Talk:Scriptural reasoning/Archive 1

What's on this page

You can find here previous discussions, under headings that correspond to those on the talk page, which have now been resolved for the time being. Nsa1001 (talk) 05:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Minor Matters

None archived yet. Nsa1001 (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

None archived yet. Nsa1001 (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggested removal of unverifiable claims

Archive of section 1

SR does not assume any consensus between the participants as to how they understand the nature, authority or proper interpretation of the texts in front of them. It simply relies on each participant being willing to discuss with the other participants his or her own readings of the texts from his or her own tradition, and in turn to discuss with others their reading of their own texts. The participants discuss in detail the content of the respective religious texts; they discuss the variety of ways in which their religious communities have worked with them and continue to work with them; and they discuss the ways in which those texts might shape their understanding of and engagement with a range of contemporary issues.

No references. Suggest deletion finding references, and perhaps shorten. Nsa1001 (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC).

I did not write this, but I think many visitors to the article would fine it helpful and I believe it is uncontroversial to most SR practioners. Deletion proposal unhelpful. scripturalreasoning

We should be able to find references for all this. The basic non-consensus point is one we've already referenced (under 'not consensus but friendship'), though we haven't tied it down in detail to the specific matters mentioned here. In fact, I am aware of some slight variation of opinion amongst SR practitioners on these matters, with some seeming to lean towards seeing closer analogies between the three religions' attitudes to and practices with their scriptures, and others looser analogies. I suspect that disagreement is too much a matter of detail for this article, though. Incidentally, it is worth noting that Adrian Thatcher's new book, The Savage Text, contains a brief aside about SR, in which he assumes that the practice relies on a shared concept of scriptural authority - in particular, he clearly (and wrongly) believes that SR involves the erroneous claim that the Bible functions in Christianity in the same way that the Qur'an functions in Islam and Torah in Christianity. Would it be overkill if, when we reference this paragraph, we include a footnote rebutting Thatcher with reference to any accessible source we've found stating the opposite? The book is selling rather well, so his claim will probably reach a fairly wide public. --mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm normally in favour of shortening the article, but I think this bit would actually become clearer for non-experts if we named names - if we say in as many words "to do SR, you do not have believe that the Bible functions in Christianity in the same way that the Qur'an functions in Islam and TaNaKh in Judaism". Has anyone written that in as many words? Laysha101 (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Laysha101's comment is helpful. If she makes this change, I will archive this section if there are no objections. Nsa1001 (talk) 10:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Done it - go ahead and archive.Laysha101 (talk) 13:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, before archiving this whole section... the whole paragraph, the first in the body of the article, now reads:

Participants in the process meet together, and read and discuss passages from sacred texts such as the Tanakh, the Bible, and the Qur'an on a given topic - say, the figure of Abraham, or consideration of legal and moral issues of property-holding.[1] SR does not assume any consensus between the participants as to how they understand the nature, authority or proper interpretation of the texts in front of them; so, to do SR one does not have to assume (e.g.) that the Bible fulfils the same role for Christians as does the Qur'an for Muslims or the Tanakh for Jews. SR relies, rather, on each participant being willing to discuss with the other participants his or her own readings of the texts from his or her own tradition, and in turn to discuss with others their reading of their own texts. The participants discuss in detail the content of the respective religious texts; they discuss the variety of ways in which their religious communities have worked with them and continue to work with them; and they discuss the ways in which those texts might shape their understanding of and engagement with a range of contemporary issues.

I suggest...

1. that we have an introductory sentence reading: 'SR participants meet to read and discuss passages from sacred texts such as the Tanakh, the Bible, and the Qur'an on a given topic - say, the figure of Abraham, or consideration of legal and moral issues of property-holding. They discuss the content of the texts, the variety of ways in which their religious communities have worked with them and continue to work with them, and the ways in which those texts might shape their understanding of and engagement with a range of contemporary issues.[1]'

2. that the remaining material become the first bullet point in the list of features of SR: 'SR does not assume any consensus between the participants as to how they understand the nature, authority or proper interpretation of the texts in front of them; so, to do SR one does not have to assume (e.g.) that the Bible fulfils the same role for Christians as does the Qur'an for Muslims or the Tanakh for Jews. SR relies, rather, on each participant being willing to discuss with the other participants his or her own readings of the texts from his or her own tradition, and in turn to discuss with others their reading of their own texts. '

--mahigton (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. 212.69.58.59 (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive of section 2

Unlike some forms of inter-religious dialogues, SR is not a form of encounter between faith traditions in which the participants are asked to focus upon those areas in which they are most nearly in agreement, or to bracket their commitments to the deepest sources of their traditions' particular identities. SR allows participants to speak about, and remain passionately faithful to, the deepest identity-forming practices of their religious communities, and provides a context in which the participants can acknowledge and discuss those commitments. SR sessions therefore often explore and highlight differences and disagreements, and give rise to serious argument. Indeed, those explorations and arguments allow SR participants to become more self-aware about their deepest commitments, and about the way they differ from the commitments of others.

No references. Suggest deletion finding some. Nsa1001 (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not write this, but as above. Deletion proposal unhelpful. scripturalreasoning

Again, I think we ought to be able to find references for this. I'd be interested in hearing, though, from any other SR practitioners in other contexts whether these notes are ones that are struck in the descriptions of SR that are live in their contexts?--mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This claim is not disputed, it seems, so I'll archive this section if there are no objections. Nsa1001 (talk) 10:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive of section 3

The key to Scriptural Reasoning is not consensus, but the growth of friendship among the participants:

This claim has a footnote, but the reference does not substantiate the claim about scriptural reasoning. It might substantiate a claim about medieval textual study. There thus needs to be a claim, substantiated in the right way, about the continuity between scriptural reasoning and medieval textual study. There needs to be more than similarity (there might be text study in China five thousand years ago based on friendship, but that doesn't mean there is continuity with scriptural reasoning). And there needs to be a reference. Suggest deletion Nsa1001 (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The current footnote 7 gives references for the 'not consensus but friendship' claim. Agreed that the medieval reference does not really belong here. If we end up with an historical precursors section, it can go there.--mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Substance point follows. The journal 'Modern Theology' devoted an issue to SR in its July 2006 issue. One of the essays, by a Christian, makes 'friendship rather than consensus' one of its key points. It is notable, however, that the theme of friendship does not play much of a role in the articles by Jews and Muslims (or by most of the other Christians). I wonder if this claim is appropriate in a claim about 'The key to SR'. How about the following: "If Scriptural Reasoning has a goal, it is understanding rather than agreement or consensus." This claim is better attested in writings on SR from all three traditions, and goes better with the "high quality disagreement" point made earlier too. Comments, anyone? Nsa1001 (talk) 11:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm about to add some more references to this. I moved the references to 'friendship' in historical precursors to the historical parallels section, because they didn't directly back up the claim that friendship is often presented as crucial in SR itself.--mahigton (talk) 09:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive of section 4

SR relies upon - and helps build - honesty, openness and trust amongst the participants; it also inculcates in the practitioners a "feel" for the other's Scriptures and reading practices, whilst allowing each participant to remain committed to his or her own. In order to encourage these relationships, the practice of Scriptural Reasoning is intentionally not undertaken in settings which are entirely owned by only one of the three faiths -- but rather the group moves peripatetically between churches, synagogues or mosques in rotation, or alternatively meets in some other environment.

Is the Kepnes reference meant to substantiate these claims too? I suggest a discrete section whose claims are substantiated by Kepnes' Handbook. Suggest deletion Nsa1001 (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This is interesting. I wonder if the first part ('honesty, openness and trust') of this sounds a little too like a puff for SR, and whether it is an unnecessary expansion of the earlier claim about friendship. But are there good discussions around of the 'virtues' appropriate to SR? I know it's something that I've heard discussed from time to time. As to the moving peripatetically: given that there are SR groups that meet consistently in a University setting, and others that follow peripatetically the migrations of AAR, I think this claim at very least needs rewording - and, short of providing details of all the multiple geographies of individual SR groups (clearly not a reasonable job for a wikipedia article), on balance I think that sentence should go. Lastly, I'm not sure about the idea of a section on Kepnes' handbook: it's one good description of SR, certainly - but not one I (or, I'm pretty sure, Kepnes) would want to treat as definitive --mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

On rereading, I'm not sure these 2 sentences add anything to the article; the first reads like marketing material, the second is, as mahigton says, quite possibly untrue for at least some SR groups. We can do without them.Laysha101 (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed the bit about where SR groups meet, following this discussion.Laysha101 (talk) 06:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Further to this: do we really want to suggest that a one-off meeting by a group of Jews, Christians and Muslims in a mosque to study scriptures together couldn't be SR? Because that's what the article (as restored by Scripturalreasoning following my deletion) currently implies. Laysha101 (talk) 06:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Laysha here. There are SR groups that have all sorts of geographies, not all of which are well described by the current description, and which it would be too cumbersome to list. Also, please note: the proposal to delete this material has been around now since 3 December. Anyone who wants to argue for its retention (or for its reinstatement: I'm about to delete it again) needs to participate in the process we have going here. And they will need to argue that the wording they want inserted or reinstated provides a good description of SR practice in general. --mahigton (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This is all a bit strange. What has been referred to in this paragraph as "marketing" for SR was not written by me, and may even have been contributed or reworded recently by the SSR/CIP Fan Club. In relation to the wording of the sentence on physically locating SR, an earlier version read "neutral" venues or independent of any one faith community -- which would obviously include universities, but that was changed by another user to "some other environment" - again one of you. This has now been clarified. The point raised in this sentence is pursuant to the previous words about "building trust and openness", namely the principle of non-ownership of SR by any one faith community or denomination over another -- and is informative to a novel enquirer wondering how SR works in practice. The real point arising out of this hypocritical discourse about "referencing" is actually one of the Broken Promises of Scriptural Reasoning -- namely that the principle stated in various literatures about SR not being overrun by any one faith over another, now seems to be aimed to be steadily eroded in this article by those whether on the payroll of the Cambridge Interfaith Programme or having a vested interest for so doing.  :::::scripturalreasoning 00:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Please let's stay on topic. In proposing the deletion of this small piece of text, about where SR happens, I am proposing the deletion of something the factual accuracy of which none of us are in a position to verify. I repeat my question: would a one-off meeting in a mosque fail to qualify as SR? Would a group that met regularly in a church hall fail to qualify as SR simply because of its meeting place? If the answer to either of those questions is "no", the current text (even as amended) is IMHO misleading and should be deleted. I really don't see why this particular point is causing controversy. Laysha101 (talk) 06:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the piece of text in question as you refer to it, contains two components - the first part "building honesty, openness and trust" is not my writing, and I think it may have been one of you who contributed this. I have no opinion either way as to its retention or deletion - it may sound like a bit like a plug but then on the other hand it may be a useful expression of the spirit of SR for the new visitor to the article. I have made the point already that Journal of Scriptural Reasoning articles are so full of endless rhetorical panegyrics -- entirely unreferenced -- that I find this "citation scrupulousness" with this Wiki article somewhat hypocritical, to put it mildly. The second part - namely the actual practice of SR wherein its location and ownership are crucial elements of the governance and nature of the practice, and the principle of non-ownership of the practice by any one faith over others notably by carefully considering how SR's physical space is kept neutral, does most definitely need to be retained. There are enough references to this need to consider neutrality in the literature and various documents that have been issued. As the issue is one of "ownership" the answer to the first example of a one-off meeting is no, of course - as common sense would say that there is no established SR group exists which meets on a one-off basis and then dissipates. In relation to the second example of a group which meets regularly in a church hall is "very possibly", if the group is beholden that owning church by virtue of it owning the space. This is in fact exactly what did happen in the UK setting, where an Anglican organisation which initially appeared to be providing a "venue" turned into an outfit which controlled the chairing and financing of the SR group. So yes - this is exactly the context for why the "space" is a matter for discussion in the literature. If an SR group simply hired or was provided the venue but remained independent of the physical space in which it meets then that is a different matter - and if you want that distinction to go into the article then am happy to consider drafting. But I think a common sense reader would see that the aim of the sentence is to convey the sense of SR needing to think about the ownership and neutrality of the space where it takes place --- examples have been given of academic settings, or the possibility of rotating venues, and being examples, it clearly leaves in the common sense reader's mind the sense that there are other ways of doing this too. scripturalreasoning 09:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Staying on what I thought was the topic: I obviously haven't made myself clear enough. Either this sentence is trying to be descriptive, or it's trying to be normative. If descriptive, it's a massive hostage to fortune: if there turned out to be one group calling itself Scriptural Reasoning, doing all the stuff described elsewhere in the article, and meeting regularly in (let's say) a Jewish community centre, the sentence would be false. We can't prove that there's no such group, so we should get rid of this unprovable claim. If it's trying to be normative and if all it's trying to say is "ownership and neutrality of the physical space is something SR groups need to think about" (as these latter comments by Scripturalreasoning imply), it should be rewritten so that that's all it does say. Laysha101 (talk) 09:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

