![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I know it was only a stub to open the page, but we must be careful not to label everything 'arabic' as 'Islamic'. I am no expert on Islamic mythology, but suppose that for instance Alladin and Arabian Nights are 'Arabic' instead of 'Islamic'--TK
Excellent point! I agree 100 percent. I hope that those who know more will improve the page -- it sure does need improvement! -- Cayzle
I've moved this page from Islamic Mythology to Arabic mythology, not because I consider them the same but because they are clearly different. Most of the stuff here is Arabic rather than Islamic. I would recommend that we create a separate Islamic mythology article as soon as we have enough material to go in it. DJ Clayworth 21:28, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think that this is a very poor stub, and someone needs to report some actual studies and published works. My main concern is that what is being labeled Arabian Mythology is not necessarily Arabian. Many of the stories in the Thousand Nights and A Night are not Arabian at all, and the title was changed to 1000 Arabian Nights long after it was written. Persians and other people are responsible for much of this mythology. Michael Hancock ( talk) 18:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
i think i finished rewriting around 70% of this article and around 20%~30% of Arabian mythology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DesertDagger ( talk • contribs) 04:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok i finished rewriting 100% of this artical and around 30%~35% of Arabian mythology, now my problem with ~70% Arab myth is that i cant link Arabic books as sources here and there is no english books talking about it, knowing that i didn't even finish writing about the City-State of Makka i still have to write about the early Arab Kingdoms like Kindah , Ghassanids , Lakhmids , Nabataeans , Banu Judham , Himyarite and the rest of the Arabs City-States and Kingdoms. DesertDagger ( talk) 09:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe this would be better titled Middle Eastern Mythology. That would incorporate both Islamic and Arabic aspects because people from both of those traditions are from the Middle East. I realize that Middle East is a broad geographic area but couldn't the article be separated into different sections? hdstubbs
"Arabic" refers to the language. "Arabian" is the convention when speaking of the people and their archaic beliefs. I moved the page. Castanea dentata 19:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
ah this page is no where near complete is there a problem? ``
the page should be redirected to the Arab Mythology, rather then Arabian. Arab League User ( talk) 11:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
"The Kaaba was instead covered in symbols representing the myriad demons, djinn, demigods and other assorted creatures which represented the profoundly polytheistic environment of pre-Islamic Arabia." Pre-Islam, people mostly worshiped god, in addition angels, demigods and jin (in a way different than demons) believing that they will help as a connection between them and god. In addition statues around kaaba where destroyed after Muslims won the fight and Mecca became the capital. Arabian Nights is a wrong name, its original name is One Thousand and One Nights as you can see if you click on the link of Arabian nights, the book is known in the western world as Arabian Nights. The stories are believed to be gathered from different countries and believes so saying it was "Arabian" mythology is totally wrong, Islam was against a lot of pre-Islam believes and consider them wrong (of the middle east area where it started, justice and other believes related to it where encouraged, so saying Islam was influenced by those stories and pre-Islam mythology cant be true as a lot of Muslims (and I mean Muslims of the time the book was first printed) were against a publishing it in Arabic as even though the meaning of the stories might ment nothing more than an advice, it was presented in a way not accepted in Islam, such stories contradicted the believes of Islam or had some parts containing nudity. by that "Islamic mythology has probably been influenced to a large degree by Arabian mythology and the two are often difficult to distinguish." is totally wrong.
"The Hand of Fatima is sometimes used to neutralize the effect of Evil Eye, though its use is forbidden in Islam" as a Muslim myself, i never heard of such thing as hand of Fatima, there are several tries to 'change' in Quran and Islam's believes, and there are several, how can i describe it, "Cults" that claims they belong to Islam, so please be sure of what you write as "Islam" hope i made a good addition/correction Lucifer-sama 12:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC) i think so...
This sentence fragment makes no sense due to chaotic grammar (emphasis added):
The following text is not written in modern English grammar but sounds like it was copied verbatim from some older religious or narrative texts, possibly creating a copyvio problem (emphasis added):
I know very little about this subject matter but the writing style of this article needs serious cleanup to become encyclopedic. 66.97.213.94 ( talk) 04:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I felt the need to rewrite the part about Hubal but after reading it in the context of the whole thing, I think much of this article needs to be rewritten or added to to make a consistent article. So I may do some writing here and just wanted to make it known, this page doesn't seem very active and I think it is much needed.
Also, I feel that there needs to be more consistence with the use of phrases 'meccan religion' 'arabian mythology' 'pre-islam arabian'. They seem to be used interchangeably but there is not reason for this in my opinion. 'pre-islam' itself seems a little strange to me because it implies the mythology was eradicated and replaced which may be debatable TreboniusArtorius ( talk) 18:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Implicit in this page, others that refer to it, and a few other Wikipedia pages is the idea that "pre-Islam" equates to "before the prophet Muhammed" or before "the rise of Islam" (whatever that means). Most Muslims will agree that Islam is an ancient religion of which Muhammed was the last (and greatest) of prophets; in other words, Islam did not begin with the prophet Muhammed. This is important, because if care is not taken, this sloppiness of thinking leads to the great mistake amongst non-Muslims of calling Muhammed the "founder" of Islam (which can cause great offence). -- The Lesser Merlin 14:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC) by ray dulnuan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.112.26 ( talk) 07:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
...Muhammad is the founder of Islam. And Islam is as ancient as Muhammad is, no more and no less. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.222.205.242 ( talk) 09:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
All the verses of Quran I see used here about Allah among non-Muslims,I don't see one of them ever referring to the Meccans in the whole surah. The verses keep saying "They" but who is "They"? That is never even once mentioned or indicated. I think this "They" is actually the monotheists of Christians and Jews and when the Quran says "and have fabricated for Him sons and daughters without knowledge" in surah 6:100, I think it is referring to Christians believing that Christ was the son of God.
Not only that Karen Armstrong's Islam: A Short History although calls Allah as a High God but it doesn't use any original source. The only way to confirm that there was a pre-Islamic Meccan deity by the name of Allah is that if any text of that time would have mentioned it. Also she actually says that it "seems" the Kaabah was venetrated as a shrine of Allah, the High God. She never says this is definitely true and is only taking a guess. Additionally I think the sentence which says Allah seems to be High God is very confusing:
But by Muhammad's day, it seems that the Kabah was venerated as the shrine of Allah, the High God, and it is a mark of the widespread conviction that Allah was the same as the deity worshipped by monotheists that those Arabs in the northern tribes on the borders of the Byzantine Empire who had converted to Christianity used to make the hajj alongside the pagans.
I think she is saying that Allah, the High God was the same deity worshipped by monotheists (likely Muslims) and Arab Christians.
Also no text of that time or any hadith or any Islamic historian ever records that there was a Meccan deity by name of Allah. KahnJohn27 ( talk) 03:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Should "Allah" even be capitalised in that section title? The word is, not just the name of god of Islam, but also the literal word for "god" (as in "Zeus was a Greek god"). Unless the word is actually being used to refer to the god of Islam, it should not be capitalised, just as the word "god" is not conventionally capitalised unless being used to refer to the god of Christianity.
Additionally that word "probably" marks the first sentence as blatant original research. Given that allah does indeed mean god in Semitic languages generally, and given that Arabia pre- Mohamed was polytheistic, it is far more "probable" that it was used simply to mean "god" in the generic sense, rather than referring to a specific creator god. Rhialto ( talk) 14:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Apologies if this has been mentioned before, but I don't see it. From reading around, it seems that one of the main reasons scholars postulate that pre-Islamic Allah had daughters is that the Quran refutes the idea. This is explicit in Peters pp. 162–163 for example. Encyclopedia of Islam second edition also supports that the concept of "daughters of Allah" is derived from the Quran itself even though the phrase "daughters of Allah" is not there. The key sura's are 137:149 onwards:
(As always, translations may differ.) This cannot be a reference to Jews (who didn't give God any children), or to Christians (who gave him a son but no daughters). According to Peters, here the Quran is saying that Allah was going to have children he would have chosen sons, therefore the claim that he had daughters must be wrong. Zero talk 23:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The Jews call `Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is the saying from their mouth; (In this) they are intimate; what the Unbelievers of the old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the truth. [Qur'an 9:30]
Therefore it is also likely in the Quranic verses you gave, the "they" word is simply a reference to these monotheistic religions attributing children to Allah rather than the Meccans or other polytheistic Arabs. The Quranic verses however are anyway very unclear as to their meaning and cannot be used as a proof to claim that Allah had daughters neither any Quranic verse actually ever say anywhere that he did. KahnJohn27 ( talk) 00:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
@ KahnJohn27: you have reverted here the inclusion of sourced/cited content making reference to the pre-Islamic Arabs having as one of their beliefs that Allah's daughters were the three goddesses Manat, Al-lat and Al-Uzzah. Your edit summary makes reference to "original research". I don't think you understand what that means in the context of Wikipedia. See WP:OR - original research is when an editor includes text unsupported by a source. This text is supported by cited sources. Here is a selection of that reliable sources that support this:
In fact, it is purely your original research that this reference should be deleted and you have provided no reason why these sources should not be accepted, except your own personal belief. You have a personal POV on this which you must set aside and recognise what the reliable sources. the long-standing stable text of this article always referred to the three goddesses being allah's daughters until you began editing this article in April e.g. [1] If you don't self-revert I'll call an RfC to get other editors involved. DeCausa ( talk) 08:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
@ DeCausa: I don't have no personal POV or anything. The reason why I removed them was already given. Tell me even one source of them that uses any ancient text to verify that their were in fact daughters of Allah. That's what I meant. None of them does. The only real way to verify that there were daughters of Allah and Allah was a god in Meccan pantheon is if any ancient pre-Islamic text or Islamic text says he was and had daughters as well. However there isn't. These specualtion are either just merely based on specualtion or have nothing to back them up. And the verses of Quran which sometimes are used as a source that Allah existed in Mecca are very unclear and its not even clear anywher ethat they are either talking about polytheist Meccans or the monotheistic religious groups like Christians or Jews.
You are simply trying to impose your opinion. The sources being used to say that Allah existed in Mecca as a god or had daughters give no real definite proof. Hence the edits are made is correct. Entering that Allah had daughters or was a god in Mecca without any ancient pre-Islamic or Islamic text saying this was true is enteribg false or speculatory information. Please don't revert them or start an argument over them unless there is a source using any pre-Islamic or Islamic text which says that Allah was indeed a god in Mecca and had sons and daughters since these ancient texts are the only way to verify whether it is true or not. KahnJohn27 ( talk) 18:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
(uninvolved editor) As Wikipedians, we are not supposed to evaluate reliable sources. WP:NPOV says we should summarize what the reliable sources say, representing all the views that exist fairly and proportionately. Using our own judgement to rule in some sources and rule out others constitutes WP:OR. On the other hand, the sources should be reliable for the topic. For historical information WP:HISTRS provides guidelines for what constitutes reliable source. So, if the sources being talked about are HISTRS, their views should be included, whether we agree with them or not. If the sources are not fully confident about their conclusions, we should accurately represent the level of confidence they express, but we should not censor them. Cheers, Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@ Kautilya3: @ DeCausa: These are the sources being used to source the claims on these articles and I'm mentioning here what they actually say:
This source used to source these claims of Allah being part of Meccan religion and having children itself casts doubts on these claims and contradicts them. It clearly says that these claims have dubious historical foundations saying, However, even this story, which forms such an important part of many traditional Muslim narratives of Islam's origins, has recently been shown to rest on dubious historical foundations.
This book interestingly only uses the verses of Quran for its claims that Allah was a Meccan god. However none of these verses that it used ever makes it clear or anywhere else in their respective surahs which religious group is being referred to here. And it doesn't use any historical proof for its claims.
This source itself casts doubt on whether al-Lat, al-Uzza and Mannat were Allah's daughters several times calling them so-called daughters and "daughters of Allah" (meaning its casting doubt on this) in the page number 108 being used to source this article here. While it claims Allah was the high god of Kaaba it presents no historical text as proof.
This source too casts doubts on whether the three were Allah's daughters and calls them "purported" daughters. Again here while it claims Allah was known to Meccans, it does not provide any historical proof. Also it says that Allah was used more as a title instead of a name, It is not so much as a name as a title, a contraction of the word "al ilah" ("The God"),.
Clearly we can see that none of these sources are nowhere reliable enough to prove that Allah was a god or had daughters. They even themselves cast doubt on these claims and contradict them. My edits were never based on OR, they were based on the sourced themselves. And I'm completely sure that DeCausa never even carefully read and examined these sources. KahnJohn27 ( talk) 18:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@ KahnJohn27: I suggest that you take a break from editing, and spend some time reading sources. There are certainly interesting issues here, and we shouldn't be editing the article until we get to the bottom of it. I would advise you not to be confrontational (for your own good). The threat of a long block is real. It is your behaviour that is being mentioned, and it doesn't matter whether you are correct or not. Wikipedia needs you to collaborate with editors. Please keep that in mind at all times. Cheers, Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Here is a quick summary of Berkey's Chapter 3.
More later. - Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Several hundred Arabian deities are known from Muslim sources, the most prominent of which were those identified by the Arabs as the three "daughters of Allah" – Manat, Allat, and al-Uzza – a trinity which was, according to the later Muslim tradition, accorded a special place among Muhammad's tribe of Quraysh and their allies around the advent of Islam, and to which prominent (although ambiguous) mention is made in the Koran.
Cultic life focussed on a number of practices which survived, in a revalorized form, in Islam, including sacrifice and pilgrimage to shrines. It is often assumed that the most important of those shrines was that centered on the Kaaba at Mecca, and that it was the object of a widely-shared pilgrimage cult among the pre-Islamic Arabs. This cult, so the traditional story goes, was tended to by the Quraysh, the tribe to which Muhammad belonged, and who acquired thereby a special and privileged status among the pre-islamic Arabs. However, even this story, which forms such an important part of many traditional Muslim narratives of Islam's origins, has recently been shown to rest on dubious historical foundations
Central to the traditional image of the idolatry of the jahiliyya are the three deities or idols Allat, al-Uzza and Manat, said to have been viewed by the Meccan opponents of the Prophet as daughters of Allah.I think it is quite certain that there were such deities of the Meccans. But whether they called them the "daughters of Allah" is unknown. - Kautilya3 ( talk) 18:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
@ DeCausa: Hey don't use any vulgar language here. And besides it's not OR. These are statements directly from the source. You're not getting that. KahnJohn27 ( talk) 22:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Dear all, after looking at Berkey and Hawting, and the Satanic Verses article which has a very good discussion of all aspects of this issue, here is what I gather. What we know about the Arabian mythology is mostly through the Islamic sources. These were constructed a couple of generations after Mohammad and are coloured by the Islamic prejudices about the pre-Islamic culture/religion. Many reliable sources that deal with the History of Islam narrate what the Islamic scholars wrote. They are historically accurate only for the narration, i.e., they only establish that the Islamic scholars believed those ideas about the pre-Islamic culture. However, the scholars that study the pre-Islamic history (Berkey, Hawting, and numerous other sources cited in their books) doubt these narratives to be factual. The idea that the three goddesses of Mecca were "Allah's daughters" is essentially in the Quran. As far as I can see, there is no corroboration from non-Islamic independent sources. So, the scholars are right to doubt it.
As far as our article is concerned, we need to state that there is the tradition narrated by Islamic sources that state various things. However, we also have to state that the historians express considerable doubt about whether these narratives were actually true in pre-Islamic Arabia. I can point you to Somnath#History and Ayodhya#Legacy, where I had to grapple with similar issues of separating tradition and history. Cheers, Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Based on Muslim tradition, it is believed that xyz. However, some historians consider there is insufficient corroboration of Muslim tradition to be certain that this was the case.
I am happy with DeCausa's interpretation of my solution. I should point out however that the historians always dependent on multiple independent sources to determine the historical truth. So if there is no corroboration from other sources independent of the Islamic scholars then it is "not true." (That doesn't mean it is false. It is just that it is not established and unknown.) So we shouldn't report it as a fact. It is fine to use words like "according to Islamic scholarship" etc. See for example what I did at Somnath#History. @ KahnJohn27:, "might", "maybe" etc. constitutes weasel-wording as Ohnoitsjamie has pointed out. A reader reading it is completely in the dark about why there is uncertainty. Instead, it is better to be positive about the information we have so that the reader can make up his/her own mind. When there are reliable sources presenting multiple points of view, we have to present all of them in a positive way. We can't censor some sources because other sources disagree. As WP:NPOV says this principle is "non-negotiable." Cheers, Kautilya3 ( talk) 14:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I think there is a case for moving the title of this article from Arabian mythology → Pre-Islamic Arabian religion or Pre-Islamic Arabian polytheism. The reason is twofold. (1) Mythology, mythos, means specifically a set of naratives or stories that underpin a religious belief [3]. However, none of these are known in pre-Islamic Arabia. F.E.Peters has said this explicitly: "one of the characteristics of Arab paganism as it has come down to us is the absence of a mythology, narratives that might serve to explain the origin or history of the gods." [4] This article is about the supernatural beings that pre-Islamic Arabs may have worshipped, their names and characteristics. But that is not the same thing as "mythology". There are no narratives. (2) It's insufficiently clear from the title that this article is about Pre-Islamic Arabian mythology. In fact, this title could potentially overlap with the Islamic mythology article. I think it needs to jnclude the word Pre-Islamic and it needs tmo swap the word mythology for a word that more broadly indicates it's about "pagan" religion instead of specifically mythos. DeCausa ( talk) 22:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Limiting an article under this name to pre-Islamic period doesn't seem like a good choice to me. First, many pre-Islamic beliefs of Arabs likely continued as folk mythology into the Islamic period and it's often impossible to separate pre-Islamic strata from later developments. Secondly, it leaves no place to discuss later Arab mythology that can't be classified under Islam as religion, which is how the article "Islamic mythology" is interpreted. Msubotin ( talk) 01:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
