Talk:Abrahamic religions/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Lacking An Objective Historical Approach

To all current contributors, may I suggest that a more objective historical approach be taken to this article? I believe this article has yet to outline a vast amount of political & theological history which fades back into Ancient Mesopotamia. Can we all readily agree that if the Abrahamic Religions are centered around this awesome history, then it would make sense if this article was too? It might be conducive to this effort to make all other sections subordinate to the "Origins and history" section, and merge this article with the currently linked "Ancient Canaanite religion" and "Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia" articles. I suspect this article will continue to attract a passionate variety of theologians, who will each in their own way, whether intentionally or not, subtly preach their own ontological and epistemological viewpoints. Consequently this article might never grow into something that won't cause fierce controversy among its contributors and splitting headaches for its readers. I haven't made any changes to this article myself, because I am relatively unqualified (I think) and still very new to Wikipidea. Thank you. Rayner-hills (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The article, like all articles here, summarizes mainstream academic sources. The article also tries to explain what the Abrahamic religions are now and are still practiced by about two-thirds of the planet, instead of attempting to dismiss them as nothing more than some mutation of two extinct religions. Anthropology is more than archaeology. While good-faith suggestions to resolve controversies are welcome, the closest this article has come to anything like controversy was whether, where, and how to include smaller Abrahamic religions. You might want to verify that there are indeed problems before attempting to fix them. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Since when islam is considered Abrahamic religion?

Except moslems, who will consider islam as a Abrahamic Religion? they have corrupted the Torah and Bible, they worship Allah, a moon god with 3 daughters which is none other than Shiva, one among the trinity of Hindu gods. Besides, Mohammad is their prophet whose history is different and claims of kaaba the idol worshippers place as a monotheist centre all wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.83.56.53 (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh wow, you'd be better off if you just knew nothing about Islam. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Atheism

Atheist are non religious, we do not believe in any religion. You're pie chart needs to be corrected. Atheistlew1986 (talk) 05:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Bahá'í Faith sentence in introduction

The last sentence of the introduction, regarding the Bahá'í Faith, is confusing and poorly worded. It seems strange to have such a long and convoluted sentence after the preceding sentence only briefly states the size of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. I think it should be removed, since the article primarily focuses on the three largest religions, or at least reworked to be included in the preceding sentence as a plain statement of its size. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.59.113.89 (talk) 13:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I simplified the paragraph. I removed the claim about Bahá'í Faith growing. I do not see how it is pertinent to this subject. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abrahamic religions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

what about mormons?

Why are they totally ignored in this article? --Raminagrobis (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

From an anthropological perspective, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is covered under Christianity. Then there's the issue of due weight: Mormons make up less than 1% of Christians worldwide. That they are mentioned in a single sentence while Baptists and Methodists are not is actually unbalanced. While Rastafari is smaller, they are typically regarded as a distinct religion. If we were going to argue (which we're not going to because Wikipedia doesn't promote any belief and doesn't use original research) that Mormon theology renders them distinct enough from mainstream Christianity that they should be treated separately, then portions of Mormon cosmology (particularly the plurality of Gods, of which the God of this world is just part of a cycle) would place Mormonism completely outside of Abrahamic monotheism. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Islam's creator cannot trace his bloodline to Abraham.

That being said this intro to Abrahamic religions is inaccurate and must be edited . Abrahamic religions, emphasizing and tracing their common origin to the tribal patriarch Abraham.I will ad supporting facts shortly I have to move the motorcoach . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaosktrl (talk • contribs) 13:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of Christians aren't descendants of Shem, let alone Abraham -- I'd ask "what's your point?" but Wikipedia is not a pulpit for your beliefs and we do not want your research. All we do is cite and summarize professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without commentary. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Demographics

The following sentence seems wrong to me:

As of 2005, estimates classified 54% (3.6 billion people) of the world's population as adherents of an Abrahamic religion, about 32% as adherents of other religions, and 16% as adherents of no organized religion.

Firstly, I guess it actually means either:

1. As of 2005, estimates classified 54% (3.6 billion people) of the world's population as adherents of an Abrahamic religion, about 32% as adherents of other religions, and 16% as not adhering to any religion.

Or:

2. As of 2005, estimates classified 54% (3.6 billion people) of the world's religious people as adherents of an Abrahamic religion, about 32% as adherents of other organized religions, and 16% as adherents of religions without a specific organization.

Secondly, a reference is necessary. Palpalpalpal (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

It was probably compiled for List of religious populations that uses http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html as a citation. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Abrahamic religions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Abrahamic religions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Conflating all Israelites with Jews

This article seems to equate Israelites with Jews or Judeans, and all Hebrew religion with Judaism. Specifically, at the Samaritan expense.

Look up the history of the Isrealite kingdom and its bifurcation. 90.131.207.170 (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

"Communities of faith"

@Pete unseth: Regarding this edit and this reversion: I understand the negative connotations "sect" sometimes has, but "community of faith" is a) vague, and b) (as I said in my comment) currently a redirect to intentional community on Wikipedia, which isn't at all the right meaning here. Is there another term that will serve? Nitpicking polish (talk) 13:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I admit it is hard to find a term that fits all contexts. What about "communities of faith tradition"? No perfect solution likely. Pete unseth (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Year Labeling System

User "Nitpicking polish" pointed out that the proper way to go about changing year numbering systems is to first discuss the change on this talk page. Suggested change: The BC/AD year-numbering system is more appropriate in articles where the topic intersects the life of Christ. Changes here would also improve consistency between many linked articles. theQuicker1 (talk) 01:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Nope. Christianity is one of several abrahamic religions. Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I think I do not understand your reply. Are you thinking that Christianity intersects the life of Christ, but other Abrahamic religions do not? theQuicker1 (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Structural improvement

