Talk:Abraham

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)

icon

I think that icon will be better for infobox Davut Özgür Süküti (talk) 09:26, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Why? The current is a noted work of art, looks ok, and any depiction of Abraham we'd consider will be pretty much a man with beard. With so many alts in colour, I don't see why we should use black and white. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:45, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

because the art is about casting out Hajar and Ismail, but in Islam we respect them and we believer Ibrahim doesn't do that as casting out, he just moved them, because of the topic of art it's not looks nice at all Davut Özgür Süküti (talk) 10:02, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah. Well, it's an understandable pov, but it wasn't clear at all per your OP. I don't think your current choice will be accepted, if you insert it you'll likely get reverted. But there are many alts at Category:Abraham in art and its subcategories, perhaps you can find something you're willing to suggest there. Perhaps stick to works by artists with WP-articles, just a suggestion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Sacrifice of Isaac-Caravaggio (Uffizi) (cropped).jpg isn't too bad IMO, and there's no Hagar in it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I think it's too wild for an infobox, because it's about sacrifing Ishaq not looks like good for an infobox and an extra in Islam we believing sacrified son was Ishmael/Ismail not Ishaq/Isaac

for describing why I recommended to add picture from Promptuarim Iconum Insigniorum because all of the Abraham/Ibrahım's ancestors' infobox' icon is from Promptuarim Iconum Insignorum, you can see it from Shem, Selah, Eber, Peleg Davut Özgür Süküti (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

They do, but WP:OTHERCONTENT isn't a strong argument. Neither is "not per Islam", but that doesn't mean that the current WP:LEADIMAGE is the only choice. Either you'll find an alt you and other editors will agree on, or if you're lucky, someone else will. Otherwise, the leadimage remains. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:03, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

maybe can this? that's colorful and neutral Davut Özgür Süküti (talk) 11:58, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

According to Saint Paul the Apostle Orthodox Monastery in Wisconsin , it's not from 2003 like Commons says, but mid 16th century by Theophanes the Cretan, located at Stavronikita. Not glaringly worse IMO, I wont revert you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I updated Commons, btw. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:56, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

thanks you, I'm updated the image Davut Özgür Süküti (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that "saint" is a deal-breaker here. A large majority of what we have to chose from in these cases are from a culturally Christian background/context, so a Christian pov will be there anyway. That said, if there is a "Jewish" alt somewhere, that could be worth looking at. I came across File:Musée Unterlinden - chapiteau de l'église abbatiale d'Alspach - les Justes dans le sein d'Abraham (XIIe siècle).jpg which I find interesting since it's really old. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Davut, is the use of the word “patriarch” in this file acceptable? Mikewem (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

@Mikewem I don't uploaded or named the File, I don't care File name Davut Özgür Süküti (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I oppose basically everything about the rationale to change the image.

But namely: we already have the WP:POVFORK article Abraham in Islam. It doesn’t seem correct that both sides of the content fork should center the Islamic perspective. A solution might be either to combine the articles or to rename this one “Abraham (Book of Genesis)”

Also, we give a decent summary of the Islamic perspective at Ishmael in Islam#Ishmael and Hagar taken to Mecca by Abraham and Hagar in Islam#Narrative. The Quran says that Abraham left Ishmael and Hagar in the desert of Mecca on purpose with barely any water. Genesis says that Abraham left Ishmael and Hagar in the desert of Bethlehem on purpose with barely any water. Is it wholly unacceptable to describe them both as acts of casting off? Mikewem (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

The Greek icon can hardly be said to center on the Islamic perspective. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

The rationale to not use the superior, longstanding picture (and also to disallow anything dealing with the sacrifice of Isaac, the most commonly known story about Abraham (Genesis)) does center the Islamic perspective.

I’m open to the idea that it’s possible to improve the main image, but in my view, it’s not an improvement unless it has a rationale that is based in scholarship, identifiable facts, and NPOV. Mikewem (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:UNCHALLENGED is also a weak argument, and I don't think it's obvious from the WP-pov that Guercino is superior to Theophanes the Cretan. I find both them, Caravaggio and Rembrandt acceptable, and I'm sure there are others. I put a WP:APPNOTE at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion. Davut Özgür Süküti, if you haven't looked at WP:DR, you might find something that interests you there. Then again, the element you're objecting to about the lead image doesn't even show in the lead image, so maybe it's not worth the effort. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Fwiw, guidance from WP:LEADIMAGE: "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the typeof image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic."

