Talk:Abraham

Ibrahim

He is called Abraham in every religion that's mentioned except islam. Is Ibrahim not simply the Arabic version of Abraham? Why not call him Abraham all through? 2607:FEA8:FF01:4FA6:8C87:CEAF:6435:BDFA (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Inclusion of Abraham Lincoln hatnote

"This article is about the biblical figure. For the 16th president of the United States, see Abraham Lincoln. For the name, see Abraham (name). For other uses, see Abraham (disambiguation)."

Should Abraham Lincoln really be part of the hatnote? GrandDuchyConti 💜(talk) 04:12, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Deeply silly, 86'd it. Remsense 🌈 论 04:22, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Hebrew patriarch” and cross-tradition neutrality

The current lead describes Abraham as a “Hebrew patriarch.” This reflects a well-established Biblical/text-centered framing, found for example in Oxford Reference (“progenitor of the Hebrews and founder of Judaism”) and Encyclopædia Britannica (“first of the Hebrew patriarchs”). That framing has clear scholarly grounding and is not being disputed here. However, the lead sentence also presents Abraham as a figure shared by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. This raises a question of balance under Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Religion: whether a label drawn from one tradition’s terminology is the most neutral formulation in a sentence explicitly covering all three.

Evidence of differing encyclopedic conventions

Major reference works appear to follow at least two conventions: ‘’‘Biblical / text-centered framing’’’ — leading with Hebrew or Old Testament identity: ∙ Encyclopædia Britannica: “first of the Hebrew patriarchs and a figure revered by the three great monotheistic religions” ∙ Oxford Reference: “progenitor of the Hebrews and founder of Judaism” ‘’‘Cross-tradition framing’’’ — avoiding terminology specific to one corpus: ∙ World History Encyclopedia: “In Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Abraham is a venerated patriarch whose relationship with God provides the foundational story for God’s beneficial relationship with humanity” https://www.worldhistory.org/Abraham,_the_Patriarch/ ∙ Encyclopaedia Universalis (France): “l’ancêtre commun des Ismaélites et des Israélites” — “the common ancestor of Ishmaelites and Israelites” https://www.universalis.fr/encyclopedie/abraham/ ∙ Baidu Baike (widely used Chinese online reference work although generally considered unreliable on English Wikipedia): “犹太教、基督教、伊斯兰教共同尊奉的族长，被犹太民族与阿拉伯民族视为共同祖先” — “patriarch jointly revered by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; regarded as common ancestor by both the Jewish and Arab peoples” baike.baidu.com/item/亚伯拉罕/4295 ∙ Treccani (Italy’s national encyclopedia) uses this framing across two articles at different levels. Its standalone “Abramo” entry uses a genealogical framing: “primo dei patriarchi e capostipite del popolo ebreo e di quello arabo” — “first of the patriarchs and forefather of the Hebrew people and of the Arab people.” Its “Ebraismo” article, from a religious-historical perspective, broadens this further: Abraham is “il capostipite delle tre grandi religioni monoteistiche” — “the forefather of the three great monotheistic religions.” Neither entry defaults to “Hebrew patriarch” as its primary descriptor. https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/abramo/ https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/ebraismo/ These formulations address different questions — one genealogical (which peoples descend from Abraham?), one religious (which traditions originate with him?) — yet converge on the same conclusion: that Abraham is presented across traditions rather than primarily within one.

NPOV consideration

The issue is not that “Hebrew patriarch” is incorrect, but that it is drawn from one tradition’s internal vocabulary. In Islamic tradition, Abraham is primarily described as a prophet (نبي) and as Ibrahim, forefather of the Arabs through Ishmael — a framing in which “Hebrew patriarch” plays no role. When multiple well-attested framings exist across reputable reference works, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view suggests avoiding undue weight toward one of them in a lead sentence that explicitly covers several traditions. The Britannica formulation is instructive here: even while retaining “Hebrew patriarch,” it immediately adds the tri-faith dimension in the same breath, acknowledging the broader scope.

Context from other Wikipedia language editions

For context rather than as sources: other language editions often adopt cross-tradition or symmetrical formulations. The Aramaic Wikipedia describes Abraham as patriarch and prophet of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim religions; the Hindi Wikipedia leads with “patriarch of the Jewish people and great prophet of Islam”; the German Wikipedia’s tagline reads “Stammvater der Israeliten und der Araber”; and the French Wikipedia uses “patriarche et prophète des religions juive, chrétienne et musulmane.” This suggests variation in how different editorial communities approach the same question.

Proposed revision

One option that avoids privileging any single tradition while remaining encyclopedically precise:

‘‘Abraham is a foundational figure in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, venerated as a patriarch and prophet across these traditions. According to the Hebrew Bible, he is regarded as the ancestor of the Israelites through his son Isaac and of the Arabs through his son Ishmael.’’

This formulation: ∙ opens with the cross-traditional scope the article covers ∙ retains “patriarch” as a term recognised across traditions ∙ relocates the Hebrew-Bible-specific framing to the second sentence, where it functions as textual context rather than the defining label A more conservative alternative, following Britannica’s hybrid model:

‘‘Abraham is the founding patriarch of the Abrahamic religions — Judaism, Christianity, and Islam — and is regarded as the common ancestor of the Israelites and the Arabs.’’

Thoughts welcome, particularly from editors familiar with the article’s history and with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Religion. Medcape (talk) 11:45, 3 April 2026 (UTC) Medcape (talk) 11:45, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

There does seem to be room for a rewrite of some of this, my stab at it:

• Abraham (originally Abram) is regarded as the common progenitor of the Abrahamic religions. In Judaism, he is the first Hebrew patriarch, who began the covenantal relationship between the Jewish people and God; in Christianity, he is the forebear of Jesus and the spiritual ancestor of all Christians; and in Islam, he is a link in the chain of prophets that begins with Adam and culminates in Muhammad. Abraham is also revered in all other Abrahamic religions, including the Baháʼí Faith and the Druze faith. He is regarded as the ancestor of the Jewish people through his son Isaac and of the Arab people through his son Ishmael.

Mikewem (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, this looks good to me. The opening now frames Abraham in cross-traditional terms, and placing “first Hebrew patriarch” within “In Judaism…” addresses my earlier concern about neutrality in the lead.

Minor thought: would “a central figure in” work more smoothly than “common progenitor of,” or is there prior wording in the article history you’re aiming to retain? Medcape (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

In my mind, the various religions may have different degrees of centrality that they hold him to be in. If that is the case, then I would want to avoid creating the appearance that they hold him in equal amounts of centrality. And I think it is useful to include the why regarding his centrality. Progenitor is my best effort at a neutral word that describes the nature of his centrality without offending anyone. Ancestor doesn’t really work, founder doesn’t work, maybe “common forefather” is better? Mikewem (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree on not implying identical forms or degrees of centrality across the three traditions. My hesitation with “progenitor” is that it reads primarily as genealogical, whereas the sentence is trying to summarize his role across religious traditions more broadly, especially for traditions not defined in ethnic terms. “Common forefather” may work better in that respect.

I had been thinking along these lines:

“Abraham is a foundational figure in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, venerated as a patriarch and prophet across these traditions.”

or:

“Abraham is the founding patriarch of the Abrahamic religions — Judaism, Christianity, and Islam — and is regarded as the common ancestor of the Israelites and the Arabs.”

Do either of these seem closer to what you’re aiming for, or do you see an issue with them? JMartin (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

In my view, any form of the word “founder” might be best reserved for Judaism, though my view could be mistaken (I would think there might be room for some readers to take umbridge at us calling anyone besides Jesus the founder of Christianity and anyone besides Muhammad the founder of Islam).

I leaned towards progenitor because it has a secondary definition of precursor or originator, but I agree that it would read as primarily genealogical and is not quite right for the claim.

I like forefather because the word (to me) implies a certain degree of myth or narrative. Ancestor feels concrete, forefather feels literary. Mikewem (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Great, I think we’re converging that “founder,” “central figure,” and “progenitor” each have drawbacks for the reasons discussed.

Looking at usage more closely, my hesitation with “common forefather,” although it has a more literary or “narrative” tone, is that it tends to apply more naturally to peoples or lineages than to religions, so “common forefather of the Israelites and the Arabs” reads more idiomatic than “forefather of Judaism/Christianity/Islam,” for example.

More broadly, descriptions of Abraham in reliable sources tend to frame him as a figure shared across these traditions (e.g. a figure revered in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, or a common point of origin), rather than as a “forefather” of the religions themselves. That avoids both genealogical ambiguity and potential theological overstatement.

Would something like:

“Abraham (originally Abram) is a figure revered in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and is regarded as a common forefather of both the Israelites and the Arabs”

work as the opening, with the following lines (“In Judaism… In Christianity… In Islam…”) carrying the more specific distinctions? JMartin (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

On second thought, it could read along these lines:

Abraham (originally Abram) is a patriarch revered in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

In Judaism, he is the first Hebrew patriarch, who began the covenantal relationship between the Jewish people and God; in Christianity, he is regarded as the forebear of Jesus and a model of faith; and in Islam, he is a prophet in the line of prophets from Adam to Muhammad.

Abraham is also revered in other Abrahamic religions, including the Baháʼí Faith and the Druze faith. He is regarded as the common forefather of both the Arab people through his son Ishmael and the Jewish people through his son Isaac.

