Talk:Bahira

message: 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)
thread_title:  Muhammad accompanied by Ali ?! 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Final Changes

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Fair and Balanced

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Improved Article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gnostic Nasorean  and Nestorianism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Religious terms violates No Neutral Point of view 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified