Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2018 June 16
| Humanities desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < June 15 | << May | June | Jul >> | June 17 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
June 16 edit
Muhammad edit
Which religion did he come from before Islam religion was created? 123.108.246.27 (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- By descent Muhammad belonged to the Quraysh from Mecca who were polytheists (kuffaar). Almost everyone in Mecca were polytheists, that is, there were no Jews in Mecca (contrary to, say, Yathrib). However I don't know (and don't recall reading anywhere, though I'm no expert) that Muhammad himself had ever practiced polytheism. Now what I've just stated is the historically informed Western view. But ideologically Islam propounds another view. According to Islam any human being is born a Muslim and stays that way unless the family or circumstances turn them into something else (in which case they may "return" to Islam if they choose by converting, or, as Muslims say, reverting, uttering the Shahada and so on). In the Muslim view Muhammad did not "invent" Islam and Islam was not created. It'd always been the original religion of humanity that Adam, Abraham, etc. belonged to. So it is possible that, if it can't be shown that Muhammad actually practiced the polytheism practiced by his family, according to Islam, as he was born a Muslim he never ceased to be one. Basemetal 19:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- The article Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia may be of interest for the general background. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.75.224 (talk) 09:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed. In particular if the OP will search for "Muhammad" in the text of that article they'll get more interesting facts that will help them clarify the relationship of Muhammad and his relatives to the religions of pre-Islamic Arabia. Basemetal 12:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- Basemetal, where is this statement that everyone who has ever lived is born a Muslim to be found? Is it in the Qu'ran, Hadith, or elsewhere? 81.139.244.251 (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- It is a Hadith found in Sahih Muslim (maybe elsewhere too; just Google "Every child born Muslim"). Basemetal 15:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yet another piece of information that makes a mockery of the claims one often sees, including in Wikipedia, saying "There are X followers of religion Y in the world." HiLo48 (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- HiLo48, a mockery often seen on Wikipedia is assigning religion to newborns, infants, toddlers, and children in infoboxes and categories. Then again, one could say that having articles about them is a mockery in itself. Surtsicna (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- Religions deserve articles. They impact on a lot of people. But you're right, numbers of adherents should only include adults who have publicly stated they believe. No idea where would get such figures, but without them we should include no numbers at all. HiLo48 (talk) 08:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- We should follow what reliable sources say. If they count children we count children no matter how silly it might seem. Wikipedia is not in the business of sticking in our own opinions or original research. Dmcq (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- Agree that we have to follow reliable sources... the question is often which reliable sources to follow? Scholarly sources are best. Blueboar (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- If a source includes children in the number of believers in a religion, it's not reliable. HiLo48 (talk) 07:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- Religion is a complex mix of beliefs, traditions, values, rituals, etc. Children can believe or partake in many of those. To exclude children out of hand strikes me as taking a very narrow view of what religion (or believing in/following a religion) means. Iapetus (talk) 08:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- To include them is simply dishonest. Remember that "children" includes newborns. And I quite deliberately used the word "believers". Newborns are atheists. HiLo48 (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- Rubbish. Newborns don't fit into any system of beliefs or non-beliefs. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 09:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- In the sense that stones are atheist, maybe. Newborns seem to be preoccupied with other matters that denying the existence of the divine. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- To include them is simply dishonest. Remember that "children" includes newborns. And I quite deliberately used the word "believers". Newborns are atheists. HiLo48 (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- Religion is a complex mix of beliefs, traditions, values, rituals, etc. Children can believe or partake in many of those. To exclude children out of hand strikes me as taking a very narrow view of what religion (or believing in/following a religion) means. Iapetus (talk) 08:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- If a source includes children in the number of believers in a religion, it's not reliable. HiLo48 (talk) 07:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- Agree that we have to follow reliable sources... the question is often which reliable sources to follow? Scholarly sources are best. Blueboar (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- We should follow what reliable sources say. If they count children we count children no matter how silly it might seem. Wikipedia is not in the business of sticking in our own opinions or original research. Dmcq (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- Religions deserve articles. They impact on a lot of people. But you're right, numbers of adherents should only include adults who have publicly stated they believe. No idea where would get such figures, but without them we should include no numbers at all. HiLo48 (talk) 08:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- HiLo48, a mockery often seen on Wikipedia is assigning religion to newborns, infants, toddlers, and children in infoboxes and categories. Then again, one could say that having articles about them is a mockery in itself. Surtsicna (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yet another piece of information that makes a mockery of the claims one often sees, including in Wikipedia, saying "There are X followers of religion Y in the world." HiLo48 (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)