This keeps “patriarch” in the opening while reserving “forefather” for the genealogical context where it seems more natural. JMartin (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I wanted to avoid the use of patriarch twice in two consecutive sentences, but I think it’s a reasonable compromise. For Christianity, our sources seem to really stress the spiritual ancestor thing, and I think they less stress the model of faith thing. The spiritual ancestor line in the lead is long-standing, so I’d be hesitant to remove it completely (though I don’t like the current wording). Mikewem (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense, especially regarding keeping “spiritual ancestor” given both the sourcing and the long-standing wording. Perhaps we could streamline the Christianity clause along those lines, for example: “in Christianity, he is regarded as the forebear of Jesus and a spiritual ancestor of Christians;” That keeps the substance while reading a bit more directly. The rest of the structure looks good to me. I think we’re getting close to a workable formulation. Happy for you to make the edit if you prefer, or I can do it once we settle on the exact wording.

Medcape1 (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

(Posting from my main account. Previous comment was mine; I was accidentally logged into another account) JMartin (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

I seem to be embroiled in a little bit of a tiff currently. I think it is probably not prudent for me to be the one to make a big change to the lead of Abraham at this exact moment in space and time.

It’s been a pleasure workshopping this content with you. I think we’re very very close to a worthwhile improvement. Mikewem (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Is there a canonical list of Islamic patriarchs? GordonGlottal (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

There isn’t a canonical list of “patriarchs” in Islamic tradition, the term is more characteristic of Biblical usage, but Abraham’s role as a forefather of the Arab and Jewish peoples is clearly recognized, which is the sense in which “patriarch” is being used here. JMartin (talk) 02:13, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

I think that's the crux. Some editors are understanding "Hebrew patriarch" to mean "father of the Jews", which is information that would want to be presented in a comparative context with Islam, etc. That is not what it means. What it means is "one of the Jewish patriarchs", where "patriarch" is a technical term. Abraham does not have this relationship with Arabs in Islam. In the same way, Jesus does not assume that Jesus has equivalent status in Christianity and Islam, worth equal placement in the article, even though he has a recognized status in both. But the reader is generally right on clarity. "Hebrew patriarch" is a very old-fashioned term for what it's supposed to mean. We should change it. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree on the meaning of “Hebrew patriarch”. Keeping it within the Judaism clause seems to reduce ambiguity. JMartin (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, and likewise, it’s been great working through this together. I’ll go ahead and make the edit based on what we’ve discussed JMartin (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Given the page’s visibility, I’ll implement the edits discussed above that are either clearly warranted (per NPOV) or straightforward (per MOS) in a few small, self-contained steps, so that each change can be reviewed in isolation. I’ll keep the existing wording where possible, especially where it is supported by citations. Happy to adjust as needed. JMartin (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

I’ve found quite a few sources from the perspective of Islam that describe Ibrahim as “father of the prophets”. And in our article on the topic, there’s a whole section titled Abraham in Islam#Significance as a patriarch. I’m not seeing evidence that the descriptor of patriarch would be seen as contentious from the perspective of Islam.

I think my only last quibble is to say Abraham is also revered in all other Abrahamic religions, including the Baháʼí Faith and the Druze faith. Otherwise, to me, it seems like we’re leaving open the possibility of an Abrahamic religion existing that doesn’t revere Abraham, and I’m not seeing evidence for that possibility. Mikewem (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, that’s helpful, especially the references to Abraham’s role in Islam; that aligns well with retaining “patriarch” in a cross-traditional sense. I’ve now applied the agreed wording change to the opening sentence, keeping the existing structure and citations while relocating “Hebrew patriarch” to the Judaism clause.

On the “all other Abrahamic religions” point, I see the logic. I’d be inclined to leave that for a separate follow-up edit, just to keep each change narrowly scoped, but happy to revisit it if needed. JMartin (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

redirection of "patriarch" word

We need to change the patriarch's directing to Patriarchs (Bible) from entering part to "In Judaism" part, because the term patriarch what is used there is a biblical term, and so quran doesn't accepts bible as true, we need to be naturalized in this part, because this page is general, not judaism and christianity only, because of that now I'm changing it Davut Özgür Süküti (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Please be mindful of the advice at WP:EW. In general, it’s best to discuss before reverting. We normally ask editors to self-revert in situations like this.

The Quran is a WP:PRIMARY source. We cannot use it to prove what the view of Islam is. We look to scholarly WP:SECONDARY sources that discuss what the Quran means, and then report what those secondary sources say.

If there are scholarly sources that dispute the use of “patriarch” in an Islamic context or say it’s offensive or improper, it would be helpful for us to see those sources so that we can include them in the article.

At a passing glance, this informational website leads me to think that the term is generally not offensive or improper in an Islamic context. Mikewem (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

that's what I said too, writing "patriarch" and make it redirecting to Patriarchs (Bible) won't be neutral in a general page, because of that, my last change is will be better :) Davut Özgür Süküti (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Is the only issue the link? Would it work to restore the previous wording but just remove the link on the word “patriarch” in the first sentence? Or do you want it to not say patriarch at all in the sentence with Judaism, Christianity, and Islam?

Is “common spiritual father” better than “patriarch” in that spot? Mikewem (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@Mikewem yeah only issue was link Davut Özgür Süküti (talk) 06:13, 8 June 2026 (UTC)