Talk:Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia

Vedic Religion in Arabia
[material copied from aryaculture.tripod.com] Nittin Das (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've redacted your comment, as it seems to be a copy-and-paste of copyrighted material from another website. If you have any specific suggestions for changes to this article, feel free to share them here. --Cerebellum (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

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


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

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

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


 * Greetings and thank for your time . I was fearing an edit war and here you found a good way to have a talk. Keep up. Tardieus research is regarded as the most thorough and most recent research in the causa Manichaeism (needless to say most authorative, hence the extensive quotes on Iranicaonline), respectively he dedicated an entire work regarding Manichaeism in Arabia. There is no younger study that analyzed this casus so extensively. Thus, the terms recent research is applicable to Tardieu. The work that you quoted by Hughes, Aaron W. (2013), Muslim Identities: An Introduction to Islam, saying it dates to 2013 hence beeing more recent then Tardieu, overlooks the fact that Hughes didn't do a research on Manichaeism or Mazdakism in Arabia. In his introductory passages he dedicated 2 sentences to Islam and Manichaeism quoting other scholars, as he himself is not an expert for the iranian religions. You can't compare these 2 unrelated works with one another: whereas Tardieu is an expert for religion of late antiquity with heavy focus on Manichaeism and Mazdakism, Hughes is a Professor for Jewish Philosophy, respectively (even here on wikipedia it states Jewish Studies in the Department of Religion and Classics) and secondly Islamic Studies. In short: Hughes is not a researcher for Manichaeism and Mazdakism, but Tardieu is, so why keep Tardieu out of the article but keep Hughes? Furthermore I disagree with your sentence "Mind you, the article doesn't state that Manichieasm existed in Arabia, however that there is a possibility. This is more or less the same as what you've added". This section works with assumptions/possibilities suggesting that there very well might have been Manichaeism & Mazdakism activity in Mecca. These assumptions are backed by renowned western scholars and thus the intel belongs to the article. But on the other hand there have been newer approaches with & ever since Tardieu (see Tardieus revised Le manichéisme in 1997 & 2008), that these assumptions in fact "can not be proven" (Tardieu Manicheen) and thus should be viewed cautiously or rejected al all along due to unreliable sources from the 9th century being the oldest of those. (See especially Strompf & Mikkelsen et al on the reliability of al-Kalbī)
 * You are right that the section talks about possibilities, but nowhere are these possibilities questioned and/or analyzed, respectively my additions are not "more or less the same". I'm saying this with my uttermost respect, as I have checked your incredible work here on, but these additions belong to the text. AshleighHanley82 (talk) 03:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


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

Thank you again for taking the time. 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. Thanks in advance. AshleighHanley82 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)