Brittanica uses File:Molnár Ábrahám kiköltözése 1850.jpg, though my personal preference is older depictions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

My understanding is that the narratives of all religious traditions agree that Abraham went from Ur to Canaan. I would think that makes the subject of this painting acceptably NPOV, and I would think Brittanica used it because Brittanica considers this depiction to be acceptably NPOV. Mikewem (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Abraham's Journey from Ur to Canaan, 1850. By József Molnár (1821–1899). Oil painting on canvas.

Sounds reasonable to me, I wont oppose this one as leadimage either. Can be cropped if we want a close-up on the beard. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I’m very open to the possibility that the current image is not acceptably NPOV, but I haven’t seen a compelling argument for that yet.

That being said, for a topic like this, I think it’s very prudent to defer to Brittanica and to align with their editorial judgment. And I think that the journey from Ur is likely a more broadly-recognized illustration of Abraham as a topic than this one specific event from the Hagar episode. Mikewem (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

The artist seems less interesting, but like I said, I won't oppose it. The most Iconic Abraham-moment is possibly the sacrifice of [take your pick]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Agree that the most iconic is the sacrifice of [insert name here]. I guess Abraham in Islam gets to use that event as its lead image, but the main page doesn’t. Mikewem (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's Abraham for Everybody. ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I think I most support renaming this page to “Abraham (Book of Genesis)” and using Rembrandt for the lead.

The Angel Hinders the Offering of Isaac, by Rembrandt, 1635 (Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg)

Mikewem (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think you'll get support for a re-naming, this is how en-WP deals with the Bible-giants. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Agree there will be no support for a renaming and that the only solution is the status quo massive WP:POVFORK vio. Mikewem (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

@Mikewem but that page is for general traditions about abraham, not only for biblical abraham Davut Özgür Süküti (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

It does say

This article is about the biblical figure. For the name, see Abraham (name).

at the top of the page. Mikewem (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

but not just about the biblical figure Davut Özgür Süküti (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

The Abraham of this article is always a biblical figure. Even when talked about in Islam, he's a biblical figure. That's where Muslims found him, from a historians perspective anyway, anything can happen in theology. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

If the quranic figure is the biblical figure, then I don’t understand why we have a separate article for the quranic figure. Mikewem (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:SPINOFF. Context matters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

This article is bloated by the Abraham cycle section (exclusively covers the Genesis narrative). Maybe it would make sense to spin that section off into its own article in the same way the the Abraham cycle in the Quran was spun off into its own article? That way we avoid the appearance of endorsing any one narrative? Mikewem (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

"The artist seems less interesting" I am not familiar with József Molnár's background, but Wikipedia seems to group him with the painters of Romantic art. A rather popular style to depict nationalist and mystical topics, but there was less of an emphasis on dramatic scenes in comparison to the Baroque painting from previous centuries. Dimadick (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

but in Islam, we believe it's not casting out, because we believe Abraham just moved them not casting out Davut Özgür Süküti (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Please Make Note of Urfa (modern-day Turkey) As More Likely Site of "Ur-Kasdim."

Analysis in hindsight indicates (with significant scholarly support) that "-Kasdim" was an overcorrection by a later redactor. The city Ur the Torah refers to (also known as Urshu circa 2000 BCE) is Urfa, slightly north of Haran.

Other context that makes Urfa a much more likely candidate for the site of Abraham's birthplace intended by the Torah narrative than the southern Mesopotamian city is discussed at this link. https://www.thetorah.com/article/ur-kasdim-where-is-abrahams-birthplace Urfa (Sanliurfa) is long heralded by regional locals as the site. Other study of Hebrew DNA, history, language, script & mythology also supports the conclusion of ancestors from the area of Ararat migrating southward to Canaan. Urfa is also the best fit for the described setting compared to other speculated alternatives such as Urkesh.

You will observe it is roughly the location of the guess on the map already included on the page.

It would be appropriate to note Urfa as an identified potential alternative so readership is aware of the uncertain nature of the popular "southern Iraq" conception. ~2026-41126-47 (talk) 04:17, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what "Hebrew DNA" has to do with a mythical character like Abraham. He is not a historical figure. Anyway, the idea that Urfa/Edessa was the birthplace of Abraham is covered in its own section in the city's article: "According to some Jewish and Muslim traditions, Urfa is Ur Kasdim, the hometown of Abraham, the grandfather of Jacob. This identification was disputed by Leonard Woolley, the excavator of the Sumerian city of Ur in 1927 and scholars remain divided on the issue. Urfa is also one of several cities that have traditions associated with Job." Dimadick (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2026 (UTC)