I note that some sections of this article are at least partially redundant with others. Also, some sections "forget" that there are many smaller Abrahamic religions in addition to the "big three". Being an atheist who is not very knowledgeable about (but interested in and very accepting of) various religions, I hesitate to attempt any rewrites myself. Acwilson9 (talk) 07:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

"Family tree"

I think something like this should be in the article

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Habitator terrae (talk • contribs) 16:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Pretty sure Bahá'í Faith branched off from Islam, not Judaism. Article says it branched off from Bábism, whose founder was supposed to be Twelfth Imam, which places it as an offshoot of Twelver Shia Islam. Furthermore, Bahá'u'lláh's family were Persian nobility well after the time where nobility could get away with being non-Muslim. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
You can change it. I only thinked that Bahá'í Faith come from all religions. Habitator terrae (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Could also replace the table I refer to above, if somehow regions could be colored for "Jewish", "Christian", "Muslim", and "Other Abrahamic". Also should be SVG and have the appropriate major branchings, e.g. Sunni, Shia, Other Muslim. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Right image (as of 2019-06) is the sort of thing I meant (as 98.4.124.117) , and since there's nothing like already in, agree it's close to ready or ready if you are saying that it shows Islam out of chronological order on the diagonal major axis because Muslims recognize Isa as a prophet, the virgin birth and such, but not as G-d, unlike the Jews who don't recognize him as anything other than a Jew. 45.46.138.162 (talk) 02:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I hope that some specialist(s) in comparative religion fine-tune(s) that graphic before it ever is moved into the article itself. It's a good start. (I myself think that it's not quite correct in its fine details, but I could be wrong.) Acwilson9 (talk) 07:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Haste makes waste. 45.46.138.162 (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

What about the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Latter Day Saints (Mormons)?

Where do the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) fit in terms of being Abrahamic religions? Pete unseth (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. I think this is a catch-all term for "Judaism, Christianity, and Islam". JW and LDS would probably be included as well, though not necessarily referenced by name. Regardless, without sources, I wouldn't add anything. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
JW and LDS are both forms of Christianity. People would like to deny that, but that is how it is. The information given about Christianity in this article covers these two. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Maybe JW, but just like Islam, Babism & Bahai, Rastafarianism, etc. added new prophets after Jesus, so did LDS... no different in terms of category of a new religion (not accepted by the rest that didn't have new prophets.)--206.63.237.146 (talk) 06:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

"Abrahamic religions" is not just inaccurate, it is a smear and should be treated as such. The phrase is often used by New Atheists as a way to tar and feather three major religions (Judiasm, Christianity, and Islam) with a broad by painting them as all the same.--23 November 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.39.68 (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

To bring this back on topic, there is a substantive issue, viz whether or not JW and LDS should have a subsection in the current § 3.4. What I suggest is links to lists of denominations under the 3 major branches, where they're not already present. The only judgment call is whether LDS belongs in Christianity or Other Abrahamic. Also a table might be considered as a replacement for the current § 3.4., with denomination vs. belief variants/commonalities. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

A key commonality of the Abrahamic religions is monotheism, which JWs share but Mormons do not. Jonathunder (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Mandaeism is not an Abrahamic religion

Mandaeism is not an Abrahamic religion. The defining features of Abrahamic religions are the worship of the God of Abraham or maintaining a tradition that connects them to Abraham. For example, Jews claim physical descent from Abraham and are the recipients of the promises God made to him. The Muslims accept Abraham as a prophet who helped found the Kaaba as a place of pilgrimage. In Christianity, the promises God made to Abraham were realised in the person of Christ.[1]

The Mandaeans do not worship the God of Abraham and regard Abraham as a false prophet.

According to Ethel Stefana Drower in "The Mandaeans of Iraq and Iran" (Oxford At The Clarendon Press, 1937) Abraham, or Braham, was a priest of the Mandai, but he developed a sore and was circumcised, which meant he could no longer be a priest. He went out into the desert with the lepers and the unclean and began to worship Yurba, one of the powers of Darkness. It was through Yurba’s power of Darkness that Abraham and his people became strong (pp 266-268).

On the Mandaean relationship to Abraham, Edmundo Lupieri says, in "The Mandaeans: The Last Gnostics" (Eerdmans, 2001), that Abraham, Moses and Jesus are viewed as demons as the founders of hostile or enemy religions (p. 164); that they regard Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Mohammed as false prophets (p 116); and that “they hate Abraham” (p 65-66).

The Mandaeans are Gnostics and, according to Dr James F. McGrath of Butler University, (in a YouTube video lecture) they hold that the creator of the material world, the demiurge, is a malevolent figure. In Mandaean writings, the demiurge is identified as the Lord in the Old Testament (the God of Abraham) and is associated with the Holy Spirit. Both the Lord and the Holy Spirit are seen as malevolent figures. The supreme God of the Mandaeans is far removed from the creator god, or demiurge. The Wikipedia article on Mandaeism does not claim that they are an Abrahamic religion. The Mandaeans recognize some figures from the Old Testament to be Mandaeans, such as Adam, Abel, Enoch, Noah and Shem, but not Abraham or his descendants. The God the Mandaeans worship is not the same god that Abraham worshipped, as he worshipped Yurba, one of the powers of Darkness. If they worship a different God and regard Abraham as a false prophet, then the Mandaeans cannot be an Abrahamic religion.

