Talk:Bahira

Muhammad's teacher

I know this is quite difficult to accept for you muslims, but, as it is, this guy was (one of several) Muhammad's teacher. This is an irrefutable fact of history. I realise that the idea of Muhammad having a teacher beside Allah is some kind of heresy for you, but, here's the truth: Muhammad had an Assyrian Christian teacher. Muhammad learned a lot from him. I am not misrepresenting any source by pointing out this well known fact amongst theologians. It may be so, that Sargis Bkheera did not teach Muhammad about everything, but Muhammad gleaned a lot from him.

Here's what AINA says:

633 A.D. (5383)

Muhammad declares himself the prophet of God and originates Islam. It is well known that Muhammad's principal teacher was the Assyrian monk Sargis Bkheera. This accounts for the extraordinary doctrinal similarity between some aspects of Islam and the Assyrian Church of the East. For example, according to Assyrian Church doctrine, there is no awareness of passage of time between the moment of death and final judgement; final judgement occurs immediately even though thousands of years may have passed on Earth. Islam holds this same view. It is also noteworthy that the Koran states that in the day of final judgement the angels of Allah will speak to man in Assyrian.

http://www.aina.org/aol/peter/timeline.htm

Where do you think Muhammad got that from? Of course, he got it from his Assyrian Christian teacher. You want this referenced from some academic work? I'm sure that's no problem. Here you go, take your pick: [1] He was Muhammad's teacher. Stop reverting unless you have some source refuting this claim. EliasAlucard|Talk 20:42, 14 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

"aina.org" is not a reliable source, and neither is a google search. provide a reliable academic source and please stop POV-pushing. the source the sentence is cited to in the article does not substantiate this claim, so please stop misrepresenting sources to fit your own views. the Encyclopedia of Islam for one does not endorse this claim and dismisses it as medieval Christian polemic. i would also suggest you self revert soon. ITAQALLAH 19:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

My views? What are trying to imply here? Are you accusing me of historical revisionism? aina.org is better than nothing. I don't think aina is making this up. The Encyclopaedia of Islam is not necessarily an objective unbiased source. I couldn't find anything about Bahira or whatever his name was, alleging that he was made up by some medieval Christian polemics, in this article: Encyclopaedia of Islam. So give me another one. I'm going to redirect this to Sargis Bahirâ, seems like a more correct naming of this guy. Either way, I hope that we can collaborate on this article without disputes. It's just that I haven't been given any actual sources from you, which corroborate your claims. Please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but do it with credible sources. Thanks. EliasAlucard|Talk 22:57, 14 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

This is a historical topic. Please provide references from articles or books by history professors, not cites to articles by "sculptresses", cites to Islamic apologetic websites, and links to Christian apologetic web sites. - Merzbow 07:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

"It is also noteworthy that the Koran states that in the day of final judgement the angels of Allah will speak to man in Assyrian." I have a copy of the Quran. Please tell where I can find this. If it is true, then this article should be expanded. 219.95.88.57 02:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The above edit was by me without logging in Unflavoured 02:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Also "there is no awareness of passage of time between the moment of death and final judgement; final judgement occurs immediately even though thousands of years may have passed on Earth. Islam holds this same view." Islam does not hold the same view. I believe that in Islam, sinners are said to be punished even while in the grave. There are many hadiths about this, though I myself am unsure of how to go about searching for them. Unflavoured 03:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

References

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

• This one is a very good reference about Bahira

EliasAlucard|Talk 08:33, 24 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

All rubbish. Sorry. - Merzbow 06:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you checked them all in one minute. I'm impressed at your superhuman speed. EliasAlucard|Talk 08:47, 24 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

You've been told many times why sources like those are not acceptable on a history article. I have nothing more to say, except to note that any attempt to add them will be summarily reverted by me or one of a dozen other editors. - Merzbow 06:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with this source: [9] It's seems to be a fairly reliable source. EliasAlucard|Talk 09:00, 24 Jun, 2007 (UTC)

If we leave aside the reliability of that source for the moment, could you specify what exactly it is that is being sourced from this essay? → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 08:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, just to add to remove any doubts that this can be considered a scholarly source, there is no authorship to the document apart from a website address (so it's not by a notable scholar/historian). But I'm nevertheless interested in understanding what statements can be sourced from it - apart from Bahira once met Muhammad when he was a boy. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 08:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad accompanied by Ali ?!

So, according to the legend, Muhammad met Bahira at the age of 12. That means that Ali wasn't even born then. There is no way that Muhammad was accompanied by Ali. 82.83.141.39 (talk) 07:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Final Changes

I have made some final changes to the article.

Can someone please stop the article reverting to its original POV format. At least leave discussion notes.

