This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Buraq article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Doctorman (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
What sources are out there that provide description of a buraq?
One source I know of is the sahih hadith (traditions of the prophet Muhammad, with reliable Isnad). These texts are online and can be searched at "USC MSA's website"
Mel, why are you so attached to this Leon Uris quote? I imagine that other people are going to have the same reaction that I do, as in "Why the heck are you quoting HIM?" It detracts from the article. Zora 11:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You make a good point, Mel. Bu-but, shouldn't said "well-known work" be from a body of work/knowledge that is from the relevant or a close field of study? I mean if, for example, we quote a work by Robert A. Heinlein on, say, Lewis Carrol to provide basic information because the writer appears in one of his works of fiction, would that be useful?
Let me see if I can find something that fits your criteria—can anyone else?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 18:50, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
It strikes me as kind of bizarre too - it's a bit like quoting Tawfiq al-Hakim for a description of Galatea. Still, within an "In art" subsection, I can see it having a place - although including a quote from such a comparatively minor work seems premature when the article still omits much better-known descriptions of it (like Rumi) . - Mustafaa 05:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
And in the intro; "described as a ..." described by who?
Maybe what we need to do is have sections on what the Islamic canon (Quran and Hadith) describe it as, and how it is represented in literature and art...
Just a thought.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 18:52, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
I've noticed in a few articles the use of italics instead of quotations marks to mark quotations. It always looks odd to me; is there any reason for it? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(I should start by saying that I think that the article is looking much better — and if I hadn't mentioned it before, the illustration is beautiful.) It seems to me that the general "mythology stub" looks incongrouous here; what does a Welsh dragon have to do with the article? It would be nice to add some more specific mythology stubs, but I don't know what would be suitable as an illustration (perhaps none, or the Arabic for "myth"?), nor as a title ("Middle Eastern-myth-stub" seems to be too geographically specific and vague at the same time; would "Islamic-myth-stub" be acceptable?). Any suggestions or comments? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
File:Ift32.gif | This Islam-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
As this article is likely to remain scant on much reliable information, it's going to be rather short, and hence should be merged into Isra and Mi'raj. ---Mpatel (talk) 09:54, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
See Talk:Isra and Mi'raj for my opinion. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Um, I think I agree with Mel. If someone runs across the word Buraq and tries to look it up on Wikipedia, the info should be under Buraq. The article is a good size, it seems to me. Zora 11:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
I've heard people say this is BS...this almost sounds like the Xenu article..a joke? Is it or is this for real, and this is a serious question, because I've seen Muslims say this isn't something to be taken as something real.--Jerluvsthecubs 01:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
About the part with Abraham - it's not true.. I'm Jewish myself and I've learnt about Abraham a lot - and that's just not true... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.160.252 (talk) 08:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Someone added a note to the effect that the element boron was named after the buraq. My Arabic is close to non-existent, but I think that borax and buraq are different words.
البوركس borax
البُراق buraq
Merge. That other article was created by someone who didn't know the ordinary spelling of buraq in English. We should leave a redirect so that anyone else with the same notions of spelling well be led to the buraq article. Zora 00:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
As a "Burak" myself, I have edited this section to mention the common use of this name for male children, seemingly in Turkey only. I have not observed this to be a widespread practice among Muslims at large, but cannot make a substantial claim due to the lack of a credible source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dburak (talk • contribs) 00:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I don't think the creature Mrs. Whatsit becomes is a Buraq; it's certainly never said to be one. 98.199.17.3 (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
When the article refers Barack Obama as an example of the pop culture impact of Al-Buraq it seemed incorrect to me: isn't Barack a unrelated (tough with origin in the same seemitic root BRK) arabic name? Lususromulus (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
In many representations of the Buraq, the creature has a human head and neck, yet retains the horse body and winged thighs. From the excerpts of the Qur'an this page shows, I never saw anything about the creature containing any sort of human body parts. Could anyone explain where these depictions of the Buraq got their influence from to give the beast a human head? Kostantino888Z (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
al-Masjid al-Haram to al-Masjid al-Aqsa,[1] is what I put in and was removed stated that I put original research, while you can see the reference directly to Quran Quran does not say Mecca and jerusalem can some one fix this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorman (talk • contribs) 04:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
References
common interpretation of those verses BY WHO? there was no reffrence as to Jerusalem/mecca. Direct Quote from primary source is better than interpretation by no source. and since when we can not directly quot from bible, torah, quran? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorman (talk • contribs) 18:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
How can we request that prople with no account do not edit an article? people just change their IP and vandalize the article
I took time to make sure everything I put has a source if it is missing a source please notify me in the talk and I will add it or fix it.
Removing half the article just because you do not like it is unacceptable and people who do that should be blocked.--Doctorman (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
Huon why did you remove the rest of the article? they were well referenced. Furthermore you do understand that you just over ruled Quran the main book of Islam with a random book that has collected stories and interpretations as reference? and the book you are referencing to does not open up to that page on google books.
I have left the part that you added with reference and reverted the removal of the rest of the text. --Doctorman (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
Huon you removed EVERYTHING again. you do not care about the source or not. if you don't like it you just vandalize the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorman (talk • contribs) 00:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your pointsHuon: Here are mine, the article starts by trying to connect Buraq to Jerusalem's Al-Aqsa Mosque as part of the story so adding the info about Jerusalem Al-Aqsa being built after death of muhammad and this story is relevant to show perhaps Burqa did not actually go to Jerusalem Al-Aqsa maybe it went to another place called Al-Aqsa or that Al-Aqsa is not a place but stating a "far place".
as for Abraham: one you introduce Abraham as a character, it become relevant that there are opninons that said he went to mecca and others that do not. you can not just introduce facts one sided. if you want to remove the whole Abraham paragraph that is fine but just to remove parts of it that is not fair to the reader.
If you want to remove the building info on al-Aqsa is fine if you remove the whole thing but just to chose what sounds right is not fair to the reader.
While Burqa is an islamic figure not all the reader are all followers of ISlam and come from different back ground.
Regarding Temple mount I see refrence to Cobb, p. 14, can you explain what that is, is that a book? article? --Doctorman (talk) 02:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
Pluto2012 any reason you reverted the edits to the wrong version?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorman (talk • contribs) 03:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
"began to be referred to as the Al-Buraq Wall (by Muslims). It was given this name because it was said that Muhammad had tied the Buraq to that wall during his Night Journey. Cobb, Gary L. (2007). Three Religions One Temple Mount. Xulon Press. p. 14. ISBN 9781602665583.
I have looked at the Three Religions One Temple Mount, cobb book and the content placed here as reference are taken out of content. Cobb is saying that such claims by some muslims has no Historical base. to Qoute him in the opposite way is deceiving the Wikipedia readers.--Doctorman (talk) 12:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
Fixed the quote from Halkin, Hillel (January 12, 2001). ""Western Wall" or "Wailing Wall"?". Jewish Virtual Library. exact copy paste from that website.--Doctorman (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
According to any non-Islamic source, the quote here about Abraham is wrong. Just because you found a source who says otherwise it doe snot make it factually true. any bible or Torah that you check clearly states Abraham lived with his wife Sarah in Canaan (current day Hebron) and Hagar was daughter of Egyptian Paroh that was Sara's servant. Torah- Genesis chapter 16. While it is an uncomfortable fact for Muslims to accept it does not mean that you can change the facts in Wikipedia, I mentioned before and I will continue to do so. Once you introduce the name of Abraham al facts about him is fair game and you can not pick and chose the one you like. If you want to remove Abraham topic all together I am okay with that and sounds fair but just to mention his name and present one side of story that is not acceptable.Doctorman (talk) 02:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
I have looked at the source for the Abraham section in the "Journeys in Holy Lands by Firestone", that part is also taken out of content as p117 of that book the writer is listing 3 different version of the story according to Islamic sources. to take one sentence that is in obvious conflict with other views and present that as the only Islamic view is deceiving the Wikipedia reader. Furthermore to ignore major direct sources and post a controversial comment from an unpopular book shows that the editors of this wikipedia page trying to hide facts and push their own views and what appeals to them, which is not a surprise. Obviously in the same source the book of "Journeys in Holy Lands by Firestone" I can find comments exactly opposite of what is posted in the article. I do understand that Islamic sources have trouble accepting Haggar was servant of Sarah that was later repelled from Abraham's home with her son Ishmael, and the fact that only Genealogy of Sarah's Son Issac was followed in the literature and Ishmael seams to be lost and not mentioned any more. However that does not mean that Wikipedia can serve to one view instead of presenting the facts. Again I know that this will never be put to bed and even if we agree to make any changes to this article in the TALK page the account-less IP war will keep turning this page in a useless biased page that it is now.--Doctorman (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hehe " unless you can find Jewish traditions about Buraq" there is barely any reliable source for Buraq in Islam, certainly not in Quran. I hear your argument but I do not agree, you are saying this is islamic topic so only islamic sources, the problem with your argument is that, you are introducing non islamic sources into this, Abraham, Jerusalem, Western wall. Furthermore there is contradictions and argument about all these topics in Islamic sources and the ones presented here are hand picked and deceiving if presented alone.
I have learned not to look at the wikipedia as a reliable source specially on topics that are politically charged like almost anything islamic.Doctorman (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
That is not my point, the islamic version is the only one that has completely changed and goes against everyone else, even against some of the earlier Islamic sources.
Jews & Christians stand by these facts together because they are explicitly mentioned in the Torah. Muslims say they believe in the Torah but then they do not agree with what is in it, claiming it has changed while the oldest found Torah in the world from 800-1000 CE I think is the same exact same torah that is in the use today, there is not a single Torah that says a single letter different from another one. That make the Torah the most reliable source for any historic fact. Yet I see muslims here try to bring proof from an unreliable article written 100-200 years ago about 4000 years ago Abraham. all these articles referred to here by islamic source against the Torah have no valid, reliable source and are at best the writers quote of someone else. Problem is that people read these pages thinking they are reliable, people who are actually looking for truth and facts. Again as I said these pages will never be reliable as long as they are open to be edited by just an IP address and even then...--Doctorman (talk) 03:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
Pluto2012 wow, that is just a new one... Abraham never existed! and you are here now because you care about a nonsensical story that never happened?!--Doctorman (talk) 10:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
I understand you point of view now. While to you these are stories with no real meaning to most people history means something, perhaps you should mention VERY clearly that these are merely a very weird and completely untrue story. The problem is that Most people do not believe that to be the case. Adam & Eve, Noach, Abraham, Isac, Jacob, Moses etc. are just as much part of the real history as Abraham lincoln or other dead figures in history. You can not dismiss it by saying it never happened. There are lessons to be learnt from history and there are consequences because of history. Again here you are saying this whole thing is fictional creature which is not presented as fictional nor by the article nor by the sources used. It is pointing to the real things in current day like western wall and adding Islamic claims to it with real consequences. Referring to real people in history and presenting as real history but with fictional untrue detail. let me remind you muslims kill just for a wrong picture of Muhammad, or comical note about him. You must think twice before presenting fictional stuff as true facts without CLEARLY marking it as such. --Doctorman (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough, as long mythology/mythical is stressed, then there is nothing to argue, it is a myth and no facts could be attached.--Doctorman (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
I question the use of "the Buraq" on this page. The name in Arabic indeed uses the definite article, but that is a common feature of Arabic names that makes little sense copied directly into an English article. I.e., in the case of names, the Arabic article and the English article do not have the same meaning. We never call Muammar Gaddafi "the Gaddafi" even though his name was actually "al-Gaddafi"; it is the same here. Looking in scholarly literature, most sources use "al-Buraq" or "el-Buraq" and a few use "Buraq". I see few or no uses of "the Buraq" except as a reference to the Western Wall. I'll change it unless there is a good argument not to. Zerotalk 23:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Buraq. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
The picture about the statue, is as I know not Buraq but another "flying horse" entity. Sure this is Buraq?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
The article's intro says Buraq is a "magical creature in Islamic mythology". The hadith article has a section about categories of validity for hadith. Which category do the ones mentioning Buraq fall into? The night journey is mentioned in the Quran, suggesting it is part of mainstream Islamic belief. But are the aspects of the story involving Buraq regarded as historical by modern Muslim scholars (and the wider Muslim public), or are they seen as mythological embellishments on the night journey? Beorhtwulf (talk) 13:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Given the long history of Arabian horsemanship, is there any tradition of naming horses Buraq, or would this be regarded as somehow blasphemous, like Muhammad the teddy bear?Beorhtwulf (talk) 13:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
No, there is no tradition of naming horses buraq, and thats why the common word for steed was forgoten and became confused with barik (pale,whitehish,light)and now that is the consensus, even though the grammar betrays buraq as
a loan word. Bare/bare-nar/bare-gar is the only form taken to mean mount in persian only, and barq/buraq is from that mount only with the (false)meaning of lighting, but as lighting One of Agha Khans horses was named that, and i once
saw a video of a horse named al-buraq that had been taught to "pray", so i dont see what controversy there could be, besides that wich it does not mean lighting. رعد, ra'd is the correct arabic term for lighting.
Asawiraq/asabarag/Furusiyya are the arabic forms of horserider,with the third meaning horsemanship/knighthood. bOrag-dukht is a girls name and "Bordan"(infinite) "bord"(past stem)" bar"(present) "borde(past particle) barande(present particle) is the word with the meaning of bear/bearing/moving ( the word relates to "lets go/on the road/going") Have Fun! The lighting/the flash is a perfect name for a horse, just dont misspell it as Al-Baqarah and you can be at ease. And yes, in the qouran The angel gabriel is read to have been said to muhammed that he should Ride the lighting, and presenting al-buraq with a wordplay that makes no sense unless it means mount. Just some of the modern ignorance of the Quran , wich there are many more.Bennanak88 (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Prophet muhanmad didnt describe buraq's face He described its size and color He never said that he gpot the face of a human Please fix this 197.2.211.72 (talk) 08:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
why did you remove buraq art representations ? making this page less and less interesting than the previous page ? SERGIO GAUCI (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply