Talk:Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia

Vedic Religion in Arabia

[material copied from aryaculture.tripod.com] Nittin Das (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Nittin Das: I've redacted your comment, as it seems to be a copy-and-paste of copyrighted material from another website. If you have any specific suggestions for changes to this article, feel free to share them here. --Cerebellum (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 13:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article. This is a fascinating topic, I'm excited to learn about it while reviewing :) --Cerebellum (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking it up, Cerebellum. HouseGecko is responsible for much of the current content, but I've also contributed some of it and I'll try to help with any issues that may arise. Eperoton (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good! I'm not done with the review but I've done all I'm gonna do today, see below. I'll try to finish up tomorrow. --Cerebellum (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Meets the GA standard, I did some copy editing, e.g. standardizing "Quran" to "the Quran". Let me know if I messed anything up. For further improvement, I found some parts hard to understand just because I don't know much about the subject so I lack context, e.g. when you first mention the Himyarites I could have used a sentence explaining who they are. The article is already long though so you may not want to go too far in that direction.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Use of references is outstanding, there are plenty of them and I like the formatting.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   See comment below about the "Outside Arabia" section. As far as the structure of the article goes, there is some redundancy between the first four sections and the "by geography" section, i.e. pilgrimages and the sacred months are discussed in the first four sections and then again in "by geography". You could fix this by getting rid of the "by geography" section, just incorporate the material into the first four sections, but that's not necessary for GA, just a suggestion for developing the article further. I'll defer to HouseGecko on this, the explanation below makes sense.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Represents a wide variety of scholarly views.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Pass.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Pass, good use of images.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Pass, great work on this! You've collected information from a wide variety of scholarly sources and written a very comprehensive article. Thank you for responding to my comments so fast. --Cerebellum (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• descendants of the son of Abraham who had settled in Mecca: which son of Abraham? Ishmael?

Added Ishmael to the sentence. HouseGecko (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Winfried Corduan doubts the theory of Allah of Islam being linked to a moon god, stating that the term Allah derived from Al-ilah like El-Elyon which was used for the god Sin, functions as a generic term. Please rewrite this sentence, I couldn't understand it.

Done. HouseGecko (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• F. V. Winnet saw al-Lat as a lunar deity due to the association of a crescent with her in 'Ayn esh-Shallāleh and a Lihyanite inscription mentioning the name of Wadd over the title of 'fkl lt. Could you explain this a little more? I'm not familiar with Wadd or what fkl lt means, so I can't follow Winnet's argument about why this indicates she is a moon god.

Wadd is the Minaean (south Arabian kingdom) moon god. I've went ahead and clarified the sentence. As for 'fkl it means "priest" but that is already explained in the "priesthood" section. HouseGecko (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Redefining Dionysus considers: what is Redefining Dionysus? Don't much here just a little context, something like "The edited volume Redefining Dionysus.

Rephrased sentence to "Paola Corrente, writing in Redefining Dionysus, considers..." HouseGecko (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• In south Arabia, rs²w and 'fkl were used to refer to priests. I guess that explains what fkl lt means. But what is rs²w? I've never seen a superscript number as part of language transliteration. You don't necessarily have to change it if that's the system scholars use, but is there another way to transliterate it that would be more accessible to a general reader?

That is how it's transliterated in the source. I don't really know if there's another way to transliterate it. HouseGecko (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Priesthood and sacred offices: there are a lot of nowiki tags at the end of this section, do they need to be there?

Removed them. HouseGecko (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• The procession from one place to Mecca: I'm not sure what the "one place" is, is it Mina?

Rephrased sentence. HouseGecko (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• The known pilgrimages are that of Ḥilla who performed the hajj in autumn season while the other were that of the Ṭuls and the Ḥums who performed the umrah in spring.: This should explain what the Hilla, Tuls, and Hums are. It says what tribes comprise them but not that they are cult associations and what that means.

Added subheading "cultic associations". HouseGecko (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Sexual intercourse in temples was prohibited and is attested in two south Arabian inscriptions: Does this mean that the prohibition is attested, or that people having intercouse is attested?

The prohibition is attested. Rephrased it. HouseGecko (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• joined in the Kaaba: This is a little vague, maybe change to something like were petrified and their remains became part of the Kaaba if that's what happened.

They became part of the idols in the Kaaba. Went ahead and rephrased it.HouseGecko (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Outside Arabia section: is this section necessary? The article title only includes Arabia.

Pre-Islamic Arabia also encompassed parts of Jordan and Syria. This section refers to the religious beliefs of Arab tribes of that area. Culturally, they're part of the north Arabian sphere, so I've made that section part of the north Arabia section. As for the geography section, I think it's needed as Arabian polytheism does not refer to a single unified religion, but rather to the polytheistic religious beliefs of different parts of pre-Islamic Arabia, which while they share some rituals (the practices section encompasses rituals common to Arabia), many of them differ from each other. In fact, not all tribes of Arabia actually refer themselves as Arabs, but that would go to the Tribes of Arabia article which I'm planning to rewrite.HouseGecko (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

--Cerebellum (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Cerebellum Thanks for passing the article! I've worked on that article for quite a while on adding information, I thought it was too Mecca-centric before. I'd like to thank Eperoton, I believe he's the one who's largely responsible for the "Allah" and "Mecca" sections. HouseGecko (talk) 11:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Hinduism in pre Islamic Arabia

There are many proof and evidence that shows that there was existence of Hinduism in pre Islamic Arabia.You can search in Google. Black tusk division (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Fine, bring the sources here for discussion. Doug Weller talk 15:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The Worshipping Servant statue from Tarout Island, 2500 BC This statue seems to be of some Jain monk. Source: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Gommateshwara_statue Yamen had some connection with India perhaps & it is not impossible to have some influence in culture & tradition. Children of Sun & Moon are ruling Rajput clans of India called as Surya Vamshi & Chandra Vamshi. The same type of ruling clans is seen in yamen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.196.32.25 (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Manichaeism

Hi @AshleighHanley82: - please see my latest edit summary. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Greetings and thank for your time @HistoryofIran:. I was fearing an edit war and here you found a good way to have a talk. Keep up. Tardieus research is regarded as the most thorough and most recent research in the causa Manichaeism (needless to say most authorative, hence the extensive quotes on Iranicaonline), respectively he dedicated an entire work regarding Manichaeism in Arabia. There is no younger study that analyzed this casus so extensively. Thus, the terms recent research is applicable to Tardieu. The work that you quoted by Hughes, Aaron W. (2013), Muslim Identities: An Introduction to Islam, saying it dates to 2013 hence beeing more recent then Tardieu, overlooks the fact that Hughes didn't do a research on Manichaeism or Mazdakism in Arabia. In his introductory passages he dedicated 2 sentences to Islam and Manichaeism quoting other scholars, as he himself is not an expert for the iranian religions. You can't compare these 2 unrelated works with one another: whereas Tardieu is an expert for religion of late antiquity with heavy focus on Manichaeism and Mazdakism, Hughes is a Professor for Jewish Philosophy, respectively (even here on wikipedia it states Jewish Studies in the Department of Religion and Classics) and secondly Islamic Studies. In short: Hughes is not a researcher for Manichaeism and Mazdakism, but Tardieu is, so why keep Tardieu out of the article but keep Hughes? Furthermore I disagree with your sentence "Mind you, the article doesn't state that Manichieasm existed in Arabia, however that there is a possibility. This is more or less the same as what you've added". This section works with assumptions/possibilities suggesting that there very well might have been Manichaeism & Mazdakism activity in Mecca. These assumptions are backed by renowned western scholars and thus the intel belongs to the article. But on the other hand there have been newer approaches with & ever since Tardieu (see Tardieus revised Le manichéisme in 1997 & 2008), that these assumptions in fact "can not be proven" (Tardieu Manicheen) and thus should be viewed cautiously or rejected al all along due to unreliable sources from the 9th century being the oldest of those. (See especially Strompf & Mikkelsen et al on the reliability of al-Kalbī)

You are right that the section talks about possibilities, but nowhere are these possibilities questioned and/or analyzed, respectively my additions are not "more or less the same". I'm saying this with my uttermost respect, as I have checked your incredible work here on, but these additions belong to the text. AshleighHanley82 (talk) 03:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@AshleighHanley82: I get what you mean, and I'm not gonna object since I'm not too interested too delve into this and your argument seems decent enough. Pinging the two guys responsible for bringing this article into GA to ask for their thoughts - @HouseGecko: and @Eperoton: --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you again for taking the time @HistoryofIran:. Believe it or not this is the first time I have seen a productive discussion on a talk-page on Wikipedia. I apologise when I came down aggressive or over-motivated. I tend to develop a tunnel-vision and then throw away basic etiquette when approaching topics important to me. I'm sure that the 2 pinged fellow Wikipedieros/Wikipedieras may quickly find what this is about, I, nevertheless, quote the 2 sentences recently added to the article by me here; "However according to the most recent research by Tardieu, the prevalence of Manichaeism in Mecca during 6th & 7th-century when Islam emerged, can not be proven. Similar reservations regarding the appearance of Manichaeism & Mazdakism in pre-islamic Mecca are offered by Trompf & Mikkelsen et al in their latest work (2018)." As is evident, esp. Tardieu offers a significantly cautious approach to the causa Manichaeism in Arabia, as he comes to the conclusion that Manichaeism traces in pre-islamic Mecca can't be established independently. Strompf & Mikkelsen et al pretty much have similar reservations: The term zandaq is used much later after Islam emerged (in al-Kalbīs work in the early 9th century, see G. Monnets translation, according to other sources in the early Abbasid Caliphate, end of the 8th, beginning of the 9th century). AshleighHanley82 (talk)

Alright, I re-edited the section, this time hopefully well arranged. Should we point out in the lead section that there is scholarly disagreement regarding Manichaean & Mazdakite activity in pre islamic arabia? So far, I see Friedländer & Clemen et al (1913 & 1921 resp.) arguing for Manichaean activity in pre islamic Mecca on the basis of the usage of the term Zindīq by muslim historians of the 9th c. (see al-Kalbī transl. by Monnot 32:3 [1986]) and then Tardieus more recent research (1994,2008) and Strompf & Mikkelsen (2018) having reservations regarding the causa Manichaeism in pre-islamic Mecca (for both views see also Andrae et al 1960). I can provide a list of scholars on this topic, covering both sides if needed. Right now the way it is, the lead section assumes possible Manichaean activity while the subsection >Iranian Religions< talks about Tardieu analysis on manichaean activity, coming to the conclusion that Manichaeism can not be proven to be prevalent in pre islamic Mecca/Hejaz. We also have Strompf & Mikkelsen offering similar reservations. Should we point out in the lead section that there is disagreement of some sorts or keep it as it is? I'd like to hear your opinion on this @HistoryofIran:. Thanks in advance. AshleighHanley82 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)