Avenger786 (talk) 05:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edits are POV. Chaldean (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

lol, how do you expect to be taken seriously when you fill the article with the PBUH abbreviation? And you claim to be NPOV in your edits? Right... — EliasAlucard / Discussion 20:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a distinctly anti-Islamic slant to the information and the bilbiography listed here. It has been removed. The link to a french website is not an acceptable reference and the reference to the Catholic University of America which is entitled "Disputing with Islam in Syriac" is also biased and non-neutral POV. I respectfully ask contributors to remain neutral POV and stop collating from anti-islamic sources.

The article in its current format is far from neutral POV and balanced. Bahira is recognised in the Islamic Tradition; the monastary of Bahira is in Syria and was located in the ancient roman town of Busra in the region of Shaam (now modern day Syria).

Comments about the notation (pbuh) are accepted and this has been removed. Accordingly, the corrected article is now reposted and the offending and anti-islamic material has been properly removed.

Avenger786 (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not mean "balanced", it simply means neutralising political opinions. For example, if I write, Islam is evil, in the article of Islam, that's a POV, and must be rewritten to something like, By critics, Islam is considered evil. What you're doing now is to censor sources you find "offensive". These are academic sources and certainly pass WP:RS. If you think this article is "unbalanced," you're free to provide and add sources to [reliable] Islamic websites about Bahira, preferably also scholarly ones. The article cites the Encyclopedia of Islam, which is more than enough as far as balance is concerned. But please, don't remove sources you have a personal POV-issue with. That would violate WP:CENSOR. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 14:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have made final changes to the article. As recorded below, all offending non neutral POV (especially from anti-islamic / zionist sites such as AINA from EliasAlucard) have been removed. The article is much better referenced and a balanced view from a neutral POV has been established.

No further edits should be needed at this point. Avenger786 (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Look man, stop trolling. AINA as a source hasn't been used in the article in many, many months. You are removing scholarly sources, because you consider them "offensive". What part of the WP:CENSOR policy don't you understand? Knock this off, it's not fun. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 13:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Elucard, it was me who researched the article and your dodgy, zionist and anti-islamic sources. You are giving a wholly biased view of Bahira from your ADMITTED Syriac / Christian biases. You are allowing this to influence your articles. You make a valuable point about the Christian polemics but this is NOT an excuse to list anti-islamic propaganda. You are not using verifiable sources nor are you observing WP rules on evidencing articles and the burden of proof. The revised (cleaned) article has more references, more easliy checked, better quality and unbiased (no political agenda / anti or pro islamic view). Can we please agree that the article should (1) Have the best references (2) Be balanced showing both aspects of the argument (ref: Bahira) (3) Omit biased and political POVs

This being the case, the revised, new article is clearly the best option or else please can we try and agree reasonable and suitable changes. Many thanks Avenger786 (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair and Balanced

According to Wikipedia we have rules on POV and bias. It is important that wherever possible the sources of material are unbiased and reasonbale.

EliasAlucard has made references to the AINA organisation / website. This must be set aside on the basis that it is a front for espousing material from Jihadwatch.org. As many of you know this is an organisation / website that is vehemently anit-muslim / islamaphobic and is run by so-called neo conservatives.

In any event, using tainted information from a islam-hating website routed through the AINA website is the wikipedia equivalent of money laundering.

I have been unable to find any verifiable information relating to the story of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and the stigmata. This article is generally very poorly written and sources material from anti-islamic websites. There are little or no references and it is need of a serious re-write. It is the case that as it relates to a story of Bahira the Monk some 1500 years ago, we should do our best to source the best references quoting them and respecting the POV and bias rules here.

Bahira is a figure in Islamic history and literature as being one of the first people to recognise the Prophethood of Muhammad (pbuh) and it should be treated accordingly.

Edits required.

Avenger786 (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The reference to AINA was removed very early in the history of this article. Most of the sources cited in this article is to the Encyclopedia of Islam, so you really don't have a case. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 14:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

To regard this from a neutral POV; it is necessary to remove any pro-Islam and similarly and anti-Islamic rhetoric. This includes pro-Syriac, anti-Islamic sources which EliasAlucard - YOU are responsible for. Your intentions with regards to this article are clearly questionable. This is also verifiable from the discussion page relating to the early request for this article to be deleted.