one of the characteristics of Arab paganism as it has come down to us is the absence of a mythology, narratives that might serve to explain the origin or history of the gods." In fact, all we have for the pre-Islamic period is, literally, names of gods, nothing more except some speculation on their attributes. That's not mythology. So any article entitled either "Arab mythology" or "Arabian mythology" pretty much by definition has to exclude the pre-Islamic period. For the Islamic period we have Islamic mythology which quite clearly is insufficiently exclusive. So what do we have left to write about? The mere existence of Jinn etc isn't mythology. There needs to be a story not simply the belief in the being. If you look at the archives for this article you'll see discussion on whether to include 1001 nights etc. You will see that the conclusion was that that and similar stories might be Arabic (i.e the language) mythology or Arab (i.e. the cultural descriptor of peoples populating much of the middle east post 8th century) but there is little evidence for it being Arabian (i.e originating in Arabia). The article that is missing is how the pre-Islamic beliefs persisted or were transmuted into the Islamic era specifically in Arabia. The place for that could be Arabian folklore. DeCausa ( talk) 21:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
This passage in Robinson's book seems highly speculative and in part rather muddled. His point seems to be that Arab Christians used the word "Allah" for God (as they still do), but he says it in a bizarre way: "God" and "Jesus" aren't the same concept. As for inferring a special theological status of Mary among Arabian Christians from this one Quranic passage, that strikes me as very far fetched, and that's the first time I hear it. Msubotin ( talk) 02:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
They too called God Allah, but we may infer from the Quran that some of them had unorthodox beliefs about Him. The Jews of Arabia apparently regarded Uzayr (Ezra?) as Allah's son (9.30), and some of the Christians identified Jesus with Allah (5.72), whereas others seem to have worshipped a divine triad in which Allah was thought of as the Father, Mary the Mother, and Jesus the Son (5.116).To you black is white if it suits your POV. DeCausa ( talk) 20:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
( talk) 23:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I've expanded the material directly relevant to the article and shrunk later portions, whose goal here is to place it in context by mentioning alternative interpretations of the same verses. I've also reinstated identification of Robinson's statements as an inference and the reference to Sirry's book, removed here [ [5]] with no substantive justification. I hope @ KahnJohn27: takes this opportunity to stop casting aspersions and stick to the subject matter. Marking the first sentence in the previous revision as an inference or interpretation is not a matter of my POV. This is explicitly stated by Robertson himself and demonstrated by alternative interpretations of the same verse discussed in Sirry, which are incompatible with the statement "According to the Qu'ran, some of the Arab Christians identified Jesus with Allah", first because under the "polemical" reading it refers to Christian doctrine in general and not "some of the Arab Christians", and secondly because under that reading it is not intended as an accurate characterization. These are different interpretations of a primary source, and they should be identified as such. Msubotin ( talk) 02:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Paraphrasing Sirry's use of "claim" as "according to" is indeed a misuse of the source, because he's using the word to refer to statements that aren't meant to be accurate (on the preceding page: "When the Qur'an claims... the Qur'an in aware that Christians did not say that"). However, that's not the main problem with KahnJohn27 latest addition [6]. The main problem, like DeCausa suggests, is that it doesn't belong here. It's the variant "Allah is Jesus" from which peculiar Arabian beliefs discussed in this paragraph have been inferred. "Jesus is son of God" is just standard Christian doctrine and mentioning it here adds nothing but confusion. The use of the word "Allah" for "God" by Christians is a different topic.
On a different point, I'll grant KahnJohn27 that my phrasing was taken specifically from Griffith's argument, but Sirry clearly identifies all three authors as representing a shift from the "heretical explanation" of the verses, and this is plainly the second alternative interpretation I was referring to in the sentence removed by KahnJohn27 here [7]. Msubotin ( talk) 22:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
@ DeCausa: Now about your latest edit regarding the Meccan goddesses, FE Peters never says that the phrase "daughters of Allah" is being used for angels. It clearly says the three godesses along with others were angels whom polytheists gave female names. Here's the quote:
The last verse shows the direction in which Muhammad's thinking was going: the three godesses, and perhaps others as well, are actually angels, the Quran argues, whose intercession is permitted by God, and to whom the unbelievers have given female names. KahnJohn27 ( talk) 01:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I expect the title to be confusing. The issue here is what does "Arabia" mean here? Is it just the modern country of Saudi Arabia or the whole Arabian penisula containing Yemen, Oman, Bahrain, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar? Because in the article Pre-Islamic Arabia, the "Arabia" being talked about is the whole Arabian peninsula and the civilisations located in modern Yemen, Oman etc. are mentioned as well. We need to decide what definition should of "Arabia" should be used here. If Arabia here is used to mean Arabian penisula, then ancient beliefs of modern countries other than Saudi Arabia should be added as well. KahnJohn27 ( talk) 12:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC) KahnJohn27 ( talk) 12:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I've recently added about Iranian religions in pre-Islamic Arabia. There should be a paragraph about it in the lead section. I will like others to suggest what should be added in it based on the "Iranian religions" section. KahnJohn27 ( talk) 11:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
This follows on from a discussion I had with Msubotin above (section: "Why should "Arabian" mean "pre-Islamic"?"). I'm wondering whether the "Supernatural beings" section should be taken out and put into a new article Arabian folklore? The reason I'm saying this is that what's covered by it transcends pre- and post- conversion to Islam. In fact, looking at the admittedly not very good sourcing, it is mostly post conversion. We could leave behind a shortened single paragraph giving a summary per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. The new article would give the opportunity to expand on the folkloric aspects which are limited here. Views? DeCausa ( talk) 00:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I know it was only a stub to open the page, but we must be careful not to label everything 'arabic' as 'Islamic'. I am no expert on Islamic mythology, but suppose that for instance Alladin and Arabian Nights are 'Arabic' instead of 'Islamic'--TK
Excellent point! I agree 100 percent. I hope that those who know more will improve the page -- it sure does need improvement! -- Cayzle
I've moved this page from Islamic Mythology to Arabic mythology, not because I consider them the same but because they are clearly different. Most of the stuff here is Arabic rather than Islamic. I would recommend that we create a separate Islamic mythology article as soon as we have enough material to go in it. DJ Clayworth 21:28, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think that this is a very poor stub, and someone needs to report some actual studies and published works. My main concern is that what is being labeled Arabian Mythology is not necessarily Arabian. Many of the stories in the Thousand Nights and A Night are not Arabian at all, and the title was changed to 1000 Arabian Nights long after it was written. Persians and other people are responsible for much of this mythology. Michael Hancock ( talk) 18:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
i think i finished rewriting around 70% of this article and around 20%~30% of Arabian mythology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DesertDagger ( talk • contribs) 04:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok i finished rewriting 100% of this artical and around 30%~35% of Arabian mythology, now my problem with ~70% Arab myth is that i cant link Arabic books as sources here and there is no english books talking about it, knowing that i didn't even finish writing about the City-State of Makka i still have to write about the early Arab Kingdoms like Kindah , Ghassanids , Lakhmids , Nabataeans , Banu Judham , Himyarite and the rest of the Arabs City-States and Kingdoms. DesertDagger ( talk) 09:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe this would be better titled Middle Eastern Mythology. That would incorporate both Islamic and Arabic aspects because people from both of those traditions are from the Middle East. I realize that Middle East is a broad geographic area but couldn't the article be separated into different sections? hdstubbs
"Arabic" refers to the language. "Arabian" is the convention when speaking of the people and their archaic beliefs. I moved the page. Castanea dentata 19:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
ah this page is no where near complete is there a problem? ``
the page should be redirected to the Arab Mythology, rather then Arabian. Arab League User ( talk) 11:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
"The Kaaba was instead covered in symbols representing the myriad demons, djinn, demigods and other assorted creatures which represented the profoundly polytheistic environment of pre-Islamic Arabia." Pre-Islam, people mostly worshiped god, in addition angels, demigods and jin (in a way different than demons) believing that they will help as a connection between them and god. In addition statues around kaaba where destroyed after Muslims won the fight and Mecca became the capital. Arabian Nights is a wrong name, its original name is One Thousand and One Nights as you can see if you click on the link of Arabian nights, the book is known in the western world as Arabian Nights. The stories are believed to be gathered from different countries and believes so saying it was "Arabian" mythology is totally wrong, Islam was against a lot of pre-Islam believes and consider them wrong (of the middle east area where it started, justice and other believes related to it where encouraged, so saying Islam was influenced by those stories and pre-Islam mythology cant be true as a lot of Muslims (and I mean Muslims of the time the book was first printed) were against a publishing it in Arabic as even though the meaning of the stories might ment nothing more than an advice, it was presented in a way not accepted in Islam, such stories contradicted the believes of Islam or had some parts containing nudity. by that "Islamic mythology has probably been influenced to a large degree by Arabian mythology and the two are often difficult to distinguish." is totally wrong.
"The Hand of Fatima is sometimes used to neutralize the effect of Evil Eye, though its use is forbidden in Islam" as a Muslim myself, i never heard of such thing as hand of Fatima, there are several tries to 'change' in Quran and Islam's believes, and there are several, how can i describe it, "Cults" that claims they belong to Islam, so please be sure of what you write as "Islam" hope i made a good addition/correction Lucifer-sama 12:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC) i think so...
This sentence fragment makes no sense due to chaotic grammar (emphasis added):
The following text is not written in modern English grammar but sounds like it was copied verbatim from some older religious or narrative texts, possibly creating a copyvio problem (emphasis added):
I know very little about this subject matter but the writing style of this article needs serious cleanup to become encyclopedic. 66.97.213.94 ( talk) 04:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I felt the need to rewrite the part about Hubal but after reading it in the context of the whole thing, I think much of this article needs to be rewritten or added to to make a consistent article. So I may do some writing here and just wanted to make it known, this page doesn't seem very active and I think it is much needed.
Also, I feel that there needs to be more consistence with the use of phrases 'meccan religion' 'arabian mythology' 'pre-islam arabian'. They seem to be used interchangeably but there is not reason for this in my opinion. 'pre-islam' itself seems a little strange to me because it implies the mythology was eradicated and replaced which may be debatable TreboniusArtorius ( talk) 18:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Implicit in this page, others that refer to it, and a few other Wikipedia pages is the idea that "pre-Islam" equates to "before the prophet Muhammed" or before "the rise of Islam" (whatever that means). Most Muslims will agree that Islam is an ancient religion of which Muhammed was the last (and greatest) of prophets; in other words, Islam did not begin with the prophet Muhammed. This is important, because if care is not taken, this sloppiness of thinking leads to the great mistake amongst non-Muslims of calling Muhammed the "founder" of Islam (which can cause great offence). -- The Lesser Merlin 14:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC) by ray dulnuan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.112.26 ( talk) 07:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
...Muhammad is the founder of Islam. And Islam is as ancient as Muhammad is, no more and no less. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.222.205.242 ( talk) 09:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
All the verses of Quran I see used here about Allah among non-Muslims,I don't see one of them ever referring to the Meccans in the whole surah. The verses keep saying "They" but who is "They"? That is never even once mentioned or indicated. I think this "They" is actually the monotheists of Christians and Jews and when the Quran says "and have fabricated for Him sons and daughters without knowledge" in surah 6:100, I think it is referring to Christians believing that Christ was the son of God.