While the Mandaeans have some, as yet not completely understood, connection with Judaism (baptism in running water, calling all baptismal rivers Jordan, revering John the Baptist, using Aramaic as a liturgical language, etc.), they do not worship the God of Abraham and do not maintain a tradition that they or their beliefs are descended from Abraham and therefore are not an Abrahamic religion. Unless a citation can be found stating that the Mandaeans are an Abrahamic religion, the section should be removed from this article. There is no prejudice against the Mandaeans here, it's just that, according to cited sources, they do not belong in this article - Epinoia (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Mandaeans are monotheistic and semitic. Their God is known as Hayyi Rabbi meaning The Great Life or Great Living God. They are known in the middle east as Sabians and are listed in the Koran as "People of the Book" alongside Jews and Christians. They believe in most of the Abrahamic prophets, and Abraham himself is considered to be a Mandaean priest. The problem is they detest circumcision, which they most probably replaced with the Baptism of John the Baptist. For this reason, Abraham is not revered like their other prophets. They are also thought to be Judean Israelites. They belong with the Abrahamic religions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANMC001 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@ANMC001: - monotheistic and semitic do not mean Abrahamic - being People of the Book does not mean Abrahamic as it can also apply to Zoroastrians - Abraham himself is considered to be a Mandaean priest; as noted above, Drowers says Abraham was a priest who left the faith and turned to worship of Yurba, one of the powers of Darkness; and Lupieri says he is regarded as a demon, a false prophet and the founder of an enemy religion. Abraham is not revered, according to Lupieri, not only is Abraham not revered, he is hated. If the religion of Abraham is a hostile or enemy religion, then the Mandaeans cannot be Abrahamic. Unless you can provide a citation to a reliable source that says the Mandaeans are Abrahamic, then we cannot say that they are - Epinoia (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

A simple google search will bring you to p.19 of John the Baptist and the Last Gnostics by Andrew Phillip Smith. "The Mandaean religion may arguably be counted as Abrahamic." Mandaeism is a complicated and misunderstood religion. You need to ask yourself how did Abraham become a senior Mandaean priest in the first place, and how did John the Baptist become their chief prophet if they were not Abrahamic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANMC001 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

- Andrew Phillip Smith is a popular writer and not a religious scholar; his comment that Mandaeans may be counted as Abrahamic seems to be his personal opinion and not supported by scholarly research - and note that he does not say they are Abrahamic, but may be - how did Abraham become a senior Mandaean priest in the first place, as noted above, Abraham was a Mandean priest before he was circumcised and founded his own religion based on the worship of Yurba; the Mandaeans thus claim an older tradition than Abraham - how did John the Baptist become their chief prophet, McGrath mentions this in his lecture; it is unknown if John had a unique baptismal rite or if he was part of an older tradition and was one of many baptizers - so because Abraham was once a priest and because they revere John the Baptist does not make the Mandaeans Abrahamic - they may share elements with Abrahamic religions, but they are not themselves Abrahamic, they do not worship the God of Abraham - Epinoia (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources for Mandaeans regarding being abrahamic

These are a few sources being discussed on whether or not Mandaeans are Abrahamic

1. The Mandaeans: The Last Gnostics" by Edmundo Lupieri. (Does not think they are Abrahamic) 2. Smith, Andrew Phillip. John the Baptist and the Last Gnostics: the Secret History of the Mandaeans. Watkins, 2016.(pp18-20) (Does think they are Abrahamic) 3. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/03/16/pictures-day-16-march-2019/iraqis-sabeans-followers-pre-christian-religion-considers-prophet/ (States Abraham as founder of their faith) 4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6CJWOrnS_s (Documentary in Arabic where Mandaean priest explains their point of view regarding Abraham. He states that they believe in him as a Prophet of God and they refer to him as "Bahram Raba" meaning "Abraham the pure" 5. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mand%C3%A9isme Wikipedia article in French that defines Mandaeans as Abrahamic 6. https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D9%86%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%8A%D8%A9 Wikipedia article in Arabic that defines them as Abrahamic 7. Burns, Dylan M., Is Sethian Gnosticism an Abrahamic Religion? Abraham, Sodom and the Parabiblical in Ancient Gnostic Literature in Kambiz GhaneaBassiri & Paul Robertson, eds., All Religion Is Inter-Religion: Engaging the Work of Steven M. Wasserstrom, London & New York: Bloomsbury Academic 2019 ISBN: 978-1350062214 p. 135 (Not exactly as Abrahamic) 8. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiones_abrah%C3%A1micas Wikipedia article in Spanish listing Mandaeans as Abrahamic and Abraham being a founder of their faith 9. https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiones_Abrahameae wikipedia article in Latin listing Mandaeans as Abrahamic GF46238 (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

