Talk:Lot in Islam

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Historicity[edit]

As with any stories relating to religion, this is one that is taken from books like the Quran and Hadith, and may not be real history. Depends on your view really. DigiBullet 08:45, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Should this be moved to Luth?[edit]

Merge proposal[edit]

In my view, the Qur'anic character, Lut, is fully identified with the Biblical character Lot. The two sets of information should be linked. However, since Jewish and Christians traditions about Lot do not encmpass the traditions of the Qur'an, it would be best for Wikipedia to maintain two separate articles, but to include in each one a reference to the other.

My proposal:

Lot (person) will contain the undisputed views, while the two other versions will be sub-articles that the main article link to and will include the more specific views. This will link all articles together, remove the bias of one article having the prefered and only correc english title, and will also eliminate any confusion regarding mulitple persons. -striver

  • Oppose - I say merge them all. None of them is long enough to justify its own entry, but all of them together makes a nice article. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the Oppose - If this and Lot (Bible) are to be merged, under what title would that be? Would Lut redirect to Lot or visa verca? Either way I predict accusations of favouratism. It seems to me that the character of Lot receives attention solely due to the central role he and his family play in the tale of the destruction of Sodom. The Sodom and Gomorrah article is well written and covers Christian, Islamic, Jewish, and secular views. So this article and the Lot (Bible) article are inevitably going to be little "satellite articles", and I don't think the fact that they are both short is a sufficient reason to combine them. Dr algorythm 12:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, can i have more input on my proposal? I do agree that merging might not be a good idé.--Striver 09:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I would oppose any attempt to merge them, as there would be no neutral name. We have many short articles in wikipedia, and the separation allows the separate traditions to be read separately, but linked. William Quill 11:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taliban[edit]

The Taliban note seems out of place, but I did not remove it. --Error (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major revamp[edit]

As is obvious, a major chunk of the article contains direct cites of verses from the Glorious Qur'an. While the Qur'an IS considered to be the MOST authentic text on subjects it chooses to speak about, directly citing verses into WP doesn't help much to WP's goals as an encyclopaedia. I am thus re-vamping the article, (taking subject matter from my own contributions to Biblical narratives and the Qur'an) and hope to see positive edits from everyone else as well InshaAllah. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Islamic views on Abraham which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Abraham in Islam which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Islam[edit]

Why is the Bible repeatedly used as a source?!--عبد المؤمن (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about this article or another one? There are 29 different references in this article and 23 of those are from the Quran and 0 from the Bible. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Quran is a primary source, we should use reliable, published secondary sources in order to avoid original research. Rupert Loup (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate[edit]

According to the Bible, Sodom was destroyed because its inhabitants broke Jewish law by not being welcoming to foreigners. There is even disagreement over whether homosexuality is in the story at all. There are two tellings of the exact events but both agree with my first sentence. In light of this, is this article inaccurate in relation to Sodom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.192.35 (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS A PAGE ON ISLAM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.200.160 (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't scream, please. Debresser (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is true, but it's also technically inaccurate for similar reasons - the People of Lut were not destroyed due to homosexuality, even if Islamic Clerics state otherwise. It's an issue because "officially" it is the case, however as Islam is not a centralised religion, the Schools of Jurispudence are guidelines, not law. Most Muslims live by a mix of one or two, or one more loosely. 89.19.79.35 (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Check the monument[edit]

I would like someone to check the info under monument it is from a christian source i want someone to find a muslim source if there is one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.40.105.200 (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lookup Tables[edit]

I can't believe this doesn't link to a disambiguation page, LUT can mean any numbers of things, such as Lookup Tables or Lower Urinary Tract for that matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.74.220.32 (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Improve references[edit]

Can anybody find the specific reference inside the source indicated in this 2018 edit? Debresser (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 February 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lot in Islam → Lut (Quran person) – Per the article, the spelling is "Lut" not "Lot". Though the person is the same as the one spelled "Lot" in other contexts, it doesn't seem WP:NATDAB to use a mis-spelling with respect to the article's own context. Lut already directs here, so alternative is to move this article to that name...a different spelling is obviously an approved DAB method (with hatnotes). However, others have also mentioned here on talkpage that this subject might not be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this word. Therefore, I instead lean towards switching the Lut DAB to point to Lut (disambiguation) and moving this page to a "Lut ..." with some DAB term added. I filed Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 15#Lut because it's a semi-independent idea as part of this larger shuffling. DMacks (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose; current title is consistent with other Abrahamic figures "in Islam" articles, like Jesus in Islam, Abraham in Islam, Adam in Islam, and Noah in Islam. Lot is also the WP:COMMONNAME for this individual, and more WP:RECOGNIZABLE than Lut. BilledMammal (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION and WP:USEENGLISH. "Lot" is how this person is known in English, and a naturally disambiguated title is preferable. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per other editors, very clunky name proposal too. --Killuminator (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose a clunky name indeed. If a dab parenthetical should ever be desired, please keep it limited to "(Quran)", or more appropriately, "(Islam)". But the current title describes much better what the article is actually about, as do our other "X in Islam" articles, with which this one should be consistent. Finally, RS (I mean historians of Islam, religious studies scholars, etc.) use "Lot" not "Lut", also in the context of Islam (as they use the common English names for all Biblical figures, also in Islamic contexts). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per others. "Lot" is not a mis-spelling. Srnec (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/explanation The basis of this (admittedly-unrefined) proposal is that the article is titled "Lot..." and the lede sentence is "Lut...is a prophet of God in the Quran". Now obviously I elided some side-comments and qualifiers, but that's facially confusing and seems to be the emphasis a reader might find if one doesn't already know something about the topic. Feels like I'm either at the wrong article, or there's a typo or something. Obviously one should always read carefully to make sure one isn't skipping over an important detail, but equally one should write in a way that is needlessly unsettling to the reader. DMacks (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is because most or all of these 'X in Islam' articles are in a dismal state, written as they are by editors who regard them as legitimate POV-forks of the 'X' articles, in which it is okay to write from a religious/Islamic rather than from a scholarly/neutral point of view. The article should speak consistently about Lot and only mention once or twice that in Arabic this is Lūṭ. But this is only one small thing among a great many things that are wrong with this and other 'X in Islam' articles, and my impression is that competent and experienced editors have largely given up on them. I know I have after having been confronted one time too many with ignorant POV-pushers insisting that 'since this is about the Islamic figure, it should be written according to the Islamic view'. They just misunderstand the nature of the enterprise here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the article should use "Lot" throughout and just mention that "Lut" is the Arabic transliteration. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Consider changing the redirect...[edit]

Dasht-e Lut :: The Lut Desert, widely referred to as Dasht-e Lut, or the Lut. 2A00:23C7:CA0C:4F01:3874:BCF1:5D75:1BB3 (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lot_in_Islam&oldid=1213957532"