Not only that Karen Armstrong's Islam: A Short History although calls Allah as a High God but it doesn't use any original source. The only way to confirm that there was a pre-Islamic Meccan deity by the name of Allah is that if any text of that time would have mentioned it. Also she actually says that it "seems" the Kaabah was venetrated as a shrine of Allah, the High God. She never says this is definitely true and is only taking a guess. Additionally I think the sentence which says Allah seems to be High God is very confusing:
But by Muhammad's day, it seems that the Kabah was venerated as the shrine of Allah, the High God, and it is a mark of the widespread conviction that Allah was the same as the deity worshipped by monotheists that those Arabs in the northern tribes on the borders of the Byzantine Empire who had converted to Christianity used to make the hajj alongside the pagans.
I think she is saying that Allah, the High God was the same deity worshipped by monotheists (likely Muslims) and Arab Christians.
Also no text of that time or any hadith or any Islamic historian ever records that there was a Meccan deity by name of Allah. KahnJohn27 ( talk) 03:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Should "Allah" even be capitalised in that section title? The word is, not just the name of god of Islam, but also the literal word for "god" (as in "Zeus was a Greek god"). Unless the word is actually being used to refer to the god of Islam, it should not be capitalised, just as the word "god" is not conventionally capitalised unless being used to refer to the god of Christianity.
Additionally that word "probably" marks the first sentence as blatant original research. Given that allah does indeed mean god in Semitic languages generally, and given that Arabia pre- Mohamed was polytheistic, it is far more "probable" that it was used simply to mean "god" in the generic sense, rather than referring to a specific creator god. Rhialto ( talk) 14:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Apologies if this has been mentioned before, but I don't see it. From reading around, it seems that one of the main reasons scholars postulate that pre-Islamic Allah had daughters is that the Quran refutes the idea. This is explicit in Peters pp. 162–163 for example. Encyclopedia of Islam second edition also supports that the concept of "daughters of Allah" is derived from the Quran itself even though the phrase "daughters of Allah" is not there. The key sura's are 137:149 onwards:
(As always, translations may differ.) This cannot be a reference to Jews (who didn't give God any children), or to Christians (who gave him a son but no daughters). According to Peters, here the Quran is saying that Allah was going to have children he would have chosen sons, therefore the claim that he had daughters must be wrong. Zero talk 23:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The Jews call `Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is the saying from their mouth; (In this) they are intimate; what the Unbelievers of the old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the truth. [Qur'an 9:30]
Therefore it is also likely in the Quranic verses you gave, the "they" word is simply a reference to these monotheistic religions attributing children to Allah rather than the Meccans or other polytheistic Arabs. The Quranic verses however are anyway very unclear as to their meaning and cannot be used as a proof to claim that Allah had daughters neither any Quranic verse actually ever say anywhere that he did. KahnJohn27 ( talk) 00:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
@ KahnJohn27: you have reverted here the inclusion of sourced/cited content making reference to the pre-Islamic Arabs having as one of their beliefs that Allah's daughters were the three goddesses Manat, Al-lat and Al-Uzzah. Your edit summary makes reference to "original research". I don't think you understand what that means in the context of Wikipedia. See WP:OR - original research is when an editor includes text unsupported by a source. This text is supported by cited sources. Here is a selection of that reliable sources that support this:
In fact, it is purely your original research that this reference should be deleted and you have provided no reason why these sources should not be accepted, except your own personal belief. You have a personal POV on this which you must set aside and recognise what the reliable sources. the long-standing stable text of this article always referred to the three goddesses being allah's daughters until you began editing this article in April e.g. [1] If you don't self-revert I'll call an RfC to get other editors involved. DeCausa ( talk) 08:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
@ DeCausa: I don't have no personal POV or anything. The reason why I removed them was already given. Tell me even one source of them that uses any ancient text to verify that their were in fact daughters of Allah. That's what I meant. None of them does. The only real way to verify that there were daughters of Allah and Allah was a god in Meccan pantheon is if any ancient pre-Islamic text or Islamic text says he was and had daughters as well. However there isn't. These specualtion are either just merely based on specualtion or have nothing to back them up. And the verses of Quran which sometimes are used as a source that Allah existed in Mecca are very unclear and its not even clear anywher ethat they are either talking about polytheist Meccans or the monotheistic religious groups like Christians or Jews.
You are simply trying to impose your opinion. The sources being used to say that Allah existed in Mecca as a god or had daughters give no real definite proof. Hence the edits are made is correct. Entering that Allah had daughters or was a god in Mecca without any ancient pre-Islamic or Islamic text saying this was true is enteribg false or speculatory information. Please don't revert them or start an argument over them unless there is a source using any pre-Islamic or Islamic text which says that Allah was indeed a god in Mecca and had sons and daughters since these ancient texts are the only way to verify whether it is true or not. KahnJohn27 ( talk) 18:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
(uninvolved editor) As Wikipedians, we are not supposed to evaluate reliable sources. WP:NPOV says we should summarize what the reliable sources say, representing all the views that exist fairly and proportionately. Using our own judgement to rule in some sources and rule out others constitutes WP:OR. On the other hand, the sources should be reliable for the topic. For historical information WP:HISTRS provides guidelines for what constitutes reliable source. So, if the sources being talked about are HISTRS, their views should be included, whether we agree with them or not. If the sources are not fully confident about their conclusions, we should accurately represent the level of confidence they express, but we should not censor them. Cheers, Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@ Kautilya3: @ DeCausa: These are the sources being used to source the claims on these articles and I'm mentioning here what they actually say:
This source used to source these claims of Allah being part of Meccan religion and having children itself casts doubts on these claims and contradicts them. It clearly says that these claims have dubious historical foundations saying, However, even this story, which forms such an important part of many traditional Muslim narratives of Islam's origins, has recently been shown to rest on dubious historical foundations.
This book interestingly only uses the verses of Quran for its claims that Allah was a Meccan god. However none of these verses that it used ever makes it clear or anywhere else in their respective surahs which religious group is being referred to here. And it doesn't use any historical proof for its claims.
This source itself casts doubt on whether al-Lat, al-Uzza and Mannat were Allah's daughters several times calling them so-called daughters and "daughters of Allah" (meaning its casting doubt on this) in the page number 108 being used to source this article here. While it claims Allah was the high god of Kaaba it presents no historical text as proof.
This source too casts doubts on whether the three were Allah's daughters and calls them "purported" daughters. Again here while it claims Allah was known to Meccans, it does not provide any historical proof. Also it says that Allah was used more as a title instead of a name, It is not so much as a name as a title, a contraction of the word "al ilah" ("The God"),.
Clearly we can see that none of these sources are nowhere reliable enough to prove that Allah was a god or had daughters. They even themselves cast doubt on these claims and contradict them. My edits were never based on OR, they were based on the sourced themselves. And I'm completely sure that DeCausa never even carefully read and examined these sources. KahnJohn27 ( talk) 18:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@ KahnJohn27: I suggest that you take a break from editing, and spend some time reading sources. There are certainly interesting issues here, and we shouldn't be editing the article until we get to the bottom of it. I would advise you not to be confrontational (for your own good). The threat of a long block is real. It is your behaviour that is being mentioned, and it doesn't matter whether you are correct or not. Wikipedia needs you to collaborate with editors. Please keep that in mind at all times. Cheers, Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Here is a quick summary of Berkey's Chapter 3.
More later. - Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Several hundred Arabian deities are known from Muslim sources, the most prominent of which were those identified by the Arabs as the three "daughters of Allah" – Manat, Allat, and al-Uzza – a trinity which was, according to the later Muslim tradition, accorded a special place among Muhammad's tribe of Quraysh and their allies around the advent of Islam, and to which prominent (although ambiguous) mention is made in the Koran.
Cultic life focussed on a number of practices which survived, in a revalorized form, in Islam, including sacrifice and pilgrimage to shrines. It is often assumed that the most important of those shrines was that centered on the Kaaba at Mecca, and that it was the object of a widely-shared pilgrimage cult among the pre-Islamic Arabs. This cult, so the traditional story goes, was tended to by the Quraysh, the tribe to which Muhammad belonged, and who acquired thereby a special and privileged status among the pre-islamic Arabs. However, even this story, which forms such an important part of many traditional Muslim narratives of Islam's origins, has recently been shown to rest on dubious historical foundations
Central to the traditional image of the idolatry of the jahiliyya are the three deities or idols Allat, al-Uzza and Manat, said to have been viewed by the Meccan opponents of the Prophet as daughters of Allah.I think it is quite certain that there were such deities of the Meccans. But whether they called them the "daughters of Allah" is unknown. - Kautilya3 ( talk) 18:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
@ DeCausa: Hey don't use any vulgar language here. And besides it's not OR. These are statements directly from the source. You're not getting that. KahnJohn27 ( talk) 22:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Dear all, after looking at Berkey and Hawting, and the Satanic Verses article which has a very good discussion of all aspects of this issue, here is what I gather. What we know about the Arabian mythology is mostly through the Islamic sources. These were constructed a couple of generations after Mohammad and are coloured by the Islamic prejudices about the pre-Islamic culture/religion. Many reliable sources that deal with the History of Islam narrate what the Islamic scholars wrote. They are historically accurate only for the narration, i.e., they only establish that the Islamic scholars believed those ideas about the pre-Islamic culture. However, the scholars that study the pre-Islamic history (Berkey, Hawting, and numerous other sources cited in their books) doubt these narratives to be factual. The idea that the three goddesses of Mecca were "Allah's daughters" is essentially in the Quran. As far as I can see, there is no corroboration from non-Islamic independent sources. So, the scholars are right to doubt it.
As far as our article is concerned, we need to state that there is the tradition narrated by Islamic sources that state various things. However, we also have to state that the historians express considerable doubt about whether these narratives were actually true in pre-Islamic Arabia. I can point you to Somnath#History and Ayodhya#Legacy, where I had to grapple with similar issues of separating tradition and history. Cheers, Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Based on Muslim tradition, it is believed that xyz. However, some historians consider there is insufficient corroboration of Muslim tradition to be certain that this was the case.
I am happy with DeCausa's interpretation of my solution. I should point out however that the historians always dependent on multiple independent sources to determine the historical truth. So if there is no corroboration from other sources independent of the Islamic scholars then it is "not true." (That doesn't mean it is false. It is just that it is not established and unknown.) So we shouldn't report it as a fact. It is fine to use words like "according to Islamic scholarship" etc. See for example what I did at Somnath#History. @ KahnJohn27:, "might", "maybe" etc. constitutes weasel-wording as Ohnoitsjamie has pointed out. A reader reading it is completely in the dark about why there is uncertainty. Instead, it is better to be positive about the information we have so that the reader can make up his/her own mind. When there are reliable sources presenting multiple points of view, we have to present all of them in a positive way. We can't censor some sources because other sources disagree. As WP:NPOV says this principle is "non-negotiable." Cheers, Kautilya3 ( talk) 14:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I think there is a case for moving the title of this article from Arabian mythology → Pre-Islamic Arabian religion or Pre-Islamic Arabian polytheism. The reason is twofold. (1) Mythology, mythos, means specifically a set of naratives or stories that underpin a religious belief [3]. However, none of these are known in pre-Islamic Arabia. F.E.Peters has said this explicitly: "one of the characteristics of Arab paganism as it has come down to us is the absence of a mythology, narratives that might serve to explain the origin or history of the gods." [4] This article is about the supernatural beings that pre-Islamic Arabs may have worshipped, their names and characteristics. But that is not the same thing as "mythology". There are no narratives. (2) It's insufficiently clear from the title that this article is about Pre-Islamic Arabian mythology. In fact, this title could potentially overlap with the Islamic mythology article. I think it needs to jnclude the word Pre-Islamic and it needs tmo swap the word mythology for a word that more broadly indicates it's about "pagan" religion instead of specifically mythos. DeCausa ( talk) 22:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Limiting an article under this name to pre-Islamic period doesn't seem like a good choice to me. First, many pre-Islamic beliefs of Arabs likely continued as folk mythology into the Islamic period and it's often impossible to separate pre-Islamic strata from later developments. Secondly, it leaves no place to discuss later Arab mythology that can't be classified under Islam as religion, which is how the article "Islamic mythology" is interpreted. Msubotin ( talk) 01:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