On the sources:
1. The Mandaeans: The Last Gnostics by Edmondo Lupieri. (Does not think they are Abrahamic)
- Lupieri says, "Shem, chosen by the Mandaeans as their own founding father", not Abraham (p. 50). Edmondo Lupieri, LLC, Lic., holds the John Cardinal Cody Endowed Chair and Section Coordinator, New Testament and Early Christianity at Loyola University Chicago Department of Theology. This is a reliable source.
2. Smith, Andrew Phillip. John the Baptist and the Last Gnostics: the Secret History of the Mandaeans. Watkins, 2016.(pp18-20) (Does think they are Abrahamic)
- Andrew Phillip Smith is a popular writer on Gnosticism and has no academic credentials.
3. (States Abraham as founder of their faith)
- The Telegraph piece is a Picture of the Day feature, not an article; it cites no sources and is anonymous. The Telegraph may be reputable, but WP:NEWSORG says, "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis" – in this case, it is a questionable source.
4. (Documentary in Arabic where Mandaean priest explains their point of view regarding Abraham. He states that they believe in him as a Prophet of God and they refer to him as "Bahram Raba" meaning "Abraham the pure")
- YouTube videos can be used as reliable sources, but "If using the link as a source to support article content, then you must establish that the uploader and the video meet the standards for a reliable source." (see WP:YOUTUBE and Wikipedia:Video links) – in this case the YouTube channel provides no information on the uploader and it is impossible to determine if it is a reliable source. Also, an interview with a Mandaean priest would count as a Primary Source and Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources (WP:PSTS).
5. Burns, Dylan M., Is Sethian Gnosticism an Abrahamic Religion? Abraham, Sodom and the Parabiblical in Ancient Gnostic Literature in Kambiz GhaneaBassiri & Paul Robertson, eds., All Religion Is Inter-Religion: Engaging the Work of Steven M. Wasserstrom, London & New York: Bloomsbury Academic 2019 ISBN: 978-1350062214 p. 135 (Not exactly as Abrahamic).
- Dylan M. Burns is Senior Researcher at Leipzig University, Institute of Egyptology. This is a reliable source.
6. The Wikipedia articles in French, Spanish, Latin and Arabic are not reliable sources (See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source). It is not what Wikipedia says, but what the sources say.
a. The French Wikipedia article says, "is an Abrahamic religion," but without citing any sources. In a later section it says, "Mandeism favors John the Baptist to the detriment of Jesus, considered a false prophet, just like Abraham, Moses or Muhammad."
b. The Spanish Wikipedia article on Abrahamic religions has a has a WP:REDLINK to a non-existent page “Mandaei,” but no supporting sources for the claim of being Abrahamic (The Latin Wikipedia article is identical to the Spanish one with a red link for “Mandaei” and no sources).
c.The Arabic Wikipedia article has four sources for the Abrahamic claim, none of which actually support the claim:
  1. Lupieri, Edmondo (2001). The Mandaeans: The Last Gnostics - does not say that Mandaeanism is Abrahamic.
  2. Drower, Ethel Stephana (1960). The secret Adam, a study of Nasoraean gnosis - does not say that Mandaeanism is Abrahamic.
  3. the Yale Daily News , March 9, 2007 – dead link.
  4. The Eyes Encyclopedia of the Knowledge website – the linked article does not mention Abraham at all – it is a questionable source.
- so none of the Wikipedia articles provide reliable sources.
7. Another source is The Mandaeans of Iraq and Iran by E. S. Drower (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1937) - Drower says that Abraham was a priest who, after being circumcised, left the Mandaeans and turned to the worship of the powers of Darkness. Drower was not an academic (women could not hold degrees in her day - Oxford did not grant degrees to women until 1920), but she lived in Iraq and wrote a number of books on the Mandaeans and translated some of their texts. Her work was taken seriously by academics and she lectured at the International Congress of Orientalists at Cambridge. This is a reliable source.
- So, we have three reliable sources for not (or not exactly) Abrahamic and no reliable sources for Abrahamic. - Epinoia (talk) 02:17, 10 October 2019 (UT
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ANMC001, I've struck through their edit. I also checked by the way, same conclusion. Doug Weller talk 13:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Should more religions be added?

There are feminists who are interested in Lilith, Adam's first wife, while other people worship Lucifer as a benevolent god. Both are related to Christianity and Judaism. Those who worship Iblis as a benevolent god are related to Islam. Hermes Trismegistus is often related to Old Testament patriarchs, so those who are interested in him are also related to other Abrahamic religions.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.34.220.128 (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Manichaeism should be added. Doremon764 (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Mormonism Inclusion

Mormonism is seen both as a Christian Religion and seen by some as the forth largest Abrahamic Religions. We should find a place to fit Latter Day Saints Movement in this article. Doremon764 (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The question of how much to include divisions within Abrahamic religions has come up several times as seen in the talk page archive. The question of Mormonism/Latter Day Saint movement has specifically come up a couple times. The response has been pretty consistent - singling out Mormonism, even within Christianity is undue and unbalanced. They make up a very small percentage of Christianity as a whole. We don't go into any other internal divisions in Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. Academic sources routinely include the LDS movement within Christianity. The "4th Abrahamic religion" opinion came up in 2012 from a SBC source with respect to Mitt Romney, but I can find little evidence that any reliable, academic source agreed back then or now with that opinion (so "seen by some" is a stretch imo). We mention the LDS Church briefly in the dietary restrictions subsection and implicitly in the discussion of scriptures. Anything more imo is undue weight for a high level article like this one. --FyzixFighter (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Manichaeism

Adding Manichaeism as an Abrahamic Religion. Doremon764 (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

