![]() | Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia has been listed as one of the
Philosophy and religion good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: March 3, 2019. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
[material copied from aryaculture.tripod.com] Nittin Das ( talk) 15:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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)
-- Cerebellum ( talk) 20:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
The Worshipping Servant statue from Tarout Island, 2500 BC This statue seems to be of some Jain monk. Source: /info/en/?search=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)
Hi @ AshleighHanley82: - please see my latest edit summary. -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 01:11, 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)
![]() | Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia has been listed as one of the
Philosophy and religion good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: March 3, 2019. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
[material copied from aryaculture.tripod.com] Nittin Das ( talk) 15:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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)
-- Cerebellum ( talk) 20:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
The Worshipping Servant statue from Tarout Island, 2500 BC This statue seems to be of some Jain monk. Source: /info/en/?search=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)
Hi @ AshleighHanley82: - please see my latest edit summary. -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 01:11, 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)