one of the characteristics of Arab paganism as it has come down to us is the absence of a mythology, narratives that might serve to explain the origin or history of the gods." In fact, all we have for the pre-Islamic period is, literally, names of gods, nothing more except some speculation on their attributes. That's not mythology. So any article entitled either "Arab mythology" or "Arabian mythology" pretty much by definition has to exclude the pre-Islamic period. For the Islamic period we have Islamic mythology which quite clearly is insufficiently exclusive. So what do we have left to write about? The mere existence of Jinn etc isn't mythology. There needs to be a story not simply the belief in the being. If you look at the archives for this article you'll see discussion on whether to include 1001 nights etc. You will see that the conclusion was that that and similar stories might be Arabic (i.e the language) mythology or Arab (i.e. the cultural descriptor of peoples populating much of the middle east post 8th century) but there is little evidence for it being Arabian (i.e originating in Arabia). The article that is missing is how the pre-Islamic beliefs persisted or were transmuted into the Islamic era specifically in Arabia. The place for that could be Arabian folklore. DeCausa ( talk) 21:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
This passage in Robinson's book seems highly speculative and in part rather muddled. His point seems to be that Arab Christians used the word "Allah" for God (as they still do), but he says it in a bizarre way: "God" and "Jesus" aren't the same concept. As for inferring a special theological status of Mary among Arabian Christians from this one Quranic passage, that strikes me as very far fetched, and that's the first time I hear it. Msubotin ( talk) 02:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
They too called God Allah, but we may infer from the Quran that some of them had unorthodox beliefs about Him. The Jews of Arabia apparently regarded Uzayr (Ezra?) as Allah's son (9.30), and some of the Christians identified Jesus with Allah (5.72), whereas others seem to have worshipped a divine triad in which Allah was thought of as the Father, Mary the Mother, and Jesus the Son (5.116).To you black is white if it suits your POV. DeCausa ( talk) 20:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
( talk) 23:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I've expanded the material directly relevant to the article and shrunk later portions, whose goal here is to place it in context by mentioning alternative interpretations of the same verses. I've also reinstated identification of Robinson's statements as an inference and the reference to Sirry's book, removed here [ [5]] with no substantive justification. I hope @ KahnJohn27: takes this opportunity to stop casting aspersions and stick to the subject matter. Marking the first sentence in the previous revision as an inference or interpretation is not a matter of my POV. This is explicitly stated by Robertson himself and demonstrated by alternative interpretations of the same verse discussed in Sirry, which are incompatible with the statement "According to the Qu'ran, some of the Arab Christians identified Jesus with Allah", first because under the "polemical" reading it refers to Christian doctrine in general and not "some of the Arab Christians", and secondly because under that reading it is not intended as an accurate characterization. These are different interpretations of a primary source, and they should be identified as such. Msubotin ( talk) 02:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Paraphrasing Sirry's use of "claim" as "according to" is indeed a misuse of the source, because he's using the word to refer to statements that aren't meant to be accurate (on the preceding page: "When the Qur'an claims... the Qur'an in aware that Christians did not say that"). However, that's not the main problem with KahnJohn27 latest addition [6]. The main problem, like DeCausa suggests, is that it doesn't belong here. It's the variant "Allah is Jesus" from which peculiar Arabian beliefs discussed in this paragraph have been inferred. "Jesus is son of God" is just standard Christian doctrine and mentioning it here adds nothing but confusion. The use of the word "Allah" for "God" by Christians is a different topic.
On a different point, I'll grant KahnJohn27 that my phrasing was taken specifically from Griffith's argument, but Sirry clearly identifies all three authors as representing a shift from the "heretical explanation" of the verses, and this is plainly the second alternative interpretation I was referring to in the sentence removed by KahnJohn27 here [7]. Msubotin ( talk) 22:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
@ DeCausa: Now about your latest edit regarding the Meccan goddesses, FE Peters never says that the phrase "daughters of Allah" is being used for angels. It clearly says the three godesses along with others were angels whom polytheists gave female names. Here's the quote:
The last verse shows the direction in which Muhammad's thinking was going: the three godesses, and perhaps others as well, are actually angels, the Quran argues, whose intercession is permitted by God, and to whom the unbelievers have given female names. KahnJohn27 ( talk) 01:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I expect the title to be confusing. The issue here is what does "Arabia" mean here? Is it just the modern country of Saudi Arabia or the whole Arabian penisula containing Yemen, Oman, Bahrain, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar? Because in the article Pre-Islamic Arabia, the "Arabia" being talked about is the whole Arabian peninsula and the civilisations located in modern Yemen, Oman etc. are mentioned as well. We need to decide what definition should of "Arabia" should be used here. If Arabia here is used to mean Arabian penisula, then ancient beliefs of modern countries other than Saudi Arabia should be added as well. KahnJohn27 ( talk) 12:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC) KahnJohn27 ( talk) 12:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I've recently added about Iranian religions in pre-Islamic Arabia. There should be a paragraph about it in the lead section. I will like others to suggest what should be added in it based on the "Iranian religions" section. KahnJohn27 ( talk) 11:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
This follows on from a discussion I had with Msubotin above (section: "Why should "Arabian" mean "pre-Islamic"?"). I'm wondering whether the "Supernatural beings" section should be taken out and put into a new article Arabian folklore? The reason I'm saying this is that what's covered by it transcends pre- and post- conversion to Islam. In fact, looking at the admittedly not very good sourcing, it is mostly post conversion. We could leave behind a shortened single paragraph giving a summary per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. The new article would give the opportunity to expand on the folkloric aspects which are limited here. Views? DeCausa ( talk) 00:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)