Talk:Hinduism in the Middle East

Hinduism Low‑importance

	Hinduism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Arab world Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Western Asia Low‑importance

	Asia portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Saudi Arabia reasoning for policies regarding non-Muslim religious practice

The recent changes by IP 2607:FEA8:2B80:1D0B:49DF:644F:3D56:B826 came up in Recent Changes flagged as "Likely to have problems". Presumably that was due to the nature of this article, and possibly some of the key words used in the edit. While the edit seemed strongly biased, it also shed light on the logic behind some of the statistics cited, so an undo seemed unwarranted.

Since the edit was directly before a citation, I read the citation to see if that opinion was expressed in that document, and I did not find it there. At that point, I intended to move the citation to be closer to it's referenced text, but while performing additional research, the text was moved to the beginning of the section.

My additional research confirmed both the interpretation of Hindu icons as idols, and that the Sunni Muslim prohibitions on idol worship were particularly strongly enforced in Saudi Arabia. I therefore rephrased the edit in terms more suited for a neutral point of view and added my new citation.

If you have any questions or concerns about my edit, or suggestions for improvement, please reach out to me. Kohrmy (talk) 04:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Hinduism in Saudi Arabia into Hinduism in Arab states

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge; uncontested objection and no support; independent notability and readers are best served by having the content separate. Klbrain (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just 1 paragraph in the target page is enough. Why the unnecessary extra article pages? Portwoman (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose notable on in its own. बडा काजी (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the topic deserves an article of its own.

TabahiKaBhagwan (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose same reason as a above.

150.129.164.195 (talk) 09:05, 7 July 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.

Lead paragraph

@Joshua Jonathan I think lead needs more cleanup/revision. Seems first sentence is not supported by the source and second sentence needs source.

Also, I think few details that you removed may be helpful to readers to see ancient connection - maybe we can move (and then expand from sources) some of the details in the body in a section e.g. Historical Vedic religion influence or Ancient India religious influence - not quite sure, but you can suggest what a good section title we can use. It seems concern is the use of "Hinduism" term, may be details can be worded to avoid being anachronistic?

Also I see that Special:Diff/1263195864 got removed recently from lead, which seems is a reliable source - that too I think can be added in that new section.

Also, I was interested in reading about Krishna related detail that was removed and came across this in google book search (it very briefly talks about Krishna) - so maybe there are other sources also. You have good historical knowledge in this area, but I can help dig up some sources also. Asteramellus (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The term Hinduism can be very triggering for many people. It irks them from within. And Hindus praising Hinduism or even Hindu temples irks them even more, from deep inside. They feel they have the authority and knowledge to assert what’s anachronistic and what’s not, what falls under the umbrella of Hinduism and what doesn’t. And these kinds of itches can never be cured. You forgot how Bhagwad geeta related pages were merged and much of the positive stuff got deleted while undue weight was given to speculations and opinions of political activists?

Sometimes, it’s better to just let it go and let people be happy in their own ideology and way of thinking—especially when they are stubborn, overly selectively critical, and full of free time. And some like the above special diff just want accurate information about muslims and islam to go away and disappear somewhere cause they dont like it.

Don’t worry, knowledge can never be destroyed. No matter how much one twists, turns, or tries to hide it—if it’s true, it will prevail one day. If not, then what’s the point anyway? 2409:40C1:3F:2D4:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue for me is that people claim religions like Buddhism and Jainism existed long before their first texts were even composed, yet hypocritically claim that there was no Hinduism (which itself is a vague umbrella exonym) even after 1,000 years of the compilation (not even composition) of its oldest texts. I just can’t digest this stupidity. Can you find any other religious example like this? Is this how the world treats non-prophet organizations? (Pun intended.)

The best approach would be to stop using the term Hinduism altogether for Dharma-centric Vedic traditions, which have evolved, interacted, and synthesized with each other since ancient times—albeit while claiming the Vedas to be the only source of valid authoritative knowledge. It’s an exonym anyway and will hopefully be completely replaced soon.

Then, people can freely shout about what they consider to be Hinduism—what sect, what denomination, what tradition, what deity they include in it, and what they consider markedly different. No issues. I’ll even provide them with a loudspeaker to shout their hearts out. 2409:40C1:41:DB8C:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abhishek0831996 I saw this edit to remove few words in the lead, but wanted your thoughts to see if rest of that sentence is supported by the cited source. It seems lead needs some rework.

Also do you have any suggestions for what I have mentioned above? I need to read sources to contribute for that new section I am suggesting, but if you have knowledge in this area, you can also help. Asteramellus (talk) 22:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]