(1) Not only is it quite possible that not all forms of SR do take the form that the current version of the article implies they do take, and not only is it even more possible that not all forms will take that form, both user Laysha101 and user scripturalreasoning seem to agree that it is simply a matter of fact, that not all SR groups have taken that form. ("This is in fact exactly what did happen in the UK", the latter says.) Disagreement about the interpretation of that fact aside, we do seem all to be in agreement on the basic matter of fact: that the practice of SR has in fact taken a variety of geographical forms - and that the variety is not well described by the current statement. In this context, it is the attempt to keep the current descriptive statement, not the attempt to remove it, that would count as ignoring the actual variety of existing SR practice.

(2) We are also all agreed that, as the article goes on to say immediately, the context of SR should be one of mutual hospitality (though under the next heading on this talk page there is some debate about the precise phrasing of that claim). There is, as I have said before, simply no debate about that that I am aware of. Removing the current misleading sentence about geography leaves the article in a form that stresses mutual hospitality, which all agree is a central facet of SR. We could add a clause to that sentence, along the lines: 'and this [i.e., the need for mutual hospitality] is taken into account when practical arrangements are made for SR sessions, including choice of venue and other matters.' Such a clause would, I think, be descriptive of all SR.

(3) We are also all agreed, I think, that the sentence about honesty, openness etc 'may sound like a bit like a plug but then on the other hand it may be a useful expression of the spirit of SR for the new visitor to the article' (to use user scripturalreasoning's words - which sounds like a good rationale for attempting to reword it while keeping the basic thrust. For instance, rather than claiming (as the current wording seems to) that SR practice is thoroughly characterised by honesty, openness and trust, we could say that SR practitioners claim that the practice is driven by, and helps build, those things - and then provide a reference to somewhere where that claim is made in detail. (By the way, who cares who first wrote this? What's that got to do with anything? I wrote part of it, if I recall correctly, but that doesn't mean I can't re-read it and suggest improvements or alterations.)