What sources are there that classify Manichaeism as an Abrahamic religion? --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
https://www.scribd.com/document/72455203/manichaeism Doremon764 (talk) 04:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that is a book about Manichaeism. But how or where in it does it make the claim that it is an Abrahamic religion? Page number and/or quote? The "search document" feature turned up no occurrence of "abrahamic" in the text. --FyzixFighter (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
The pages mention it on the summary before I clickED in, I can not find it now. Other sources [1] [2] [3] "Manichaeism is a now-extinct religious system characterized by dualism, ... Their history is known in detail, but their direct connection with the doctrine of Mānī is far from ... These ambassadors are called Seth, Abraham, Sem, Enos, Nikotheos, ..."[4]
Manicheism belive in Abraham as an ambassador & Jesus as a prophet.Doremon764 (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
It is apart of the series of Gnosticism, so it probably some form of Christianity rather than an Abrahamic Religion.Doremon764 (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
We need sources, not google hits for "Manichaeism" AND "Abrahamic religion". The first three links provided provide no claim or information of substance on this question. The fourth is the most informative, especially this statement: "Manichaeism has become properly understood and evaluated not as a Christian heresy but as a complex gnostic religion." Gnostic religions are not necessarily Abrahamic (Mithraism for example). The source, as I read it, states that Mani borrowed some vocabulary and superficial elements of Christianity, and argues that its inclusion in Christianity is wrong and it is better treated as a separate, complex religion. It makes no claim on whether or not it should be included as an Abrahamic religion. Sorry, the links provided so far just don't verify its inclusion, even as a subset of Christianity, in secondary sources. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Yezidi

Should Yazidis be considered an Abrahamic Religion https://www.bl.uk/sacred-texts/articles/the-abrahamic-religions Doremon764 (talk) 04:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I think we need something more substantial than one sentence in an article that doesn't mention Yazidis anywhere else. For example, [2] and [3] specifically say that they are not Abrahamic religions. Really, we need more and better sources to support their inclusion, imo. --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Removal of the Mandaeism

Most of these pages and charts counted them as Abrahamic Religions even though they didn't venerated Abraham.

The removal of this section should had been discussed before it was removed from this page. Doremon764 (talk) 04:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Sabian Faith

Sabian section hasn't been written or expanded. Doremon764 (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Why isn't Satanism included in the list?

It's obviously another religion of abrahamic origin, basically a different view of same tale (or just another opinion on which dude is messiah in abrahamic terms). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.81.188.6 (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Most Satanism is just edgy atheism, spiritual Satanists tend to be some variant of new age paganism. It's not a very well developed tradition 18:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:8900:61D0:4C50:EB3:2394:7BB3 (talk)
Regardless of who satanists are, i think he's got a point, satanism comes from the same mythology as Abraham.86.16.64.23 (talk) 11:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Mormonism

I see no reason for this removal and have undone it. That Joseph Smith is not a descended of Abraham is not relevant here. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to Epinoia EvergreenFir (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
It appears the section on Mormonism was created in June 2021. It seems like an appropriate section and I do not see why it was removed. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Mormonism is not universally accepted as an Abrahamic religion - see article, "Opinions differ among scholars of religion on whether to categorize The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as a separate branch of Christianity or as the "fourth Abrahamic religion" (alongside Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
In both cases it is an Abrahamic religion, even if a branch of Christianity. Given that unclear status, it would make sense to include it and mention that debate. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- disagree - this is an article Abrahamic religions, not "could be" Abrahamic religions - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
There is NO CONSENSUS to remove the Mormonism section, since there's no agreement based on shared opinion by multiple editors. This section has been deliberately removed by only one editor and other editors disagree with that, therefore the discussion is still open for debate. GenoV84 (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
There's no "could be" about it, either it's the "fourth Abrahamic religion" , or it's "a separate branch of Christianity", and, as such, Abrahamic. It's Abrahamic either way, as EvergreenFir pointed out. Captainllama (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

If Mormonism is a Christian Abrahamic denomination, why does it need its own section? All the other Christian Abrahamic denominations are grouped under Christianity, such as Catholic, Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Seventh Day Adventist, Mennonite, Amish, Quakers, Unitarians, Jehovah's Witness, Evangelicals, etc. - Mormonism should be grouped under Christianity with the other denominations and not have its own section - the section on Mormonism is longer than the whole section on Christianity - Epinoia (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Epinoia that the disputed subsection on Mormonism violates WP:UNDUE. This is not the first time that a large section on Mormonism has been removed, and if you look through the talk page archive, the previous consensus had reached the same opinion supporting its removal. Note that one of the reasons why I challenged this section back in June was because of undue weight concerns. --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Agree with removal per WP:UNDUE, removal for not being Abrahamic was an unfortunate red herring. Captainllama (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

"Mormonism" should not have a separate section

I deleted this, but somebody reverted it right back. Mormonism is mostly irrelevant to the topic of Abrahamic religions. It is not a separate religion, but a sect of Christianity. If we include it, then we have to include a hundred other Christian denominations (including rival Mormon groups). At most, it might merit a mention in the (presently shorter!) section on Christianity in general. While LDS Mormonism has distinctive views on God, these are irrelevant here, and the fact that they have a special revelation about Abraham (the Book of Abraham revealed by Joseph Smith), although interesting, has not affected discussion of the Abrahamic religions, as far as I can tell. Other religious sects have produced similar independent revelations. If the issue is that Mormonism is not "really" part of Christianity, then this is a religious opinion, not an objective classification. The fact that they consider themselves to be Christians ought to be decisive. --Dawud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.37.197.242 (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I reverted it back -- from the section above this seems to be the consensus view, also previous talk discussions. I think we should have a mention though. GordonGlottal (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't think there is a consensus from months ago and _now_ someone wants to make claims? Really? This is not a concensus process. I'm not taking sides on the question - I'm saying this is not how a consensus works. Smkolins (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Looking at the talk page archive, you've been trying this since at least 2010. You knew perfectly well that other editors disagreed. Stop edit warring or you'll be blocked. GordonGlottal (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. It's a good idea. Smkolins (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
It's very difficult when you say "I'm not taking sides on the question" but in fact have been arguing one side on this page for more than a decade. GordonGlottal (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
See the earlier post directly below this as I type this message.Smkolins (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Anonynous edits remove lengths of sections out of the blue with citations is TYPICALLY reverted. That the person does it repeatedly is not an edit war. Then there are claims about a concensus and threats of an edit war made to me? Really? Smkolins (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems like things could use more input to actually build and achieve a consensus rather than argumentation. Smkolins (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Um, if there is a new RFC starting, it really should have its own section and a brief, neutral statement of the question, per WP:RFCST. --FyzixFighter (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
FyzixFighter I apologize for my lack of skills in this regard. The whole situation seemed to be … weird beyond my experience so I wanted more people involved. I'm not even sure simply an RFC is the right structure to address what was happening. There was a previous informal attempt at a consensus months ago and it did not resolve followed by two apparently unrelated editors to the discussion announcing consensus had been reached and began seriously changing the article not to mention failing to preserve syntax in a citation with swipping changes. Smkolins (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
@Smkolins: That's fair - this is truly a bizarre situation. Imho, there was never a consensus for the addition of the subsection on Mormonism. I disputed its initial inclusion back in June, based on WP:UNDUE and my reading of previous edits and discussion, but the other editor ignored BRD and I did not have the bandwidth or energy to force a discussion and did not want to get into an edit war over the material. I continue to support the removal of that large subsection, with limited mention of Mormonism in the relevant sections such as the ones on dietary restrictions or scriptures, where it is an example of the variations within Christianity.
I might try moving the RFC tag to its own section and craft a neutral question if that's ok with you. If you or another editor has feedback on the neutral statement, let me know and we can modify as needed. --FyzixFighter (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I would greatly appreciate your contribution. I'm not trying to take sides in this. I came in purely because I got an email alert the page was changed since I had revisited it just to look at it recently. Then an anonymous edit removed a huge chunk which seemed like vandalism to me. Then in short order I was accused of an edit war. I will collect my thoughts on the Mormon issue and contribute once we have a process. Thank you. Smkolins (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I've argued various times that Mormonism is accepted here at least as a denomination of Christianity. Given that we don't have subsections for other Abrahamic religions, Islam for instance where where are very different denominations, I can't see an argument for one for Mormonism. Doug Weller talk 17:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Doug Weller if you continue to hold that pov do please contribute below. Smkolins (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Abrahamia

Abrahamic Religion, should it redirect to this page or have a disambiguation page? 24.45.201.124 (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Wording

no evidence has been found for these historical patriarchs Surely, if no evidence has been found, the patriarchs in question must belong to the realm of myth. Therefore, with a change of wording, perhaps this sentence ought to read:- no historical evidence has been found for these traditional patriarchs Nuttyskin (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The historicity of Abraham and the historicity of the Book of Genesis are not mainstream academic ideas (i.e. they got debunked). tgeorgescu (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
tgeorgescu, do you support the change proposed by Nuttyskin, then? (i.e. to remove language calling them 'historical'?) 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:6136:D2CD:D164:1BED (talk) 02:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
no contemporary evidence has been unearthed for these historical patriarchs
Sorry to butt in again, but the use of the word contemporary here is wrong: it means at the same time as now occurring. The word meaning at the same time as occurring at that other time is contemporaneous.
Nuttyskin (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Yup, go ahead, I agree. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Era style

According to WP:ERA, era style should not be changed without talk page discussion. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Main file problem

Going back to the old form does not improve the article at all if it was shortened and creates a bit of confusion (example I do not understand what it wants to show me "from top to bottom: the Star of David, the Christian cross, and the star and crescent) , it is necessary to specify which symbol each religion represents so as not to create confusion, plus the symbol of the star and crescent is not used exclusively by Islam, it can be used for example by Neopagan communities. Although for a connoisseur you can figure it out, This does not exclude the fact that we should not be specific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.97.176.228 (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Each of the symbols are wikilinked, and the star and crescent has a footnote to explain that it is not widely accepted as a symbol of Islam. Anybody with even the slightest knowledge of religion will know the three symbols already. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

RFC on Mormonism subsection

Should the "Religions" section contain a sub-subsection on Mormonism, under Christianity? --FyzixFighter (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose - per WP:UNDUE. As I've noted in the discussion above from a few months ago and when I challenged the inclusion back in June 2021, Mormonism is such a small percentage of Christianity as a whole that a whole sub-subsection (that is larger than the paragraph on Christianity itself) is very undue weight. We don't have similar break out sections for divisions within Islam or Judaism, or for other Christian denominations (be they orthodox or heterodox). My review of the previous edit history on this page and the discussion seems to point to a general consensus that a subsection like this was not included because of WP:UNDUE and there was no new consensus established for its inclusion this past summer - just a couple editors that were more persistent at adding it back in than those removing it, with no discussion to determine consensus - so I find the arguments of "no consensus" for the removal of the recent addition to be misapplied. The onus is on the editors adding material to establish consensus and that was never done. The discussion of whether or not Mormonism is within Christianity or not, is not really relevant here as the majority of scholarly sources (and WP discussion itself on the topic - see here) place it within Christianity. --FyzixFighter (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I buy the above arguments. I did consider that there are break out sections for minority religions but that is kind of the point - they are seperate religions. I was not aware the history of the addition. However I got involved, I think the misapplication of wikipedia standards of conduct also took place however. I hope people can have a grasp of what actually happened and that fishing for conflict finds it. That's why **good faith** is actually a good idea. However, I'd actually like to see more people actually post their views on this to actually get a concensus on this. I will say I'm not investigating the deeper past of this issue and taking FyzixFighter's characterization of the past on this matter. But when material that should be deleted be deleted it too should follow the actual standards of wikipedia practice and not look like vandalism. Smkolins (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my comment in the above thread and WP:UNDUE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 08:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

