Talk:Islamic view of Moses

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Islam
Islam Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

It would be sensible to include references to which sura is being described, every couple of paragraphs or so. The reader can't tell what of this legend is actually incorporated in the Koran (Qur'an) and what is the legend that has developed round it. Wetman 14:11, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I strongly agree. 29 Jan 06

Contents

[edit] About Musa's death.

There is no single verse in Quran that states that Musa went to a mountain and never came. Quraan didn't mention his death, but according to Prophet Muhammed's talks, Mussa was confronted by the angel of death who at that time appeared when he was about to take people's souls, since Musa was strong, he beat the angel of death, and the angel went without taking Musa's soul.

Then God told Musa to put his hand on a goat's skin, and the number of goat hairs his hand will cover will be the number of years he will live, but then Musa chose to be near God, and he chose to die. Since then, the Angel of death is invisble.

This is the Islamic story of Musa's death, and I am sure of it, so plz change the info on the page. thx

[edit] Pharoah giving up?

The claims about the first borns of Egyptians dying, the son of the Pharoah dying and Pharoah giving up his defiance is unsubstantiated in Islam as far as I know. If nobody comes up with references I am going to delete them. --Abdousi 05:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I also noted that, so I deleted it. 29 Jan 06

[edit] Musa/Moses

I added a section "Musa in Judao-Christian thought" because... well, this should link back to Moses, the Christian version with a little blurb as that article links here. Granted, I think 95+% of the editors here know him as Moses but, I don't think this should be only about Islamic thought... and yet Moses be about Mostly Christian and then link here... does that seem right? This is primarily Musa from Islamic thought but from this perspective we acknowledge that Christians and Jews are part of this tradition as well. Does that seem sensible? gren グレン 08:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Does this need a separate article?

It seems to me that, unlike the case with Jesus/Isa, the Muslim view of Moses/Musa is virtually identical to the Judeo-Christian view, except that they use different names. Would not a brief section in the Moses article outlining Muslims views, and where they differ (if at all) from Judeo-Christian views, be sufficient? As it stands, the story outlined here is virtually identical to the story given in Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, and in later Jewish legendology. john k 19:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it should remain separate at least for now until the factual errors are corrected. (of which there are still quite a few and I am not sure if this is all Islamic or rather as you pointed out taken from the Bible, which is, of course, to some extent, also a valid Muslim source). In the end one can see how similar the stories are.
I belive this articel must be merged with article moses! i see no reason why it should be seperate! all arabic texts i know (old testement/bible/quran) use the same name (موسى) which is translated to moses, by all AFAIK. the stories are very similar and there is no dought that they all talk about the same person.--Mayz 02:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
It needs a separate article because there is much more information that can be added. Stories of Musa's life are recounted more in the Qur'an than any other prophets and do differ from Christian and Jewish stories. This article should have more information, not merged. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that there are enough differences between the Biblical and Qur'anic accounts that these articles should remain seperate. This also allows more scope for adding later interpretations, cultural references, art and literature. Each article can refer the reader to the other for comparison. Tom Harrison Talk 22:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I still belive this article should not exist! the figure "Moses" has an article, other articles shouldnt be variants of how the name is written! so if a separete article about moses in islamic texts can be written, and cant possibly be merged with the main article due to its size, then so must be it titled, ie, moses in islamic texts or moses in islam or somthing similar!--Mayz 00:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Moses in Islam

This article ought be retitled "Moses in Islam", with a prominent link back to the Moses article across the top.

Along with reconciling it to the standards of an English-language article, it would bring in a broader mix of editors, and help curb blatant POV such as "Musa is a prophet of Islam", "the stories of his life", etc. Also, this article could benefit from more copy editting; more traffic can only help the situation.Timothy Usher 07:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