--mahigton (talk) 12:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay. On the question of whether the geographical sentence is intended as normative/opined or descriptive only, in its context and original wording it follows from the preceding sentence which quite clearly is a normative or opined remark (not a descriptive one of how SR takes place in every single group), and so contextually it was probably fine as it was -- asserting a position about geographical ways of ensuring parity, which followed thereon. However, if the aim is now for the statement to be purely descriptive, and to state that that some groups disagree with this (or as in the UK had money-making reasons for not respecting interfaith parity), then fair enough -- this has now been reflected in the latest draft of the sentence. scripturalreasoning 16:32, 16 December 2008

Thanks - we may even be getting somewhere. But "headship" is a big claim to slip in towards the end of a sentence, so I've suggested limiting the claims to boring facts about - where SR groups meet.(Back to my fictional but perfectly possible Jewish community centre example - prima facie there's no reason to assume that any "hosting" faith community is "assuming headship" simply by virtue of hosting regularly).Laysha101 (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Let's agree on this latest drafting, and leave it. I'm sure we have other work to do. scripturalreasoning 14:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

May I archive this thread, please? Nsa1001 (talk) 06:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes please!Laysha101 (talk) 08:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --mahigton (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive of section 5

Rather, they think of the places they do meet as a Biblical "tent of meeting", drawing on imagery from Genesis 28.[3] As a result, the context for the meetings should be one of mutual hospitality and strict parity of leadership and control between the three faiths, as each participant is both host and guest.

This is an especially important claim: it needs a reference. Suggest deletion. Nsa1001 (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The Kepnes reference now works for 'tent of meeting'. I'll try to remember to edit it to point specifically to para.2. It should be possible to get references for the hospitality point. I'm less sure about the 'strict parity of leadership and control', though: my own, fairly extensive experiences of SR don't easily lend themselves to accounts of who the leaders are, or where control lies. I'd prefer to stick to SR's internal language of hosts/guests.

I wonder if anyone who hadn't been involved in SR for a while would understand the relationship between the Genesis text and "strict parity of leadership and control" or even "mutual hospitality". And actually I've never thought of SR locations as tents of meeting - I thought the idea was that SR itself is/establishes tent of meeting. But if the previous sentence re location goes, a reference to tent of meeting here will work better. Should we be vaguer - "image of mutual & reciprocal hospitality"? Laysha101 (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive of section 6

A significant characteristic of Scriptural Reasoning is the fact of there not being a single authority or "official" locus for the practice, but rather an honest debate and creative disagreement between different practitioners over matters of SR theory and praxis, particularly in relation to the question of where the sources of authority lie for the governance and conduct of SR.

The deletion proposal of itself pretends a non-neutral point of view, and in order for this proposal - namely that there is an "official" locus for the practice and there is not debate and disagreement between different SR practitioners about SR, the onus is on you to substantiate that claim. Because a common sense reading of the whole article clearly shows that there are groups which do not look to the same authority for Scriptural Reasoning as others, and that are in disagreement and debate with others. Are you really suggesting that only one organisation or another has "legal franchise" or "monopoly" over the use of the name "Scriptural Reasoning"? If so, I think you will find that to be entirely not the case. In irritation scripturalreasoning

No references. Suggest deletion Agree with Mahigton below. Nsa1001 (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggest that's overkill; as scripturalreasoning implies, providing sufficient evidence for a negative (no single authority) is hard, so references may not exist - & the claim is uncontroversial. but could delete evaluations of the debate (which sound like advertising material for SR, not NPOV - see scripturalreasoning's response re UK bias, below).

Laysha101 (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree, Laysha. I think the reason for deleting or reworking this is not that there is no proof that there are multiple authorities or official loci - but rather that I am not convinced that these terms are the appropriate ones. If someone were to ask me, 'Is there a single authority in SR, or multiple authorities?' I'd have to say, 'Well, neither'... It might be better to speak about there being multiple SR groups which overlap in all sorts of ways - sometimes more, sometimes less. All may have spread, one way or another, from the first SR group, but they now make up a rich and complex patchwork - and where informal patterns of friendship and collegiality form the main types of glue that keep the whole thing together. Can we find a way to say this concisely and non-puffily?--mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

In line with the suggestion now made several times on this page, that this initial section should be a description of SR that is meant to do justice to all known varieties without prejudice, and that we put in separate sections descriptions of significant varieties of SR practice, and reports of disputed opinions, I think the whole of this paragraph (currently the final bullet point in the section 'Aspects of the Theory and Practice of SR') now doesn't belong here. I'd also rename the section to something like 'Key features of SR'. Note, this proposal is distinct from our discussion (see sections 7 and 8 below, and the longer debate further down the page) of whether there is in fact debate on all the things that this paragraph in its present form currently claims there is debate on. Let's first move it, and 'then' hammer out what needs to stay in it and what should be deleted or modified--mahigton (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - though in light of the suggestion above for shortening the first paragraph, it probably ought to be said somewhere fairly high up the article that there isn't one single "approved" way of doing SR. Ie either leave in the sentence about different SRs in the first paragraph, or leave in a much shortened version of this bullet point here?212.69.58.59 (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This issue seems to have been resolved - moving it to archive. Nsa1001 (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive of section 9

Unlike some forms of inter-religious dialogues, SR is not a form of encounter between faith traditions in which the participants are asked to focus upon those areas in which they are most nearly in agreement, or to bracket their commitments to the deepest sources of their traditions' particular identities. SR allows participants to speak about, and remain passionately faithful to, the deepest identity-forming practices of their religious communities, and provides a context in which the participants can acknowledge and discuss those commitments. SR sessions therefore often explore and highlight differences and disagreements, and give rise to serious argument. Indeed, those explorations and arguments allow SR participants to become more self-aware about their deepest commitments, and about the way they differ from the commitments of others.

No references. Suggest deletion. Nsa1001 (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this a straight repeat from one of the extracts above?--mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive of section 17

The founding participants of the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" include David F. Ford, Daniel W. Hardy, and Peter Ochs. Its origins lie in a related practice, "Textual Reasoning" ("TR"), which described Jewish philosophers reading Talmud in conversation with scholars of rabbinics. Peter Ochs was one of the leading participants in Textual Reasoning. When he and Daniel Hardy met as members of Princeton's Center of Theological Inquiry, and included David Ford in their study together, the idea for a mode of reasoning across traditions was developed. Peter Ochs was involved in an Islamic study group, through one of his doctoral students, Basit Koshul. Gradually, the practice of reasoning in the light of texts from the three Abrahamic traditions became established.

All claims here are entirely unreferenced. I suggest deletion of this section. Nsa1001 (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not write this section (I think one of you did!), and the comments are factually accurate. Deletion proposal as absurd as the one executed in regard to the Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group.scripturalreasoning

I think Nsa1001 wrote it himself. At least he's being even-handed! But yes, we can get references to all this, I think.--mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I've now added references to some of this: the founding participants line, the TR line, the Ochs as leading participant line. I've not managed yet to reference the Princeton CTI link, the claim that about Ochs and Koshul, or the claim that three-tradition SR emerged gradually.--mahigton (talk) 10:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems there is consensus to keep this in its current form. Moving to archive. Nsa1001 (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

UK bias in the article

None archived yet. Nsa1001 (talk) 05:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group

None archived yet. Nsa1001 (talk) 05:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

I note that on page 1, under "Certain facets of Scriptural Reasoning may be highlighted," the arabic has been blocked. This is inappropriate. Dozens of traditional Muslim scholars internationally engage in SR practices and, to support these, they post and make use of online arabic texts.--Chaisr (talk) 15:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)chaisr December 26, 2008

Hi, thanks for your note. I can see both the Hebrew and the Arabic text fine on my PC, and so can my neighbouring colleague on his Mac. I have reversed the edit this time. If you still have problems with viewing the Arabic, you might want to check the installation of language packs on your computer. --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)