To get a fuller engagement on this I'm pinging recent past participants…

EvergreenFir, Epinoia, GenoV84, Captainllama, GordonGlottal
I think if we get a majority of these people and can work it through then I think we can act in good faith. BTW yes I've been involved in this page many times in the past and in my opinion the article has creeping changes until someone gets upset enough to spend the energy to make it better in an overall sense and to me this is another case of this. It takes a fair bit of time and energy but it can be worthwhile. But I too have other things I want to spend my time on.Smkolins (talk) 11:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per everyone else who has !voted (Summoned by bot) Happy Editing--IAmChaos 00:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Obviously not That subsection was ridiculous - it was several times bigger than the sections on Christianity, Judaism and Islam put together. There is no need to list the various subdivisions of Christianity here (let alone describe them in detail) - if we are saying that Christianity is an Abrahamic religion, then it follows that its various branches are too. Girth Summit (blether) 00:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Lean Oppose Since I was pinged -- A lot of the inclusion choices here are questionable. I could see Samaritanism cut entirely or to a line at the end of Judaism, or Druze and Baha'i cut entirely or to a line at the end of Islam, or Rastafari cut entirely or to a line at the end of Christianity. We don't really have a clear metric. Christianity and Islam have numbers and Judaism is historically important to Christianity and Islam (and Western culture); beyond that, we/sources are trying to parse which sects are actually distinct enough from their source, but the line between Samaritanism/Rastafari/Druze/Baha'i and Mormonism, Karaism, Mandaeism, etc. is really unclear. Every minor religion claims to be more independent than it seems from a comparative perspective. IMO we should probably give up and only have subsections for each of the three with a standardized list format of notable denominations/breakaways below each. GordonGlottal (talk) 06:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Comment re: Samaritanism, there is a credible claim that their religion is older than Judaism, and seems certain to be at least as old (Jews and Samaritans each claim their religion to be older than the other). So in a sense, it is less of a subset of Judaism than Christianity, as Christianity came directly from Judaism, but Samaritanism apparently did not (but shares an older common origin w/ Judaism). 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:6136:D2CD:D164:1BED (talk) 03:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
      There are some scholars that argue they're about the same age, or at least that they had similar populations in the late centuries BCE. But, and I say this as a scholar who spent years working with and studying them, I don't think it matters. Christianity has billions of adherents. Judaism is (a) historically important to Christianity and Islam, (b) no slouch in direct historical relevance over the last thousand years. and (c) 15 million strong. In contrast, Samaritanism has (a) hundreds of adherents, (b) historical or political irrelevance for the last 1,500 years, and (c) only minor contributions even to classical scholarship. If you ignore Samaritan continuity through the medieval period (of which we know almost nothing), the Qumran sect is arguably more notable. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems we have a concensus on the narrow question that started all this and was the topic most of us covered. We are agreed the section on Mormons should be deleted. Smkolins (talk) 12:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose to (on condition original/larger sect sections first, demographic/statistic/notability balance) neutral: Mormonism is very different/unique/heterodox (orthodox say heretical, even new religion, because of new book/theology/prophet's Mormon cosmology w/apotheosis) so could also be its own religion section, like Rastafari currently, though cases are made they're Christian sects/denominations and new/original/separate Abrahamic religions/sects (simultaneously, different definitions) of minor new priests/prophets but with major new literature (though same was said about rabbi Jesus, Saul of Tarsus' Paulianity (correct sect category for all later orthodox Christianity,) the Pope's Great Schism, Mohammed, Protestantism) but Christian section currently omits most even larger denominations, so I oppose: Mormonism shouldn't even be mentioned until after originals (Orthodoxy/Catholicism including Gnosticism (only split later) which had 100+ denominations w/Gnostic apotheosis more historical/notable and copied to Mormonism) and because of originals' alterations into becoming Pualianity, that's largest (statistically more notable, despite Mormonism reviving philosophically more notable apotheoisis.) Diverging from above, I agree with GordonGlottal on Samaritanism because seems is orthodox Hebrew/Israelite kathenotheism/monotheism not taken to Babylonian empire, which after return was termed Judaism, but somewhat disagree on Druze because is Gnostic (on that, Sufism could get own line/section preceding or ending with Druze) and totally disagree on Babism-Bahai because incorporates many ancient middle-to-far Eastern religions (Devism/Hinduism/Dharma/Zoroastrianism (Hinduism having three narrow-to-broader definitions from Sanatana Dharma to all Akhand Bharat/India's separate Dhrarma/philosophy religions to all India's (millions) religions,) Taoism (part of Shenism,) etc., so like modern Hinduism, Bahai largely has ecumenical/syncretic/inter-religious approach--was told by a teacher of Bahai: for each Bahai book read, read one any other religious book (zero exclusions given, discussed/allowed mysticism & world/tribal/henotheism/pagan/pantheism so presumably even polytheism & esoterism/Gnosticism-Ophism-Satanism-Luciferianism.) So, Bahai isn't just Abrahamic but pagan/Dharmic-Shenic from mystical/esoteric origin that probably always had minor non-organized-religion offshoots (mystics/esoterists, mix/integration with other 1800s mysticism/esoterism/New Thought/Theosophy-perennialism/New Age/Unity-Unitarianism-Universalism-UU/etc.) Above was mentioned Mandaeanism (Mandaeism) which newer research says was among antiabrahamic Gnosticism (so someone long ago removed from this article) and I forgot about Karaism but many small near-to-middle Eastern Abrahamic sects exist, typically partly Sufi. Seems clear there are almost 10 distinct/major Abrahamisms with new/original books/theologies/prophets but also Christo-paganism (not organized,) dozens small Sufi sects, some 50% or more (then more secretly) pagan, but I don't know those are more notable (other than modern Christian/Christo-pagan mysticism/esoterism being a major cultural change since Renaissance/Age of Reason/Enlightenment Era, but no major notable denomination.)--dchmelik (t|c) 13:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Mormons have their own holy book and also I think that there should be one classification for religions that believes in God of Abraham. Polish republic (talk) 10:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Some damage repair in the lead needs some attention from an expert

