Talk:Kitáb-i-Íqán
 | Bahá'í Faith Start‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Religion Start‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
The Interlingua page doesn't yet exist but is linked to by ia:theologia. If I spoke Interlingua I'd write a stub for it. Andrewa 23:54, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
revelation
is there a policy that a NPOV requires denying the revelation of Bahá'í scripture?--Smkolins 19:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Only Baha'is believe that Baha'u'llah's writing is revelation. It cannot be stated as fact, since it's a Baha'i POV. -- Jeff3000 19:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- That approach - what Baha'is state of themselves - is not covered by any statement of policy I have found except in the simple formulation. I have found a comment but it is about a religionist objecting to what others say of the religion - not what the religion says of itself. I return to the question - "it cannot be stated as a fact" is not all there is to the policies I can find - for example "There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people on board who know about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page..." from the same FAQ page - "true or useful" appear to be alternates to facts. At best I can see a case for changing revealed to accepted by Baha'is as revealed - making it written is insufficient and misleading fact in relation to a Holy scripture.--Smkolins 20:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- This has already been talked about a lot in both the Christian, Baha'i and Islamic pages. One cannot state that something is revelation as fact, or state that someone is Prophet, or state something is Holy. For example, read the discussion that deals with the capitalization of pronouns in both the Baha'i and Islamic pages. Also, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles) states that one cannot use Prophet Muhammad, because the "P" is stating prophethood as fact, when most Christians do not accept it. The only neutral way to do it is use Muhammad. Similar statements apply for all other claims such as a book being Holy, or someone being a Martyr. These are all views from one point of view. Another article is that the article on Jesus is not named "Jesus Christ" because it is a Christian view that he was the Messiah. Remember this is an encyclopedia article about the Iqan, not a Baha'i perspective on the Iqan. Write from the view of someone who does not believe in Baha'u'llah. For a non-Baha'i, the Kitab-i-Iqan was written. It is the only neutral term. -- Jeff3000 20:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- That approach - what Baha'is state of themselves - is not covered by any statement of policy I have found except in the simple formulation. I have found a comment but it is about a religionist objecting to what others say of the religion - not what the religion says of itself. I return to the question - "it cannot be stated as a fact" is not all there is to the policies I can find - for example "There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people on board who know about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page..." from the same FAQ page - "true or useful" appear to be alternates to facts. At best I can see a case for changing revealed to accepted by Baha'is as revealed - making it written is insufficient and misleading fact in relation to a Holy scripture.--Smkolins 20:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I just added a lot of material to the article regarding content and date of composition. The large block quotation from Shoghi Effendi may be on the long side, but it is a useful summary of the Iqan's content from the point of view of the translator. RHStockman 05:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
POV
- Shoghi Effendi, who retranslated the work into superb English in 1931, referred to the work as follows:
The qualifier 'superb' is POV and should be removed. MKV 01:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Introductory Paragraph
- One source states that it can be regarded as the "most influential Koran commentary in Persian outside the Muslim world," because of its international audience.
The fact that this highly qualified opinion is the opinion of a Baha'i ought to be noted in the text, or perhaps the remark ought to be omitted altogether for POV reasons. For instance, the phrase might better be worded as follows: One Baha'i source ... Kaweah (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have done this now. Wiki-uk (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Subservience to Azal
Please provide justification that the Iqan specifically includes subservience to Azal. While some anti-Baha'i commentators have stated that Baha'u'llah's reference to "the Mystic Source" in paragraph 278 is Azal, this is a real stretch and is, from a Baha'i perspective quite blasphemous, not merely because of Azal particularly, but because the Mystic Source is clearly God and not another human being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.147.241.132 (talk • contribs) 2007-12-14 (UTC)
This may be a bone of contention, but it cannot be resolved by asserting that a statement is blasphemous according to a particular POV. In any case, the text in question appears to have been stricken without comment. Kaweah (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)