205 (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

King of hingoli

Prem phaltankar Prem phaltankar (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)