How is "Musa is a prophet of Islam" POV? Surely it's clear from the context that this describes the religious view of Muslims. Or am I missing your point? Tom Harrison Talk 15:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
We cannot say that Moses (here called "Musa") was a Muslim, which is entailed by calling him, without qualification, a "Prophet of Islam".
There was no qualifier before I'd added one. The only context to which you could be referring (unless I'm missing something which is possible) is the mere fact of its appearance in this article rather than in Moses - which pretty much proves my point about it being a POV fork, at least in its current title/version.
The very title of the article, besides being inappropriate for an English-language encyclopedia, is unacceptably POV - we cannot say he was a prophet in the title (even though you and I might agree on this point). It also violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles).Timothy Usher 21:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I hadn't seen the style page for Islam-related articles. Certainly we'll need to follow that, unless there's a very important reason to deviate. The article is in a sense a POV fork, but it's a real-world POV fork, caused by differing views about Moses. Wikipedia didn't create the fork. To me, 'prophet of Islam' means Muslims regard him as a prophet. "Muslims believe Musa to be one of the prophets of Islam" looks fine. I'd like to avoid 'purported' stories if we could. As far as the title, maybe, 'Musa (Islamic prophet)'? Tom Harrison Talk 01:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, purported was unnecessary.
However, "Musa (Islamic prophet)" is even worse than the current title. The question is whether Moses was an Islamic prophet, which implies that he was a Muslim. This is not factually accurate, as being a Muslim entails not only monotheism, but also acceptance of Muhammad as God's messenger.
What this is all about, in the Qur'an and on wikipedia, is establishing the legitimacy of Islam's claim to Abrahamic succession by retroactively declaring previous historical figures to have been Muslims, and in the process delegitimizing Judaism and Christianity.Timothy Usher 02:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I see this page as describing the Muslim understanding of Moses. We may say things like 'Musa was a prophet' or 'Musa was a proto-Muslim'(apologies for incorrect terminology), as long as we make clear that they are statements of Islamic religious belief. I'm open to considering other suitable page titles. I'd like to hear what others think of your suggestion, "Moses in Islam." Tom Harrison Talk 13:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Timothy has tried this before and I said no. I agree with Tom about the title and removing "Muslims believe". The name Musa is a name like Moses is. Due to length, and the fact that this article describes an important prophet of Islam means that the article can be named Musa. Moses in Islam would mean "Moses in Christianity", "Moses in Judaism". Musa on his own is a prophet of Islam and important enough to have an article.
Also about the "Muslims believe", since the article already says "prophet of Islam" it makes it clear that it's an Islamic belief.--a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It won't be clear at all. If we do things the way you suggest, many readers will be very confused.
  • We cannot have a "POV article" wherein POV is declared on top (and only interpretatively/implicitly), and what follows is hence exempt from WP:NPOV guidelines.
  • Please see the discussion on Talk:Isa to fully appreciate the strangeness of the "Musa on his own..." claim. There is no "Musa on his own..." What differs isn't who the ideas are about (Moses vs. Musa), but who holds them.
  • Nor is it quite the case that "The name Musa is a name like Moses is." - they are both names, but one is standard English and the other is Arabic.Timothy Usher 20:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


Anonymous editor, you cannot say Moses is considered a prophet of Islam without qualification, as the vast majority of non-Muslims do not consider him so. Merely mentioning Islam does not suffice, much less does the use of Arabic translations in place of standard English. Can there be anyone who believes that Moses was not a prophet of Islam, but Musa was?

Please read and respond to this point before reverting again.Timothy Usher 21:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether someone has an opinion of if he's a prophet of Islam or not doesn't matter. The point here is that he is a prophet in Islam. I would agree with you if it just said that without saying the religion. But I changed it to "in Islam" to make it clear. I think that solves it. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "It's like saying that "Christians believe that Jesus is the central figure of Christianity"
No, it's not. To say Moses is a Prophet of Islam is to suggest that he was a Muslim. That's POV, as I imagine you're well aware.
  • "Whether someone has an opinion of if he's a prophet of Islam or not doesn't matter."
Sorry, but it does. I don't believe Moses (or Musa, as you'd have it) to be a Prophet of Islam. Adminship doesn't give you the right to arbitrarily declare other POV's irrelevant. See WP:NPOV.
  • "I would agree with you if it just said that he is a prophet without saying the religion."
It does that as well, in the title of this article.Timothy Usher 21:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Once again you are assuming bad faith and I was trying to solve the problem peacefully. It's exactly the same thing as saying that Jesus is the central figure of Christianity. Your argument that people will now think that he's Muslim is ridiculous. Also I changed it to "considered a prophet in Islam" so you wouldn't have a problem with it now. Check the article before discussing the older edit. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
No, it doesn't solve it. You cannot unilaterally declare an issue solved. The only thing that "solves" it - for you, for now - is WP:3RR, as you are well aware. Shame about the readers, and the article.
Re faith - when a Muslim editor does *exactly* what I'd been advocating re translations, you agree it's good faith, but did not offer me the benefit :of the same presumption. Did you think this wouldn't be noticed?Timothy Usher 21:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
What? --a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
See your talk page.Timothy Usher 21:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
"Yet when I advocated the same changes, you weren't so sure.Timothy Usher 21:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)"
What? --a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] impressive

who ever went and got all those page references did a great job. very helpful.