Diskussion:Abrahamitiske religioner

message: Erm, although I can't read Danish, I gather that it's saying Sikhism is an Abrahamic religion?  This is certainly not the case.  82.37.160.147 17. sep 2006 kl. 01:05 (CEST)
replies: text: Freely translated, the sentence is (in English): Currently the bahá'í and Sikhism are included, since these religions originates from Islam. Still incorrect? --Christian (apoltix) 17. sep 2006 kl. 01:10 (CEST)
replies: text: :I would translate sometimes instead of currently. The subject was discussed somewhere before I started the article but I can't find it right now. --Heelgrasper 17. sep 2006 kl. 01:27 (CEST)
replies: text: ::This is very incorrect.  Sikhism has much in common with Islam (for example the belief in a monotheistic diety that doesn't take human form) but it is actually a dharmic religion in most respects (non-exclusivity, reincarnation, karma etc.).  It is difficult to slot Sikhism in either abrahamic or dharmic categories (as it is often considered a syncretic religion), but it is most often considered a Dharmic religion.  Try a Google search in English. 82.44.254.162 19. sep 2006 kl. 20:19 (CEST)

text: ::Oh, and the Abrahamic religions have common traditions in the general stories of the Old Testament (e.g. Adam and Eve).  Sikhism *definately* does not have this in common.  Sikh writings have a considerable slant towards Hindu tradition (albeit disagreeing with much of what was taught) and Hindu-teriminology with Islam coming a distant second place. 82.44.254.162 19. sep 2006 kl. 20:22 (CEST)

text: :The origin for the inclusion here is, as far as I can tell, templates like Skabelon:Kristendom, where it's included as an abrahamic religion. If I remember correctly those templates where original made by Bruger:Olve. If you want to debate the topic he would be the guy to talk to. In particular since the norwegian Wikipedias follow the same principle and he seems to be the guy behind it there too. --Heelgrasper 19. sep 2006 kl. 20:36 (CEST)
replies: text: ::: I have reverted 82.44.254.162's edits to this page. The article says "Sikhism is sometimes considered abrahamic". If you wish to elaborate on that in an NPOV way, please do, but don't just blank it. I am not taking a stand on the issue, but changing a page to suit your own views in the middle of an on-going discussion is a no-go. Please document your views; this should be fairly easy. For example, there is no mention of Abrahamitic in the enwiki article. --Martin Manscher 17. okt 2006 kl. 09:05 (CEST)

text: ::I join Bruger:82.44.254.162 in wondering why Sikhism is listed as an Abrahamic religion. It is certainly not apparent why it should be so, as it does not seem to include the stories and concepts common to Abrahamic religions. Unless someone can put forth an argument why Sikhism should be included as an Abrahamic religion, I suggest that we strike it from those contexts. --Pinnerup 21. okt 2006 kl. 17:36 (CEST)
replies: text: ::: Please note that I did not take a stand on the issue, but reacted to the lacking wikiquette. As  for the issue, there is no mention of sikhism in the enwiki article. However, the two Norwegian articles (nynorsk and bokmål) mention sikhism as "partly building on the same traditions as these religions" ("bygger til dels på de tradisjonene som disse religionene bygger på."), but do not include sikhism as abrahamitic. So I agree that a re-write would be fair. --Martin Manscher 21. okt 2006 kl. 17:46 (CEST)

text: ::: I now edited the article and the relevant templates. English translation: "Also (list of religions) partly building on the same traditions as these religions, but are not considered abrahamitic." --Martin Manscher 21. okt 2006 kl. 18:12 (CEST)
replies: text: ::::I presume the pretext for calling a religion "Abrahamic" is some connection with the Old Testament and the story of Abraham and his descendants.  Sikhism does *not* recognise these stories any more so than it recognises mythological tales of any other religion.

text: ::::Sikhism may be presented as a syncretic mixture of Hinduism and Islam, but the concepts "borrowed" from Islam do not include Abrahamic stories (you could consider certain aspects to be loosely based on Islam - monotheism for example).

text: ::::I don't know why it has been classified as Abrahamic on here and on the Norwegian Wikipedia, but it is not in keeping with either Islamic views on Sikhism, Sikh views on Sikhism or scholarly views on Sikhism. I presume someone has read about the possible influences of Islam on Sikhism and thus classed it as possibly Abrahamic.  That's just simply the wrong assumption to make. 82.44.255.163 25. okt 2006 kl. 22:27 (CEST)

text: ::: It is not classified as abrahamitic here anymore. The article now mentions that sometimes it is considered abrahamitic, because of the elements from islam, but that the elements do not include the abraham stories, and that the classification as abrahamitic is wrong. --Martin Manscher 25. okt 2006 kl. 23:38 (CEST)

message: Efter seneste ændring siger artiklen:
replies: text: Mere perifert nævnes undertiden mandæismen og sikhismen på grund af et vist idéfællesskab eller slægtskab med den islamiske tradition.
Men så vidt jeg ved, har mandæismen ikke noget med islam at gøre? --Pinnerup 27. okt 2006 kl. 09:27 (CEST)

text: Det er baseret på de to ovenstående links til nowiki og nbwiki. :no:Mandeanisme nævner den som baseret på jødedommen, så jeg kan se det var en bommert at præcisere til islam - det var rettet mod sikhisme. Nogen rettede på et tidspunkt "mandeanisme" til "mandæisme", men om det er rigtigt ved jeg ikke. Se også :en:Mandeanism. --Martin Manscher 27. okt 2006 kl. 12:45 (CEST)
replies: text: :Det hedder i fagtraditionen mandæisme på dansk. Eller rettere - selve ordet "mandæisme" bruges sjældent, men man taler om "mandæerne". "Mandeanisme" i stedet lyder som en automat-oversættelse af en-Wikis begreb. Ordet "mandæer" kommer af latin mandaeus. I sådanne ord bliver sekvensen -ae- som regel indlånt til dansk -æ-, medens britisk engelsk bevarer -ae-. Amerikansk engelsk reducerer ofte dette til -e- — det er bl.a. derfor, at vi skriver "arkæologi", briterne "archaeology" og amerikanerne ofte "archeology". --Pinnerup 29. okt 2006 kl. 00:22 (CEST)
thread_title: Mandæisme og islam

message: Er der nogen speciel grund til, at det hedder "Abrahamitiske religioner"? Umiddelbart ville jeg mene, at "Abrahamiske religioner" ville være mere korrekt. På engelsk heder det jo "Abrahamic religions".
--Pwe 20. nov 2007, 12:24 (CET)
replies: text: En grund kunne være at ordet ikke er kommet fra engelsk, men fra tysk - også på svensk og norsk har man -it- med. --Palnatoke 20. nov 2007, 12:46 (CET)
replies: text: :Palnatoke har sikkert ret. En anden grund kunne være, at dansk synes at bruge endelsen -mitisk ved ord, der er indlånt fra semitiske sprog ("hamitisk", "semitisk", "sodomitisk"), medens -misk bruges ved ord indlånt fra latin eller græsk ("atomisk", "blasfemisk", "gnomisk"), men det er ikke noget helt gennemført princip. I sidste ende må det vel koges ned til, at "abrahamitisk" er mere udbredt på dansk end "abrahamisk" (jvf. Google). --Pinnerup 21. nov 2007, 01:08 (CET)
thread_title:  Abrahamitiske eller Abrahamiske?