The citation for "Ancient Israelite religion was derived from the ancient Canaanite religion of the Bronze Age, and became firmly monotheistic around the 6th century BCE." in the fourth paragraph of this version of the article appeared to have an unclosed reference, causing some text that was intended either to be in the body of the article or a non-reference footnote of the article to be in the citation text. That text may have been intended to be a replacement for the claim, as it appears to be expanding on that claim, giving more details.

In addition, there were two book references that merely had a Google Books URL inside square brackets.

At least some of that dates back to at least 2017, so it doesn't appear to have been the result of a simple damaging edit.

In this edit, I closed the offending reference, and use {{cite book}} for the book citations, filling them in with details; the first of them, Collapse of the Bronze Age, was published by "Authors Choice Press, an imprint of iUniverse, Inc.", so it appears to be a self-published work.

Somebody who's a bit more of a subject matter expert than I am may want to take a look at this. Guy Harris (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Spot on! The Yahweh-only party was fighting a civil war against the religion of their own ancestors. It ended during the rule of the Maccabees. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Factually wrong info

Neither David A. Mindell nor David P. Mindell are either Bible scholars or mainstream historians. So, they should not be cited to establish historical facts about Ancient Israel. Whatever Mindell believes, he is not an expert on Ancient history.

Second century BCE as the victory of monotheism is an approximation, scholarly opinions about it vary from the Exile to the preaching of Jesus. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Ancestor

About [4] neither British nor Russian Christians claim that Abraham would be their ancestor. Father of the faithful, yes, ancestor, no. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I reinstated the previous wording, that was modified without any reliable source, and seems obviously false.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Challenges to the term

There's just two (not particularly notable scholars) who are quoted, both from the single year of 2012, who give awfully vague "challenges". They don't even give any alternative terms for which to group the three, because no matter how divergent they are thought to be, they do share commanilties. For example in discussing Noah and the Flood Noah_in_Islam. Aaron Hughs writes "the "amorphous" term "Abrahamic religions" prevents an understanding of the "complex nature" of the interactions among them." How the heck else can I refer to Noah being in the three different religions? What's the point of being wordy and saying "Noah appears in three different monotheistic religions having their basis in the Middle East?" or In the three religions formerly known as Abrahamic"? "Furthermore...Hughes argued that the term should not be used, at least in academic circles" Is one person making recommendations for "academic circles" even notable enough for the article? I think the section could be reduced to two sentences, although maybe it needs quotes to show just how vague and useless their opinions are? Their quotes have (rightly I believe) been tagged with [third-party source needed]. I don't know if any published reaction even exists. It almost seems as if someone very purposefully went out of their way to fill in a "challenges" section, after deciding there should be one. Is there really only these two people in one year, representing the entirety of challenges in the history of Western scholarship to "Abrahamic religions"? Personally I'd just like to edit the section out entirely. Maybe I could find a quote on the subject from Homer Simpson or some pop celebrity because that could only add gravitas. Because frankly the number of people who take the two "scholars" mentioned seriously is pretty damn small. Cuvtixo (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

"The other, similar religions were seen as either too new to judge as being truly in the same class, or too small to be of significance to the category."

I might agree in terms of Druze or Bah'ai, but Samaritanism can be satisfactorily demonstrated to have existed since at least the last few centuries BCE - say, since the construction of the temple on Mount Gerizim (Samaritans themselves, of course, trace their roots back far further!) which makes them older that Christianity or Islam. Also they were at one point a fair sized body of population - estimated to be 1.2 million at the time of Julianus ben Sabar and stretching from Italy to Persia, and still in the hundreds of thousands until forced conversion/genoice by the Mamluks in the late Middle Ages reduced them down to a rump living in the immediate vicinity of Mount Gerizim.
Beaing this in mind, perhaps this sentence should be reworked as "too new" never fit the Samaritans and "too small" only really fits their status over the last 600-700 years. Before that, Samaritanism was, by the standard of the day, as much of a siginificant world religion as its twin Judaism was at that time. Romomusicfan (talk) 11:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Is this based on sources or your own view? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

"Legacy (religion)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Legacy (religion) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 13 § Legacy (religion) until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

"Patriarchal religion" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Patriarchal religion has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 13 § Patriarchal religion until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 03:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

"Three faiths" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Three faiths has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 13 § Three faiths until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 03:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://cmes.fas.harvard.edu/event/comparative-study-abrahamic-religions-heuristic-gains-and-cognitive-pitfalls
  2. ^ https://hurqalya.ucmerced.edu/scholarship/abrahamic-religions
  3. ^ https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198738862.001.0001/acprof-9780198738862-chapter-6
  4. ^ https://www.encyclopedia.com/philosophy-and-religion/ancient-religions/ancient-religion/manichaeism
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abrahamic_religions/Archive_6&oldid=1211955609"