The offending material you have inserted which is CLEARLY from an anti-Islamic and biased / offnesive POV includes AINA and the Catholic University of America article entitled "Disputing with Islam in Syriac" and so on. Hence, the article is cleaned up keeping the Encyclopedia of Islam references but removing the offending material. If you have a subversive agenda it is becoming noticeable; from your comments it is inappropriate to justify sourcing material from questionable sources in the name of 'academic discourse' - that is not the purpose of Wikipedia as has been stated. Please use only unbiased and unoffensive sources which are clearly available. There is an awful lot of "rubbish" (not my words) which has been inserted by people with an apparant anti-islamic agenda. Please adhere to due dacrorum. Thanks. Avenger786 (talk) 02:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I must butt in and protest at your removal of information. Of course a neutral article is going to have anti-Islamic material, its got CRITICISM!! Something that gets peoples' heads chopped off in some parts of this world but not in wikipedia my friend!!!Tourskin (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to voice your opinion in the discussion area. Elias Alucard is openly and clearly making ACADEMIC arguments about an anti-islamic position within the article. The section titled "in Christian polemics" is pure biased, non neutral POV pushing an anti-islamic agenda. The are NO references which support the anti-islamic view. On this basis any WIKI contributor can add negative and near-slanderous comments onto any biography on the basis that "it is a critical opinion". We are not here to voice polemics, only valid and relevant research. The LEADING historical work on Bahira is from Jami' al-Tawarikh.

A benchmark needs to be outlined which is the fair, reasonable and value of the criticism. Even Christians state that the Christian polemics argument against Bahira MAY NOT relate to Bahira himself as his identity is unverifiable. Essentially, the polemics argument is an attempt to discredit a monk who is well established as a historical figure in Islamic academic research and history. Elias is using a syriac anti-islamic bias and attempting to introduce zionist and islamaphobic sources and references.

It is acceptable and in fact a requirement to remove non-neutral POV / subversive and agenda based entries. Avenger786 (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You are adding in your own biased statements to fair criticism. Criticism cannot and will not be censured and I will enforce this. You cannot edit it back because me and Elias have the majority here. Tourskin (talk) 04:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism has not been removed it has been cleaned up. Unreferenced material or material from anti-islamic and zionist websites (as was overwhelmingly prevalent by EliasAlucard at the outset) has also been removed. Mention has been made of both the Islamic / historical view and the Apocolypse of Bahira. Please keep in mind that the Christian Polemic view is NOTHING to do with Bahira and is not directly relevant as it relates to the 'is Islam from Christianity / is the Quran from the Bible' argument.

This is NOT the forum for that academic argument. The question is about Bahira the Monk and the historical references relating to this individual are listed here. Other anti-islamic and biased propaganda should be taken elsewhere. The article is reverted to a neutral POV. Avenger786 (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verification#Burden_of_evidence Although it should not need re-inforcing, the biased opinion removed breaches NPOV and also breaches verifiability, reliability and questionable sources guidelines. Avenger786 (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no subversive agenda. These sources are the only sources I could find for now. It's not like I have access to state archives loaded with historical documents concerning Bahira. Most of the sources I brought to the article at an early stage (AINA) were rejected because they're not scholarly sources. But these new sources, certainly are. Now, you as a Muslim may not like the message of these sources, but they certainly pass WP:RS and they should be included in the article. If you feel offended over the inclusion of them, that's not a problem of Wikipedia. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 13:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

To have some balance, Syriac sources should be presented. The earliest recorded reference to Baḥira is in an eighth-century Syriac text. I believe that the earliest Islamic source is Ibn Isḥaq in the ninth century. However, the consensus tends to agree that an Islamic source predates the Syriac one. Although some of the Christian texts are highly polemical — that is anti-Islamic — there is a great variety in their approach, and some are far more descriptive. These sources are of historical import and should not be excluded because they conflict with the Islamic sources. A balanced review of all sources should be given with the acknowledgement that the legend of Baḥira has been employed to differing ends by different chroniclers. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Gareth, I could not agree more. The main person who is posting polemics and from questionable sources is Elucard. The revised and cleaned up article presents both sides of the argument in a neutral POV which is clearly not the case as with earlier drafts. Of course, there are Syrian / Assyrian types who want to forward an agenda or an anti-Islamic POV which should be avoided as best as possible.

I have used a wider variety and better quality and verifiable sources. Elucard has not. Both the Islamic position and the anti-islamic position has been forwarded SO FAR AS it relates to Bahira and the Apocrypha of Bahira which causes him to be rejected by many Christians. Such unfounded polemics like the reference to the Stigmata and so on are only forwarding an inaccurate view otherwise clothed in the terms of 'in the islamic tradition' which it clearly is not. The article as it has been cleaned and properly referenced is a far superior article, more balanced, more scholastic and more informative whilst offering both sides of the argument. Please keep the propaganda out. It was me who opposed the AINA references. The POV and bias is clear Elucard so please stop trashing this article. Many thanks. Avenger786 (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Discuss changes before making them. I'm new to this discussion, so enlighten me on what I've missed. Furthermoore, don't add pro-Islamic propaganda such as BAHIRA RECOGNIZES THE ISLAMIC PROPHET. We can figure this one out from the text. This is not about Islam, its about an Assyrian monk. Tourskin (talk) 05:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not too new Tourskin; maybe you should scroll up "You are adding in your own biased statements to fair criticism. Criticism cannot and will not be censured and I will enforce this. You cannot edit it back because me and Elias have the majority here. Tourskin (talk) 04:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)" I sense agents provocateurs in our midst. Neither are you new, and your personal bias has already been noted. In terms of improving the article, your point is taken and the best article so far with the best references and the least amount of bias will be re-instituted. This is about the significance of Bahira which falls in to two catagories - (1) the islamic historical significance (2) as a tool for Christianity to attack islam (polemics). They are argued unbiasly and with supporting and opposing relevant academic arguments. Using the article as a vehicle for promoting 'Syrianism' attacks on Islam are not allowed. Similarly, the zionist and anti-Islamic propaganda listed by your friend Alucard has already been criticised and removed. Please stop trolling.Avenger786 (talk) 04:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You need to learn how to speak in a kind manner here in Wikipedia. Your edits seem to be very disruptive and unhelpful too. Chaldean (talk) 05:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What I meant by new is that I briefly read the above comments, and left more often than anyone else here in this discussion did. You fail to understand that even if the source savagely attacked Islam, it is still legitimate if it is of historical importance. A fair and balanced view means one which includes all sources, not one in which you are pleased with. Do not call me a troll, your own constant editting and time spent here contrasts poorly with my own impressive contributions in Byzantine and Assyrian history. As a Roman Catholic, I am prepared to admit that the Roman Church has made many stupid errors. Draw yourself away from personal attacks, and look to the main argument here for you have none in removing the sources. Tourskin (talk) 05:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The Removal of Misinformation Thank you for your comments. My objections are to biased and unreferenced sources entering this article. There is no basis for the 'stigmata' story. Your friend, EliasAlucard has written a whole passage and then referenced the EI; the actual reference merely represents the islamic objection to the theory that Prophet Muhammad 'learned' Christian teachings from Bahira. The rest of the passage is mere bunkum. If any right minded person looks at the history of this article, the 'syrian-christian-fundamentalist' lobby have continually made baseless and unreferenced commentary, sourced from anti-islamic and zionist propagandists... where there was no substance to much of the comments. The current article is balanced, NPOV, referenced and has the misinformation removed. Can we agree which aspects should be kept in and which removed so that in the spirit of Wikipedia we can approach a fair solution. I can see little or nothing objectionable in the current article. If you or your associates / syriac peers can please list the aspects which are in contention, we can cease this nonsense of back and forth and write a definitive article. I have listed the objections to the propagandists version, now please list any objections to this article. Thanks. Avenger786 (talk) 03:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

May I once more remind you to cease your aggressive language. Silly words, such as "Zionism", "Fundamentalism" and "Syrianism" should not be used in this argument. I salute your request for a concensus. However, I must take a wiki-break since I am about to start my university exams. I will return after 14 days. Until then, this issue is unresolved. I will call upon you so that we can reach an agreement. Since Chaldean and I share a similar viewpoint on these matters, then any decision reached between the two of you whilst I am gone has my vote. Farewell for now. Tourskin (talk) 05:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Improved Article

The article is much improved.

More NPOV as per WP guidelines, better Burden of Evidence, less biased sources and far more extensively researched and valid references.

Dead / unlinked and invalid references removed and replaced with upto date cogent sources. Majority views have superceded unreferenced and unverifiable minority reportage.

Avenger786 (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks pretty biased. It says that the monk recognised Mohammed as the last prophet of god, which is pretty debatable and not supported by all sources. Also it describes Islamic views as "tradition" and Christian historical sources as "polemic". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.114.162 (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Gnostic Nasorean and Nestorianism

Nestorian Orthodox Church was a now extinct denomination of christendom. Gnostic Nasoreans was an unrelated judaic religious group , older authors confounded everytimes to these groups by their sounding similar names. Bahira was according to more recent researches a Gnostic, no a Nestorian one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.93.141.163 (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Religious terms violates No Neutral Point of view

Use from SAW and PBUH in references to Muhammad, removal from images of muhammad, and to term him as Prophet out of context is a partialized point of view. This is identical to use "Our Lord" when talking on Jesus Christ. Wikipedia is secular, no a Dawa or missionary institution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.93.141.163 (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Another point regarding this article: Referencing the Encyclopedia of Islam should be avoided as it is tertiary source. (Encyclopedias don't make great sources).1812ahill (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bahira. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060716191151/http://syrcom.cua.edu/hugoye/Vol3No1/HV3N1Griffith.html to http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol3No1/HV3N1Griffith.html

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) 19:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)